[wave46]

Back to the original question:

It would depend on a few factors.

1. Is this a cost is no object thing? Or do I actually have to be able to afford living there?
2. How long am I there for? A couple of years is one thing, but a lifetime is a whole other ballgame.
3. Coming back to point #1, will it accommodate my spouse's career, or does point #1 apply there too?

Since I'm not terribly adventurous and I'm no polyglot, English speaking countries and places rank highly. Also, being close to home is nice - having to spend thousands of dollars and days getting from point A to B to see family factors in there.

1. San Diego.
Pro: weather, close enough to home, can explore that region of the USA easily.
Con: expensive (but not a factor if point #1 applies).

2. New York City.
Pro: one of the top-tier cities in the world. Very close to home, relatively speaking. Good base to explore the Northeastern US.
Con: Again, expensive. Weather is not a selling point.

3. London, UK
Pro: top-tier world city. Good jumping off point to explore Europe. Not terrible for getting back home.
Con: Expensive (see a pattern?) Weather again, is not a selling point.

4. Auckland, NZ (or close enough in the North Island, NZ)
Pro: Weather. If I'm betting on a place that's going to survive the 21st century well, NZ is high on that list. You don't starve, go thirsty, sit in the dark and cold if bad things happen.
Con: Far. Like, really far from home. You can't really explore much from there, except NZ and Australia.

The older I get, the more I find that I'd like a place to live well instead of high. I'd choose #2 and #3 for the big-city lifestyle, but I'd imagine that would wear thin eventually.

Given what I value in life these days, I'd probably say that I live in as close to paradise as can be found on planet Earth right now (winter excepted).

Better to visit the 'exciting' places as a tourist and enjoy all the benefits without having the daily grind destroy the joy of living in those places.