5 ms·
The article ranks cities by their percent share of "good jobs" rather than total count. If you calculate totals, the "superstar" cities do better, thanks to th
by frankosaurus 7y ago
The article ranks cities by their percent share of "good jobs" rather than total count.
If you calculate totals, the "superstar" cities do better, thanks to their larger overall populations.
For example:
The lowest scoring city, Washington, has 452,600 good jobs.
The highest scoring city, Toledo, has only 100,980 such jobs.
- notfromhere 7y agoand by CoL you're gonna get screwed in one of these "good jobs" in superstar cities
- frankosaurus 7y agoThe article's definition of "good job" is cost-of-living adjusted: """ It has to pay more than the national median wage, $37,690 in 2017, adjusted for the cost of living in the area. """
- notfromhere 7y agoIt put a good job at San Jose as one making over 47k a year. You're not going to live comfortably in San Jose on 47k a year.
- deathanatos 7y agoI question their CoL adjustments. The median US rent is ~$1k/month[1], whereas in SJ it's ~$2.7k[2]. That's ~$20k more per year, twice what they adjusted for. ($37k → $47k, or $10k additional CoL expenses.) That's not accounting for any other CoL, such as higher gas prices and CA's higher state tax. [1]: https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/us https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/us [2]: https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/santa-clara-county/san-jose/ https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/sa...