4 ms·

I paid about 30% of my salary in 2014 for a SRO [0] in San Francisco with a 10 minute commute. I decided that the quality of living was not worth the potential

I paid about 30% of my salary in 2014 for a SRO [0] in San Francisco with a 10 minute commute. I decided that the quality of living was not worth the potential future earnings for staying in the bay area. In Tulsa I pay about 14% of my salary to rent a large apartment with a 4 minute commute. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy

olegkikin 9y ago
But you make a lot less in the absolute terms. So you save less, you can afford less of cool stuff. Most people in the world want to move in the opposite direction.
- antisthenes 9y ago
  Most people in the world are not developers and cannot change jobs or locales as easily as them.
- BeetleB 9y ago
  Both ways of looking at it are problematic. The way you should look at it: Take your savings. If you suddenly could get no income, no welfare, etc: How many months/years can you maintain your current standard of living before you run out of money? Being paid more in absolute, and even saving more in absolute, doesn't guarantee a longer time till you go broke. It's the ratio of your savings to the monthly cost of living. I could move to the Bay area and get paid enough to save, say, $5K more per year than I do now, I'm still in worse shape because of the COL. Effectively, even though I'm saving more in absolute terms, I'll not be able to retire as early as I can now.
mattnewton 9y ago
70% of my salary in the Bay Area is over 1.5x 86% my salary elsewhere.
pavanky 9y ago
But is 70% of SF salary < 86% of Tulsa salary ? Even after we account for other expenditures (travel and food), it looks like a net benefit in SF (compared to Atlanta). The only down side would be buying an actual house. A house in Atlanta would be 3-5x my yearly Atlanta salary. A similar house in SF would cost 7-8x my yearly SF salary.
- deckar01 9y ago
  I am making 75% of my SF salary in Tulsa, so it is a 5.5% reduction in pay after rent. The lower state taxes probably make it break even and I have a considerably higher quality of living. Calculation: (0.75*(1.00 - 0.14)) - (1.00 - 0.30) = 0.645 - 0.70 = -0.055 = -5.5%

olegkikin 9y ago

But you make a lot less in the absolute terms. So you save less, you can afford less of cool stuff. Most people in the world want to move in the opposite direction.

antisthenes 9y ago
Most people in the world are not developers and cannot change jobs or locales as easily as them.
BeetleB 9y ago
Both ways of looking at it are problematic. The way you should look at it: Take your savings. If you suddenly could get no income, no welfare, etc: How many months/years can you maintain your current standard of living before you run out of money? Being paid more in absolute, and even saving more in absolute, doesn't guarantee a longer time till you go broke. It's the ratio of your savings to the monthly cost of living. I could move to the Bay area and get paid enough to save, say, $5K more per year than I do now, I'm still in worse shape because of the COL. Effectively, even though I'm saving more in absolute terms, I'll not be able to retire as early as I can now.

mattnewton 9y ago

70% of my salary in the Bay Area is over 1.5x 86% my salary elsewhere.

pavanky 9y ago

But is 70% of SF salary < 86% of Tulsa salary ? Even after we account for other expenditures (travel and food), it looks like a net benefit in SF (compared to Atlanta). The only down side would be buying an actual house. A house in Atlanta would be 3-5x my yearly Atlanta salary. A similar house in SF would cost 7-8x my yearly SF salary.

deckar01 9y ago
I am making 75% of my SF salary in Tulsa, so it is a 5.5% reduction in pay after rent. The lower state taxes probably make it break even and I have a considerably higher quality of living. Calculation: (0.75*(1.00 - 0.14)) - (1.00 - 0.30) = 0.645 - 0.70 = -0.055 = -5.5%