5 ms·

Why does it matter though? The absolute number without taking cost-of-living into account doesn't really mean anything.

betaby 7y ago
Once you include "luxury" consumption countries with "low" COL stop being low COL. For example cars, iphones, laptops are way more expensive in Eastern Europe than US.
- bkovacev 7y ago
  In Eastern Europe a 2018 car that costs around 30k euroes which is a Passat/Superb goes for about 400$ a month. If you're only pulling in 100k, that won't hit you hard at all. 1-1,5k for high end apartment's rent (which is waaaay too much anyway), 400 for the car and 1k for other necessities. If taxes were 33%, you'd be left with 66k. 66k - 12x(1.5k+400+1k+100) = 30k. That's still a lot more money left than if the person was in NYC without a lease/finance and with rent that's twice as much.
cimmanom 7y ago
CoL in London is comparable to or greater than that in NYC, and probably not quite at SV levels but close enough for comparisons to be meaningful.
- nikon 7y ago
  Really?
  - cimmanom 7y ago
    Really. I have friends and family who have moved from NY to London and they all say London is slightly more expensive. Most online comparisons are weird for two reasons: 1) they include the cost of car ownership, which is common in neither place, and 2) most rental apartments in London are furnished and in NY are not. I’ve seen comparisons for the cost of a furnished rental, but in NY you’d pay a huge premium for that. It’s also, of course, just plain hard to choose equivalent neighborhoods. Reportedly, the rental market in London is even tighter than in NY. My friends say you can get a 1-BR or 2-BR for about 10% more than in NY (after accounting for exchange rates, and with housing stock / in a location that they consider equivalent to what they’d left behind), but it will be smaller simply because historically London buildings have been constructed with smaller rooms than NY ones. Food in London seems to be more expensive than in NY. Medical care, of course, is less expensive. Transit is close enough to be a wash. Etc.
massive-tea 7y ago
People just cannot seem to grasp this. I moved to Cambridge, UK for work and despite my salary being more than 30% higher than it was before, my quality of life is lower and I'm struggling to save as much money each month. It's even worse in London.
dionyziz 7y ago
It does mean something. I'll make two indicative points. First, if I'm looking to make money that I want to put into global investment, it doesn't matter where I earn it. The absolute number is what matters. In reality, the number that matters is how much I can save, in absolute numbers, after taxes and cost of living have been deducted, but still the salary does not scale with cost of living. In that case, if I'm willing to maximize my investment, it's possible that I'm willing to move to the best paying country (i.e. the country where I can earn the maximum absolute number after taxes and cost-of-living has been deducted) for a while. "Global investment" may be quite broad and may include, for example, effective global altruism (i.e., asking the question "If I want to maximize my life's impact in improving others' lives, where should I work and where should I donate globally?"). Second, if we're talking about a job that is a seller's market, i.e., where I have has some very specialized skill, then the fact that the company is willing to pay double the amount if I happen to live in Silicon Valley but only half the amount if I happen to live in Romania, is pretentious. The reason is that the company is in need of my skill regardless of where I live and my acceptable business cost to them is a Silicon Valley salary. The difference from paying me less just because I happen to live in Romania is simply money that goes into their pockets. Why shouldn't it go into mine? In fact, if my skill is specialized enough, I should be able to negotiate for that, since their best next alternative may be a Silicon Valley hire. (For clarity, the above are illustrative examples. I'm not an effective altruist, do not have such a specialized skill, and do not live in Romania.)

Once you include "luxury" consumption countries with "low" COL stop being low COL. For example cars, iphones, laptops are way more expensive in Eastern Europe than US.

bkovacev 7y ago
In Eastern Europe a 2018 car that costs around 30k euroes which is a Passat/Superb goes for about 400$ a month. If you're only pulling in 100k, that won't hit you hard at all. 1-1,5k for high end apartment's rent (which is waaaay too much anyway), 400 for the car and 1k for other necessities. If taxes were 33%, you'd be left with 66k. 66k - 12x(1.5k+400+1k+100) = 30k. That's still a lot more money left than if the person was in NYC without a lease/finance and with rent that's twice as much.

cimmanom 7y ago

CoL in London is comparable to or greater than that in NYC, and probably not quite at SV levels but close enough for comparisons to be meaningful.

nikon 7y ago
Really?
- cimmanom 7y ago
  Really. I have friends and family who have moved from NY to London and they all say London is slightly more expensive. Most online comparisons are weird for two reasons: 1) they include the cost of car ownership, which is common in neither place, and 2) most rental apartments in London are furnished and in NY are not. I’ve seen comparisons for the cost of a furnished rental, but in NY you’d pay a huge premium for that. It’s also, of course, just plain hard to choose equivalent neighborhoods. Reportedly, the rental market in London is even tighter than in NY. My friends say you can get a 1-BR or 2-BR for about 10% more than in NY (after accounting for exchange rates, and with housing stock / in a location that they consider equivalent to what they’d left behind), but it will be smaller simply because historically London buildings have been constructed with smaller rooms than NY ones. Food in London seems to be more expensive than in NY. Medical care, of course, is less expensive. Transit is close enough to be a wash. Etc.

massive-tea 7y ago

People just cannot seem to grasp this. I moved to Cambridge, UK for work and despite my salary being more than 30% higher than it was before, my quality of life is lower and I'm struggling to save as much money each month. It's even worse in London.

dionyziz 7y ago

It does mean something. I'll make two indicative points. First, if I'm looking to make money that I want to put into global investment, it doesn't matter where I earn it. The absolute number is what matters. In reality, the number that matters is how much I can save, in absolute numbers, after taxes and cost of living have been deducted, but still the salary does not scale with cost of living. In that case, if I'm willing to maximize my investment, it's possible that I'm willing to move to the best paying country (i.e. the country where I can earn the maximum absolute number after taxes and cost-of-living has been deducted) for a while. "Global investment" may be quite broad and may include, for example, effective global altruism (i.e., asking the question "If I want to maximize my life's impact in improving others' lives, where should I work and where should I donate globally?"). Second, if we're talking about a job that is a seller's market, i.e., where I have has some very specialized skill, then the fact that the company is willing to pay double the amount if I happen to live in Silicon Valley but only half the amount if I happen to live in Romania, is pretentious. The reason is that the company is in need of my skill regardless of where I live and my acceptable business cost to them is a Silicon Valley salary. The difference from paying me less just because I happen to live in Romania is simply money that goes into their pockets. Why shouldn't it go into mine? In fact, if my skill is specialized enough, I should be able to negotiate for that, since their best next alternative may be a Silicon Valley hire. (For clarity, the above are illustrative examples. I'm not an effective altruist, do not have such a specialized skill, and do not live in Romania.)