Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get why cost of living is factored at all. The biggest expense is typically housing. And if you bought the house, it means the biggest expense is... building equity into an asset you can sell afterward. Keep in mind the engineer who purchased a 2 million house in Palo Alto can sell it for two million, and then move to Ohio to a much cheaper house purchased in cash. The reverse isn't true.
You also pay taxes. But you are right that for the first movers it will be an easy transition into living opulantly in Ohio. The same can't be said for the next generation of workers, who graduate and have no capital accrued from working at bay area rates, and start their careers working for these Ohio based employers at Ohio based salary rates, and since Columbus is experiencing the same lack of supply issue everywh…
Main issue in Palo Alto (and to a large extent the rest of the bay area) is that there's massive population growth in the bay area, but very little housing is allowed to be built. This creates artificial scarcity and the people that bought houses 30yrs ago accrue massive wealth because of it at the expense of new people (and the new people that manage to buy at exorbitant rates also end up paying the majority share of taxes too).
This is the natural incentive made worse by things like locked property taxes and rent control. You really need legislation that allows the market to build (easier said than done).