3 ms·

Yeah it's possible that's true for those two cities at this particular time -- I haven't run the numbers. But you can apply the argument for Austin too. If yo

by chubot 9y ago

Yeah it's possible that's true for those two cities at this particular time -- I haven't run the numbers. But you can apply the argument for Austin too. If you're living in Iowa or Wyoming, Austin probably seems like it has a high cost of living. You could probably find an apartment for $300 or $400 a month in a lot of small towns. But it's probably better to move to Austin, make more, and save more, if you have a job offer. I would say that if you are young and in tech, you should apply for jobs all over the country, including in SF. Don't worry about the cost of living. That's focusing on the downside rather than the upside. But if you are older and have more expenses, and less variance in what your salary will be, then you might want to run the numbers, and not bother applying to some places. FWIW I've lived in SF for 15 years and I've never paid close to $3370. I did pay $2600 once for huge place, and now I pay less than that. But even if I paid $3370 I would still save a ton of money. It's all relative. One bedrooms are also the worst market, precisely because people are moving in and out a lot. I've known people with very nice 2 BR apartments in desirable areas splitting it at $1500 a piece. Although granted this was several years ago and the market may have changed. I think it got insane in 2013-2014, hopefully it's a bit better now. There are also places to live outside the city that are less expensive. ----- Also, two asymmetries to consider: 1) There's no hard upper limit on the amount you make, but there is a hard cap on how much you can save. 2) If you live in an expensive area like SF, you can move back to your hometown at any time. But the converse isn't true, because at a certain point the expenses will probably be intimidating.

loeg 9y ago
> If you're living in Iowa or Wyoming, Austin probably seems like it has a high cost of living. You could probably find an apartment for $300 or $400 a month in a lot of small towns. But it's probably better to move to Austin, make more, and save more, if you have a job offer. Yeah, but again, you'd have to run the numbers at this specific point in time. And I suspect Wyoming would not come out ahead (at this point in time), unlike Austin. > Don't worry about the cost of living. That's focusing on the downside rather than the upside. This is total nonsense. Anything you can save while young has the biggest impact on your future fortunes and ability to retire, or retire early. Compare job offers by net income — after taxes and after housing and utility expenses. > FWIW I've lived in SF for 15 years and I've never paid close to $3370. That is the median rent figure for 2017, not the prior 15 years. If you managed to find a rent-controlled apartment years ago, you may pay a below-market rate. > 1) There's no hard upper limit on the amount you make, but there is a hard cap on how much you can save. Can you explain what you mean by either of these clauses? Income will be limited by basic supply/demand economics of your skillset and ability to impress employers. Savings are a function of income and spending. Neither of these are set in stone. > 2) If you live in an expensive area like SF, you can move back to your hometown at any time. But the converse isn't true, because at a certain point the expenses will probably be intimidating. The expenses of SF are intimidating from the get-go! As a young college graduate with no savings, moving to SF is even riskier than for someone older with a modest emergency fund to cover gaps between jobs.
- chubot 9y ago
  Anything you can save while young has the biggest impact on your future fortunes and ability to retire, or retire early I think this is where we're not agreeing. My point is that focusing on the upside is more important than focusing on the downside. Making more allows you to save more. I don't think retiring by cutting costs is a great goal, especially for someone with decades left to live. But you may disagree and that's OK. I don't have any interest in convincing people to move to the Bay Area! I think I'm one of the more pessimistic and conservative people in Silicon Valley, but still I believe in focusing on the upside, and I believe in a dynamic world where things that are true now won't be true in 5 years. The decision-making process that I intuit from your posts seems like more of a static model of the world. For a young person, your skillset can and must change! You can learn things that will earn you more money!
  - loeg 9y ago
    > I think this is where we're not agreeing. My point is that focusing on the upside is more important than focusing on the downside. Making more allows you to save more. I don't think focusing on income and ignoring costs is a good approach to saving money, or life. Both are important. We can agree that focusing only on cost and ignoring income is totally foolish. > I don't think retiring by cutting costs is a great goal, especially for someone with decades left to live. The alternative is working longer to save up a bigger nest egg that can support a higher level of spending. That trade-off between working longer and lowering costs is fully a personal choice. To be clear, I'm not taking a stance on which of those choices other people "should" make. > The decision-making process that I intuit from your posts seems like more of a static model of the world. I think you're reading in something that isn't there.

by chubot 9y ago

loeg 9y ago

> If you're living in Iowa or Wyoming, Austin probably seems like it has a high cost of living. You could probably find an apartment for $300 or $400 a month in a lot of small towns. But it's probably better to move to Austin, make more, and save more, if you have a job offer. Yeah, but again, you'd have to run the numbers at this specific point in time. And I suspect Wyoming would not come out ahead (at this point in time), unlike Austin. > Don't worry about the cost of living. That's focusing on the downside rather than the upside. This is total nonsense. Anything you can save while young has the biggest impact on your future fortunes and ability to retire, or retire early. Compare job offers by net income — after taxes and after housing and utility expenses. > FWIW I've lived in SF for 15 years and I've never paid close to $3370. That is the median rent figure for 2017, not the prior 15 years. If you managed to find a rent-controlled apartment years ago, you may pay a below-market rate. > 1) There's no hard upper limit on the amount you make, but there is a hard cap on how much you can save. Can you explain what you mean by either of these clauses? Income will be limited by basic supply/demand economics of your skillset and ability to impress employers. Savings are a function of income and spending. Neither of these are set in stone. > 2) If you live in an expensive area like SF, you can move back to your hometown at any time. But the converse isn't true, because at a certain point the expenses will probably be intimidating. The expenses of SF are intimidating from the get-go! As a young college graduate with no savings, moving to SF is even riskier than for someone older with a modest emergency fund to cover gaps between jobs.

chubot 9y ago
Anything you can save while young has the biggest impact on your future fortunes and ability to retire, or retire early I think this is where we're not agreeing. My point is that focusing on the upside is more important than focusing on the downside. Making more allows you to save more. I don't think retiring by cutting costs is a great goal, especially for someone with decades left to live. But you may disagree and that's OK. I don't have any interest in convincing people to move to the Bay Area! I think I'm one of the more pessimistic and conservative people in Silicon Valley, but still I believe in focusing on the upside, and I believe in a dynamic world where things that are true now won't be true in 5 years. The decision-making process that I intuit from your posts seems like more of a static model of the world. For a young person, your skillset can and must change! You can learn things that will earn you more money!
- loeg 9y ago
  > I think this is where we're not agreeing. My point is that focusing on the upside is more important than focusing on the downside. Making more allows you to save more. I don't think focusing on income and ignoring costs is a good approach to saving money, or life. Both are important. We can agree that focusing only on cost and ignoring income is totally foolish. > I don't think retiring by cutting costs is a great goal, especially for someone with decades left to live. The alternative is working longer to save up a bigger nest egg that can support a higher level of spending. That trade-off between working longer and lowering costs is fully a personal choice. To be clear, I'm not taking a stance on which of those choices other people "should" make. > The decision-making process that I intuit from your posts seems like more of a static model of the world. I think you're reading in something that isn't there.