2 ms·

> If you line up the country's 100 richest metros from 1 to 100, household affordability falls as household income rises, even after you consider that middle cl

by bko 10y ago

> If you line up the country's 100 richest metros from 1 to 100, household affordability falls as household income rises, even after you consider that middle class families in richer cities have more income One thing to consider is that, although household affordability may be worse, other things may be cheaper and more convenient (relative to remaining income after housing expense). For instance, in NYC, although the housing prices are very high, there is no need for a car. And now with online shopping, anyone in NYC is able to get Walmart prices with delivery, at least for non-perishable items. Granted, some items like food are more expensive, but outside delivery services have brought the cost significantly down over the years. That's not even taking into consideration other benefits such as historic neighborhoods and great restaurants. I think in the end people care about absolute income and not so much on relative proportions of the rent they are paying in housing. And it's certainly possible to live in a high cost city , get paid a higher salary and save a higher absolute amount every year.

laughfactory 10y ago
> I think in the end people care about absolute income and not so much on relative proportions of the rent they are paying in housing. And it's certainly possible to live in a high cost city , get paid a higher salary and save a higher absolute amount every year. Uh, not so much. Or, maybe if they're dumb. I do think people have a hard time evaluating the relative value of living one place versus another. That is, it's not that they objectively prefer to make more in a higher cost of living area (where, for most, compensation does not compensate for the high cost of living), it's that they have a difficult time understanding objectively that a high absolute salary number is worthless (and actually detrimental when it comes to taxes) and what really matters is your cost of living adjusted salary. I would argue that your assertion that it "possible to live in a high cost city , get paid a higher salary and save a higher absolute amount every year" is only true for very few. In my opinion, and from my experience, most middle class people get really screwed in big liberal cities. They may make a higher salary in absolute terms but their costs are simply, across the board, higher. I believe I've even seen studies to support this. My wife and I moved to the big city so I could get the experience I needed, and now, three years later, we're leaving because it doesn't make fiscal sense to stay. Taxes and housing are impoverishing us, and if we want to have any sort of viable future (savings, retirement, a house, debt paid off) we've got to leave and move to a lower cost of living area where salaries are still relatively robust. So I know that the relatively higher cost of housing, for example, were a huge part of us leaving. And while it is technically possible to do financially very well in any big city, I would argue that the possibility does not become reality for many.

by bko 10y ago

laughfactory 10y ago

> I think in the end people care about absolute income and not so much on relative proportions of the rent they are paying in housing. And it's certainly possible to live in a high cost city , get paid a higher salary and save a higher absolute amount every year. Uh, not so much. Or, maybe if they're dumb. I do think people have a hard time evaluating the relative value of living one place versus another. That is, it's not that they objectively prefer to make more in a higher cost of living area (where, for most, compensation does not compensate for the high cost of living), it's that they have a difficult time understanding objectively that a high absolute salary number is worthless (and actually detrimental when it comes to taxes) and what really matters is your cost of living adjusted salary. I would argue that your assertion that it "possible to live in a high cost city , get paid a higher salary and save a higher absolute amount every year" is only true for very few. In my opinion, and from my experience, most middle class people get really screwed in big liberal cities. They may make a higher salary in absolute terms but their costs are simply, across the board, higher. I believe I've even seen studies to support this. My wife and I moved to the big city so I could get the experience I needed, and now, three years later, we're leaving because it doesn't make fiscal sense to stay. Taxes and housing are impoverishing us, and if we want to have any sort of viable future (savings, retirement, a house, debt paid off) we've got to leave and move to a lower cost of living area where salaries are still relatively robust. So I know that the relatively higher cost of housing, for example, were a huge part of us leaving. And while it is technically possible to do financially very well in any big city, I would argue that the possibility does not become reality for many.