4 ms·

It seems to me that its best for the free market for jobs to go where the value/cost tradeoff is maximized. Simply put, first worlder's are not providing the va

It seems to me that its best for the free market for jobs to go where the value/cost tradeoff is maximized. Simply put, first worlder's are not providing the value that their salaries demand. And if we actually are, then the companies we work for will have an advantage and will eventually beat the competitors using cheap labor. As well local inflation + foreign deflation will change this, it will probably fix itself due to the crazy printing of money in the US. Eventually, a $100k a year employee will just be subsistence in terms of real goods.

Swizec 11y ago
> Eventually, a $100k a year employee will just be subsistence in terms of real goods. In a certain popular city in the US that starts with S, that is not far from truth right now.
- mywittyname 11y ago
  This is such bullcrap. $6k a month after taxes goes a long way EVERYWHERE in the US. People that can't afford to live in SF on this salary are just bad with money. Even spending $3k/mo on rent leaves you with $3k to spend on everything else. $3k/mo after taxes is like a $50k/yr salary. If you can live in Nebraska on $50k/yr, then you can live BETTER in SF on $100k/yr. The SF tech crowd that can't get by on $100k need a lesson in managing money.
  - maerF0x0 11y ago
    Firstly, it goes fast in SF. $3500 a month for a 1 bedroom is more realistic, unless one wants a >45minute commute (just checked with padmapper). Food ($350/mo), fun money($160 per month), clothes($50 per month), haircuts($30 per month), utilities($150 per month), healthcare copays, transit and other random crap probably eats $1k. Someone saving for retirement should roughly put $1k a month away (makes about $80k a year retirement income). So now we have $500 a month left for things like saving for a house, ring, wedding, visiting family once a year, maybe buying a car or a trip somewhere. So yes, of course, its livable but certainly not as intense as you've put it. ("such bull crap"... "just bad with money") Secondly. The marginal price on a room is about $1000 so if you perchance want to have a family then you're looking at more like $4k- $4500 for your rent. Everything is more expensive in SF as well, not just your rent. My bias is that I do not consider it a healthy society if a couple couldnt have a family of 2 (roughly replacement) on 1-1.5 incomes (some blend of parents have some time off to raise the kids) . End result: $6k a month after taxes (roughly $110k before) is enough such that you still have to make sacrifices, either live far away (1 hr commute each way), live in a terrible place (tenderloin), have roommates or give up on a family.
    - mywittyname 11y ago
      Saving $1000 a month towards retirement and an additional $500 for anything else is actually doing very well by American standards. Saving $1,500 is no small feat for most families, that's more than half of the take-home pay for the median family in America. Plus, you have the copays+transit+random crap = $1000/mo bucket that has a lot of obvious savings. Your post solidifies my point. Saving that much money in the midwest would be difficult on $50k/yr, but doing so on $100k in SF requires a little self-control.

Swizec 11y ago

> Eventually, a $100k a year employee will just be subsistence in terms of real goods. In a certain popular city in the US that starts with S, that is not far from truth right now.

mywittyname 11y ago
This is such bullcrap. $6k a month after taxes goes a long way EVERYWHERE in the US. People that can't afford to live in SF on this salary are just bad with money. Even spending $3k/mo on rent leaves you with $3k to spend on everything else. $3k/mo after taxes is like a $50k/yr salary. If you can live in Nebraska on $50k/yr, then you can live BETTER in SF on $100k/yr. The SF tech crowd that can't get by on $100k need a lesson in managing money.
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  Firstly, it goes fast in SF. $3500 a month for a 1 bedroom is more realistic, unless one wants a >45minute commute (just checked with padmapper). Food ($350/mo), fun money($160 per month), clothes($50 per month), haircuts($30 per month), utilities($150 per month), healthcare copays, transit and other random crap probably eats $1k. Someone saving for retirement should roughly put $1k a month away (makes about $80k a year retirement income). So now we have $500 a month left for things like saving for a house, ring, wedding, visiting family once a year, maybe buying a car or a trip somewhere. So yes, of course, its livable but certainly not as intense as you've put it. ("such bull crap"... "just bad with money") Secondly. The marginal price on a room is about $1000 so if you perchance want to have a family then you're looking at more like $4k- $4500 for your rent. Everything is more expensive in SF as well, not just your rent. My bias is that I do not consider it a healthy society if a couple couldnt have a family of 2 (roughly replacement) on 1-1.5 incomes (some blend of parents have some time off to raise the kids) . End result: $6k a month after taxes (roughly $110k before) is enough such that you still have to make sacrifices, either live far away (1 hr commute each way), live in a terrible place (tenderloin), have roommates or give up on a family.
  - mywittyname 11y ago
    Saving $1000 a month towards retirement and an additional $500 for anything else is actually doing very well by American standards. Saving $1,500 is no small feat for most families, that's more than half of the take-home pay for the median family in America. Plus, you have the copays+transit+random crap = $1000/mo bucket that has a lot of obvious savings. Your post solidifies my point. Saving that much money in the midwest would be difficult on $50k/yr, but doing so on $100k in SF requires a little self-control.