4 ms·

That low-pay job in the Rust Belt probably comes with a better cost-of-living than a $150k job in San Francisco. Don't knock the inlands with coastal elitism th

That low-pay job in the Rust Belt probably comes with a better cost-of-living than a $150k job in San Francisco. Don't knock the inlands with coastal elitism thanks.

noir_lord 8y ago
Or assume that everyone is in the US either. I work on crappy legacy code (and some nice shiny new stuff or I'd go insane) for what would be considered in SF a crazy salary (but by UK standards and particulary where I live, decent). Quality of life matters as well, Mon-Fri 9-5 with overtime been a once/twice a year thing.
leetcrew 8y ago
there's no way to conclusively settle this debate. it totally depends on your savings ratio (if high, better to work in high COL high salary place; if low, better to live in low COL low salary place), which itself depends on your lifestyle choices.
- magduf 8y ago
  Good comment. Personally, I have a very high savings ratio and live well below my means (esp. in terms of housing), so it works out much better for me to live in a high-CoL high-salary area, which is currently DC. It usually seems to me that the people who favor the low-CoL lifestyle are people who value having a giant house. I want more money for things like foreign travel; I don't care about having a giant house.
magduf 8y ago
It comes with a lower cost-of-living, but also a lower quality-of-life, and also, the pay they offer isn't enough to give you enough disposable income after adjusting for the difference in CoL. Amazon isn't going to charge you less just because the housing costs less in your area, and grocery costs are usually the same everywhere.
thfuran 8y ago
>That low-pay job in the Rust Belt probably comes with a better cost-of-living than a $150k job in San Francisco. That's putting it mildly. I make over $100k where my three bedroom house cost me $165k. I guess the weather is worse than the bay area, but I have a 10 minutes commute to an affordable house.

That low-pay job in the Rust Belt probably comes with a better cost-of-living than a $150k job in San Francisco. Don't knock the inlands with coastal elitism thanks.

noir_lord 8y ago

Or assume that everyone is in the US either. I work on crappy legacy code (and some nice shiny new stuff or I'd go insane) for what would be considered in SF a crazy salary (but by UK standards and particulary where I live, decent). Quality of life matters as well, Mon-Fri 9-5 with overtime been a once/twice a year thing.

leetcrew 8y ago

there's no way to conclusively settle this debate. it totally depends on your savings ratio (if high, better to work in high COL high salary place; if low, better to live in low COL low salary place), which itself depends on your lifestyle choices.

magduf 8y ago
Good comment. Personally, I have a very high savings ratio and live well below my means (esp. in terms of housing), so it works out much better for me to live in a high-CoL high-salary area, which is currently DC. It usually seems to me that the people who favor the low-CoL lifestyle are people who value having a giant house. I want more money for things like foreign travel; I don't care about having a giant house.

magduf 8y ago

It comes with a lower cost-of-living, but also a lower quality-of-life, and also, the pay they offer isn't enough to give you enough disposable income after adjusting for the difference in CoL. Amazon isn't going to charge you less just because the housing costs less in your area, and grocery costs are usually the same everywhere.

thfuran 8y ago

>That low-pay job in the Rust Belt probably comes with a better cost-of-living than a $150k job in San Francisco. That's putting it mildly. I make over $100k where my three bedroom house cost me $165k. I guess the weather is worse than the bay area, but I have a 10 minutes commute to an affordable house.