3 ms·
I've heard this argument before and it's predicated on a set of assumptions about savings rate that may not hold true. It's easy to come up with a plausible se
by jordanb 9y ago
I've heard this argument before and it's predicated on a set of assumptions about savings rate that may not hold true.
It's easy to come up with a plausible set of numbers where the absolute savings are better in Austin even allowing for it being a greater percentage of income.
Beyond that though, I would submit two other caveats:
1. If you were to become involuntarily unemployed in San Francisco for any length of time then you will find your burn rate is still the SF burn rate and not the Austin burn rate.
2. Spending your twenties in a Gold Rush town with the intent to move to some other more rooted town later means you don't put any roots (professional or otherwise) down in that other town. You may find yourself with no connections and no relevant experience when it's time to move back to Grand Rapids.
- shostack 9y ago1. Short of an economic downturn (which would likely impact Austin as well), if you lose a job in SF, depending on your field that is not super concerning given the available jobs and steep competition. So yes you might have a higher burn rate, but presumably you have less risk in the form of more available jobs. 2. Roots are subjective and depending on your line of work may not be as important to have locally vs. distributed. That's just professionally speaking. Personally, not everyone needs that same kind of community connection. These obviously vary based on quite a few factors, but I don't think it is really black and white.
- econner 9y agoBut hopefully you struck gold. Or you just stay in SF I guess.