3 ms·

Don't know about the stock thing, but finding a cheap city to live in (Pittsburgh being one) and living like you're a poor college student is definitely one way

by Qz 16y ago

Don't know about the stock thing, but finding a cheap city to live in (Pittsburgh being one) and living like you're a poor college student is definitely one way to save a crapload of money. What some people earn and spend in a year will probably last me 3-4 years if not more.

prodigal_erik 16y ago
How's the pay, though? I moved to the Valley because the extra income is much, much more than the extra costs. I wouldn't want to move somewhere cheap unless I either stopped working, or started a business with income not connected to the local wages.
- natrius 16y ago
  The extra income in the Valley isn't enough to make up for the increase in cost of living compared to many places, such as Austin, where you can also find good tech jobs. http://swz.salary.com/costoflivingwizard/layoutscripts/coll_start.asp http://swz.salary.com/costoflivingwizard/layoutscripts/coll_...
  - Qz 16y ago
    Exactly -- Pittsburgh also has a lot of tech jobs, with most of the big players having branches in the city, as well as a lot of startups in the area, most of them related in some way to CMU. And if you're at all interested in robotics, this is the place to be.
  - prodigal_erik 16y ago
    What I get from that is "The cost of living in Austin, TX is 26.4% lower than in San Jose, CA" and "Employers in Austin, TX typically pay 20.9% less than employers in San Francisco, CA." Pretend I make exactly $100k here and pay 33% tax. Moving to Austin costs me $14k in net income (0.209 * 0.67 * 100000), so my living expenses here would have to be at least $53k (14000 / 0.264) just to break even by reducing them. But that would mean I'd been spending over 79% of my net income just in living expenses, which to me sounds too precariously balanced to be sustainable. In reality I make somewhat more and save half of it, so I'd barely come out ahead if my rent in Austin dropped to $0.
    - natrius 16y ago
      You can't throw taxes into the mix without knowing whatt the site is using to calculate cost of living. (I don't know either.) I'd assume that taxes are already included since that's part of what'd you'd consider when moving between areas, and is another area where you'd save by moving. If we assume that taxes are included: Moving to Austin costs $20.9k in total salary. Total expenses would have to be $79,167 ($20,900 / 0.264) or less for the Valley to win out. If the hypothetical person saves more than $20,833 a year (after taxes since we're assuming those are part of the cost of living), having higher earnings is preferable to having a lower cost of living to increase the size of the savings. Many people don't save that much. You also chose San Jose as the city for the comparison, when most people I know prefer to live in San Francisco, where the cost of living is even higher. Moving to Austin from San Francisco supposedly results in a 42.7% decrease in cost of living. You'd have to be saving $51,053 after taxes for moving to be a bad idea financially.
      - prodigal_erik 16y ago
        Yeah, I should have just chosen San Jose (as a proxy for "outside San Francisco") rather than that weird SF/SJ split I chose just because many colleagues and I happen to commute there from the valley. And you're right that they may be including taxes, but a lot of that is federal so I wouldn't expect to see a big difference. SF->Austin just demonstrates what a bad deal SF is financially, because SF->SJ gets you half the savings (22%) with no pay cut at all.

by Qz 16y ago

prodigal_erik 16y ago

How's the pay, though? I moved to the Valley because the extra income is much, much more than the extra costs. I wouldn't want to move somewhere cheap unless I either stopped working, or started a business with income not connected to the local wages.

natrius 16y ago
The extra income in the Valley isn't enough to make up for the increase in cost of living compared to many places, such as Austin, where you can also find good tech jobs. http://swz.salary.com/costoflivingwizard/layoutscripts/coll_start.asp http://swz.salary.com/costoflivingwizard/layoutscripts/coll_...
- Qz 16y ago
  Exactly -- Pittsburgh also has a lot of tech jobs, with most of the big players having branches in the city, as well as a lot of startups in the area, most of them related in some way to CMU. And if you're at all interested in robotics, this is the place to be.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  What I get from that is "The cost of living in Austin, TX is 26.4% lower than in San Jose, CA" and "Employers in Austin, TX typically pay 20.9% less than employers in San Francisco, CA." Pretend I make exactly $100k here and pay 33% tax. Moving to Austin costs me $14k in net income (0.209 * 0.67 * 100000), so my living expenses here would have to be at least $53k (14000 / 0.264) just to break even by reducing them. But that would mean I'd been spending over 79% of my net income just in living expenses, which to me sounds too precariously balanced to be sustainable. In reality I make somewhat more and save half of it, so I'd barely come out ahead if my rent in Austin dropped to $0.
  - natrius 16y ago
    You can't throw taxes into the mix without knowing whatt the site is using to calculate cost of living. (I don't know either.) I'd assume that taxes are already included since that's part of what'd you'd consider when moving between areas, and is another area where you'd save by moving. If we assume that taxes are included: Moving to Austin costs $20.9k in total salary. Total expenses would have to be $79,167 ($20,900 / 0.264) or less for the Valley to win out. If the hypothetical person saves more than $20,833 a year (after taxes since we're assuming those are part of the cost of living), having higher earnings is preferable to having a lower cost of living to increase the size of the savings. Many people don't save that much. You also chose San Jose as the city for the comparison, when most people I know prefer to live in San Francisco, where the cost of living is even higher. Moving to Austin from San Francisco supposedly results in a 42.7% decrease in cost of living. You'd have to be saving $51,053 after taxes for moving to be a bad idea financially.
    - prodigal_erik 16y ago
      Yeah, I should have just chosen San Jose (as a proxy for "outside San Francisco") rather than that weird SF/SJ split I chose just because many colleagues and I happen to commute there from the valley. And you're right that they may be including taxes, but a lot of that is federal so I wouldn't expect to see a big difference. SF->Austin just demonstrates what a bad deal SF is financially, because SF->SJ gets you half the savings (22%) with no pay cut at all.