I'd call that choosing to consume less
despite the central bank's policy. Pulling back to coast doesn't work when you're "in it". To get to that point, you've got to churn hard in a city (economic center), avoid hedonistic temptations as much as you can, and then at some point decide to pull the ripcord and leave to a low cost of living area. At which point you know that it will be really hard to get back on if your projections don't hold.
That's also to say nothing of the (inherently majority of) people who can't sock away enough surplus to do that, and end up on the treadmill their entire life. Tech gives us an outsized perspective here once again, by giving us more than urban-subsistence wages such that we can save up in the first place.
As to people's want of ever-more "nice things" driving their need to work so much, I just don't buy it. Rather, I see an extreme social pressure to keep working as much as possible (try negotiating less than 5 days a week, or every third week off), and then they fill in "nice things" as a rationalization. The same sentiment is repeated in many different areas (spend more time with your kids, etc), but yet few can individually move in that direction without totally eschewing the system ("pulling the ripcord").
And while it's possible for some people to escape the treadmill, it's not a possibility for most people and therefore not sustainable for society. There's a reason people doing it get labels like retired, FIRE, startup lottery, trust fund kid, etc.
As for central bank policy, it's reflected in malinvestments like much of Surveillance Valley. One of the most glaring examples was those startups buying electric scooters in bulk, under the hope that if they filled the sidewalk that money would eventually fall in. That's misproduction (and environmental pollution) driven directly by too much capital sloshing around, seeking any sort of return.