3 ms·

To many developers in "smaller" tech cities, that's nearly 20% of their pre-tax salary.

danans 7y ago
The difference housing cost as a percentage of the small tech city salary is an irrelevant statistic. The relevant statistic to compare is actual housing cost vs actual compensation in both types of places. For many types of tech jobs, the number still favors big cities, if not in percentage terms, then in absolute numbers. And when it comes down to a real life decision, there are plenty of other factors (financial or otherwise) besides that one statistic.
- CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
  My point was "only $12,000" sounds very ivory tower and tone-deaf to people for which $12,000 is an awful lot of money.
  - bluedino 7y ago
    I didn't mean it like that - I meant that if you're making $100k in a suburb somewhere in a flyover state, you would probably make $140k (for instance) in a place with a higher rent but it woul;dn't really matter to your bottom line
    - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
      But also: Everyone has higher rents, not just you. This will generally be reflected in the cost of living (i.e. not just for your rent will go up, but so will other expenses). It's not trivial to do this calculation. Some things will surprise you: You can get cheaper electricity bills in Seattle than where I live (Naples, FL), but you don't need air conditioning in Seattle. Living in Florida without AC is ill-advised.
  - danans 7y ago
    It's not an ivory tower thing at all. $12000 doesn't mean the same thing when you consider the cost of living difference between the urban and rural areas. $12k goes way farther towards purchasing goods and services in the rural area, so naturally it seems like an awful lot of money there, but it purchases far fewer goods and services in a big city. This is similar to how household incomes between different countries aren't directly comparable until you adjust for Purchasing Power Parity [1]. That doesn't mean that all big city dwellers are better off. Some undoubtedly are, and some are definitely not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity
    - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
      > $12000 doesn't mean the same thing when you consider the cost of living difference between the urban and rural areas. We actually agree here. I think we're speaking past each other. I'm arguing that "only $12,000" is dismissive of how impactful a difference that makes to the lives of people who don't live in a big city.
      - danans 7y ago
        > I'm arguing that "only $12,000" is dismissive of how impactful a difference that makes to the lives of people who don't live in a big city. But the $12k in question isn't a fungible $12k. It's specifically the difference in housing costs between urban and rural in the example given earlier. If the point is that many people in rural areas are economically struggling, then yes we agree, just as many poorer urban dwellers are (and to whom a random $12k received would also be hugely impactful), but that has nothing to do with example proposed.
        CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
        I don't understand. Is your entire point in this discussion to somehow justify talking down to other people? > If the point is that many people in rural areas are economically struggling, then yes we agree, just as many poorer urban dwellers are (and to whom a random $12k received would also be hugely impactful), but that has nothing to do with example proposed. My point was that the OP's use of the phrase "only $12,000" is offensive, classist language in the context it was written in. That point is unrelated to the rest of the discussion. I don't get why anyone would want to double down on defending this language, especially since you weren't the person who used it. But here we are. But hey, if $12,000/year is peanuts to anyone reading this thread: https://www.patreon.com/ciphpercoder https://www.patreon.com/ciphpercoder

The difference housing cost as a percentage of the small tech city salary is an irrelevant statistic. The relevant statistic to compare is actual housing cost vs actual compensation in both types of places. For many types of tech jobs, the number still favors big cities, if not in percentage terms, then in absolute numbers. And when it comes down to a real life decision, there are plenty of other factors (financial or otherwise) besides that one statistic.

CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
My point was "only $12,000" sounds very ivory tower and tone-deaf to people for which $12,000 is an awful lot of money.
- bluedino 7y ago
  I didn't mean it like that - I meant that if you're making $100k in a suburb somewhere in a flyover state, you would probably make $140k (for instance) in a place with a higher rent but it woul;dn't really matter to your bottom line
  - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
    But also: Everyone has higher rents, not just you. This will generally be reflected in the cost of living (i.e. not just for your rent will go up, but so will other expenses). It's not trivial to do this calculation. Some things will surprise you: You can get cheaper electricity bills in Seattle than where I live (Naples, FL), but you don't need air conditioning in Seattle. Living in Florida without AC is ill-advised.
- danans 7y ago
  It's not an ivory tower thing at all. $12000 doesn't mean the same thing when you consider the cost of living difference between the urban and rural areas. $12k goes way farther towards purchasing goods and services in the rural area, so naturally it seems like an awful lot of money there, but it purchases far fewer goods and services in a big city. This is similar to how household incomes between different countries aren't directly comparable until you adjust for Purchasing Power Parity [1]. That doesn't mean that all big city dwellers are better off. Some undoubtedly are, and some are definitely not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity
  - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
    > $12000 doesn't mean the same thing when you consider the cost of living difference between the urban and rural areas. We actually agree here. I think we're speaking past each other. I'm arguing that "only $12,000" is dismissive of how impactful a difference that makes to the lives of people who don't live in a big city.
    - danans 7y ago
      > I'm arguing that "only $12,000" is dismissive of how impactful a difference that makes to the lives of people who don't live in a big city. But the $12k in question isn't a fungible $12k. It's specifically the difference in housing costs between urban and rural in the example given earlier. If the point is that many people in rural areas are economically struggling, then yes we agree, just as many poorer urban dwellers are (and to whom a random $12k received would also be hugely impactful), but that has nothing to do with example proposed.
      - CiPHPerCoder 7y ago
        I don't understand. Is your entire point in this discussion to somehow justify talking down to other people? > If the point is that many people in rural areas are economically struggling, then yes we agree, just as many poorer urban dwellers are (and to whom a random $12k received would also be hugely impactful), but that has nothing to do with example proposed. My point was that the OP's use of the phrase "only $12,000" is offensive, classist language in the context it was written in. That point is unrelated to the rest of the discussion. I don't get why anyone would want to double down on defending this language, especially since you weren't the person who used it. But here we are. But hey, if $12,000/year is peanuts to anyone reading this thread: https://www.patreon.com/ciphpercoder https://www.patreon.com/ciphpercoder