Moving to North Carolina significantly strengthens the Lewis family’s long-term plan. The scenario maintains a 100% funding rate and 100% success rate, with Emma’s and Ellie’s college goals, retirement, and annual family vacations all fully funded.

The less expensive home reduces projected lifetime debt payments from approximately $508,000 to $313,000. Meanwhile, Lisa’s return to work and the family’s increased college and retirement contributions double projected savings-plan contributions from about $392,000 to $785,000. Their projected net worth at retirement rises from approximately $1.58 million to $5.28 million.

Total lifetime taxes increase from about $1.17 million to $2.14 million, largely because the family earns substantially more after Lisa returns to work. In this case, the higher taxes reflect greater household income—not a weaker plan.

Overall, moving closer to family gives the Lewises more than a less expensive home. Reduced childcare costs, lower debt, and Lisa’s added income allow them to build considerably more wealth while still achieving all four of their major goals.​

Most projections assume steady, average returns. Real markets are volatile. Randomizing returns introduces year-to-year variability to stress test the plan against market swings and sequence risk. This reveals whether a strategy is resilient, not just mathematically sound on paper.

The California opportunity increases the Lewis family’s income and projected net worth, but the higher earnings are not enough to support the complete plan. The scenario produces only a 58% funding rate and a 0% success rate, with college for both children, retirement, and annual family vacations all falling short.

The greatest warning appears in their savings. Projected savings-plan contributions fall from approximately $392,000 to just $32,400 because higher housing, childcare, taxes, and living expenses absorb nearly all of the family’s available cash flow. Total lifetime taxes also rise from about $1.17 million to $2.47 million, reflecting their higher household income in California.

Although projected net worth at retirement increases from approximately $1.58 million to $2.93 million, much of that wealth may be tied to their California home rather than available to pay retirement expenses. At age 65, the plan still shows approximately $236,000 of unfunded expenses.

​The scenario demonstrates that a larger salary does not necessarily create greater financial flexibility. Buying a $900,000 home places too much pressure on the Lewis family’s cash flow, preventing them from consistently saving for college and retirement. The California opportunity may still be possible, but they would need to buy a less expensive home, rent longer, reduce other goals, or achieve substantially greater income growth.

Waiting three years transforms the California move from an unaffordable immediate decision into a workable long-term plan. The delayed strategy produces a 100% funding rate and a 77% success rate, with college for Emma and Ellie, retirement, and annual family vacations all fully funded under the plan’s projected assumptions.

By waiting, the Lewises benefit from additional home equity, lower childcare costs, paid-off vehicle debt, and a larger California salary. Their projected lifetime debt payments decline from approximately $508,000 to $313,000, while their projected net worth at retirement rises substantially—from about $1.58 million to $6.04 million.

Total lifetime taxes increase from approximately $1.17 million to $2.59 million, largely because Larry and Lisa earn considerably more over their careers. Although scheduled savings-plan contributions fall from about $392,000 to $80,000, their higher income and growing assets still create much greater projected wealth.

​The 77% success rate shows that the strategy is promising but not guaranteed. Higher California expenses and investment uncertainty leave the plan vulnerable in weaker market conditions. Still, compared with moving immediately, waiting gives the Lewises the income, equity, and financial flexibility needed to make California achievable without abandoning their other goals.