4 ms·

Yep. I live in the Sacramento area. Half the salary. Half the price for a house. Half the commute. Seems an even trade.

sidlls 7y ago
I thought that, too, before I had the income. Being able to max out my 401k and IRA contribution on 5% of my salary is a huge deal, and more than makes up for the difference in housing cost. I also live 5 minutes from work. People overestimate how much the COL difference really is and underestimate the significant savings advantages that come with living here.
- souprock 7y ago
  I think you underestimate the COL difference because you are settling for inferior housing. Do you at least have a low-end house, such as 2000 square feet on a 0.25 acre lot that is all your own? Around here in the Space Coast area, that goes for $150,000. It can be done with a 5-minute commute. Software developers get paid better than typical, so they can get fancier housing if they don't have expensive hobbies. See if you can afford the things my coworkers have gotten: 1. a house with canal access to a lake 2. a new McMansion (looked like 3000 to 6000 square feet) 3. 11 acres, building the house as desired (he got sheep and chickens for fun) 4. beach condo 5. a house with a boat dock on a large waterway leading to the ocean I'm going to guess that at least 4 of those are impossible for you. The cost of 11 acres is particularly entertaining. I went for something a bit more modest, about 3500 square feet on 0.39 acres, but it is just 0.9 mile from work and I'm supporting a family of 14 on a single income.
  - sidlls 7y ago
    We live in a 1500 square foot townhouse. It's smaller than the 2200 square foot beast we left behind near the Space Coast, in fact. But my cash salary is 3x what I was earning there, the benefits are better, the equity is a nice bonus on top of that, and the CoL is just about 2x. I save about what my net take-home used to be. I'd be saving more, but one of my kids need therapy that is quite costly and not covered by insurance. So while I can't afford that stuff now, out here, I'm going to be in a much better position in retirement than most of your friends. And I'll be able to retire sooner.
    - souprock 7y ago
      There is no "2200 square foot beast". That is just a median home. It's a bit cramped, but adequate. Right now you could get 4400 square feet on a 1 acre lot for $400,000 in Melbourne or Palm Bay. You CoL difference is only 2x because you are settling for inferior housing. People can do that. You have. Let's not pretend it is good housing however. To get that early retirement, you forgo decades of living in decent housing. The CoL difference is well over 10x with equivalent housing. That housing deficiency can have an everlasting impact on your family. People in costly and cramped spaces have smaller families. You might not be aware of the effect it has on you, simply thinking that you didn't want that many kids. In retirement, it will be too late to have more kids.
    - Roboprog 7y ago
      He trolled you good :-)

I thought that, too, before I had the income. Being able to max out my 401k and IRA contribution on 5% of my salary is a huge deal, and more than makes up for the difference in housing cost. I also live 5 minutes from work. People overestimate how much the COL difference really is and underestimate the significant savings advantages that come with living here.

souprock 7y ago
I think you underestimate the COL difference because you are settling for inferior housing. Do you at least have a low-end house, such as 2000 square feet on a 0.25 acre lot that is all your own? Around here in the Space Coast area, that goes for $150,000. It can be done with a 5-minute commute. Software developers get paid better than typical, so they can get fancier housing if they don't have expensive hobbies. See if you can afford the things my coworkers have gotten: 1. a house with canal access to a lake 2. a new McMansion (looked like 3000 to 6000 square feet) 3. 11 acres, building the house as desired (he got sheep and chickens for fun) 4. beach condo 5. a house with a boat dock on a large waterway leading to the ocean I'm going to guess that at least 4 of those are impossible for you. The cost of 11 acres is particularly entertaining. I went for something a bit more modest, about 3500 square feet on 0.39 acres, but it is just 0.9 mile from work and I'm supporting a family of 14 on a single income.
- sidlls 7y ago
  We live in a 1500 square foot townhouse. It's smaller than the 2200 square foot beast we left behind near the Space Coast, in fact. But my cash salary is 3x what I was earning there, the benefits are better, the equity is a nice bonus on top of that, and the CoL is just about 2x. I save about what my net take-home used to be. I'd be saving more, but one of my kids need therapy that is quite costly and not covered by insurance. So while I can't afford that stuff now, out here, I'm going to be in a much better position in retirement than most of your friends. And I'll be able to retire sooner.
  - souprock 7y ago
    There is no "2200 square foot beast". That is just a median home. It's a bit cramped, but adequate. Right now you could get 4400 square feet on a 1 acre lot for $400,000 in Melbourne or Palm Bay. You CoL difference is only 2x because you are settling for inferior housing. People can do that. You have. Let's not pretend it is good housing however. To get that early retirement, you forgo decades of living in decent housing. The CoL difference is well over 10x with equivalent housing. That housing deficiency can have an everlasting impact on your family. People in costly and cramped spaces have smaller families. You might not be aware of the effect it has on you, simply thinking that you didn't want that many kids. In retirement, it will be too late to have more kids.
  - Roboprog 7y ago
    He trolled you good :-)