3 ms·
I don't have data, so I won't say you are right or wrong, but if you go by the anecdote in HN, SV/NY/Seattle pay significantly more than in rural areas, and hav
by odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
I don't have data, so I won't say you are right or wrong, but if you go by the anecdote in HN, SV/NY/Seattle pay significantly more than in rural areas, and have 10x or so more opportunities.
- pc86 6y agoAnd 10x the people. I'm sure per capita there are still more job postings but certainly not 10x. 1.5-2x maybe? And anecdotally, my company which has been "ass in your seat by 8am" since it started over a century ago is now completely open to hiring 100% remote workers since they've seen the productivity increase in the last few months. As more companies in rural and suburban areas do that, the incentive to live in insane COL areas (which the above three absolutely are) decreases even more. I've done the math but just to maintain the same standard of living I'd need to make around $400k a year cash comp in San Francisco. Doable for a very small minority, maybe, but not with my resume and experience. And that's not even counting California taxes, where the marginal tax rate is 4x my current rate (I know the math is more complicated than that which is why I called out marginal), and the increased Federal taxes if I was actually making $400k. So it's probably in the neighborhood of 10-15% higher. And there's little things like a Roth IRA, which I would become ineligible for. That's $6k a year in tax-advantaged retirement contributions, gone. Obviously a good deal for a big pay raise, but a net loss if I'm just maintaining the same savings.
- odshoifsdhfs 6y agoI understand you! I work remotely for the last 10 or so years so I understand that. But you gave a good example, if a company wants to hire good talent in SF, as you said, it will be 400k. No amount of free sushi or bean bags will change your mind. So, pay is the reason you aren't there. No amount of 'like minded individuals' or whatnot will make you move.