3 ms·
> adjusted for living expenses I've done the math on this and I've never been able to figure a way that $100k in <generic midwestern city> gets me to retiremen
by throwawayjava 9y ago
> adjusted for living expenses
I've done the math on this and I've never been able to figure a way that $100k in <generic midwestern city> gets me to retirement quicker than $200k in Seattle or even SF.
I just don't buy it.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a bullshit excuse midwestern companies use to under-pay their engineers.
- conanbatt 9y agoAt the same living arrangement? And the marginal tax rate is higher. I would say it works out dollar-to-dollar. What you have to include is weather, cultural opportunities, etc.
- throwawayjava 9y ago> At the same living arrangement? No, but you answer the question of what that's still a fair comparison yourself: > What you have to include is weather, cultural opportunities, etc. Turns out that a small apartment feels a lot less like a jail when the weather's bearable almost the entire year and there's world-class hiking 30 minutes away. > And the marginal tax rate is higher. 1. Which I include. In the worst case, this merely wipes out the delta between the real bonuses you get on the coast and the (conspicuously tiny) bonuses you get in the mid-west. The difference in tax is gone before you even start comparing salaries! 2. And that's not even fair to the coasts, because higher taxes do, in fact, buy some differences in quality of life.