5 ms·

Maybe take every number in this article and divide it by 2.7 Cost of living in San Francisco is roughly 270% of the national average.

centimeter 6y ago
Most people don’t spend 100% of their income on CoL. If you make $150k in SF, you have more surplus than if you make $50k in Madison (unless you really suck at budgeting).
- throwaway1777 6y ago
  That’s true over a certain amount. But 50k and a 200k mortgage will get you a lot more in Madison than 150k and a 600k mortgage in SF.
  - defnotashton2 6y ago
    You don't get to expect a mortgage in the city.. It's a city.
    - oarsinsync 6y ago
      So you don’t get to adjust based on CoL, because you don’t spend all your money and have more disposable income. You don’t get to compare on housing, because you live in a city. So meanwhile city dwellers have more disposable income, who continue to dispose of more income on rent, while their counterparts outside the city get to invest their money in their own property, which they can later sell for a fat return, while continuing to begrudge city dwellers for making a few more bucks in disposable income in the short term? Living in a city has its upsides and downsides. One of the upsides is higher pay. One of the downsides is pissing away lots of that higher pay paying someone else’s mortgage instead of your own.
      - imtringued 6y ago
        Yeah, the truth is that no matter what lifestyle you choose, you'll have to give up something in the process. "City dwellers" get more money but live in smaller housing. "Town dwellers" get less money but live in bigger housing. However, one thing is certain. Once you have children you'll need bigger housing. A lot of hyper competitive cities aren't very welcoming to families.
- cameldrv 6y ago
  The starting salary for a Madison cop is $52k. SF is $89k. That's $3k more per month, before tax. The mortgage on a 3 bedroom house in Madison is $1400. In San Francisco, it's $7500. You'd be spending more on a mortgage payment than your take home pay.
  - dionidium 6y ago
    The problem with this kind of comparison is that it attempts to compare like-for-like housing (and transportation) arrangements, when obviously people in San Francisco have different living arrangements than people in Madison. When I moved from St. Louis to NYC I didn't expect to live in exactly the same kind of arrangements and it would have been absurd to calculate my cost of living based on the assumption that I would. And, yet, that's what most COL calculators try to do, rendering them practically useless.
    - cameldrv 6y ago
      But why do they have different living arrangements? Because SF/NYC is more expensive, i.e. the cost of living is higher. Perhaps you value other things like having access to cultural activities, etc, but if you want the same material standard of living, it's much more expensive in these cities.
      - dionidium 6y ago
        One does not have the "same material standard of living" in identical houses independent of where the houses are located. That's why the costs are different in the first place. You're imagining that the real estate can be valued in the abstract, independent of its location. But it can't. If you have two identical houses, one in Manhattan and one in suburban Arizona, the one in Manhattan represents a vastly higher material standard of living.

centimeter 6y ago

Most people don’t spend 100% of their income on CoL. If you make $150k in SF, you have more surplus than if you make $50k in Madison (unless you really suck at budgeting).

throwaway1777 6y ago
That’s true over a certain amount. But 50k and a 200k mortgage will get you a lot more in Madison than 150k and a 600k mortgage in SF.
- defnotashton2 6y ago
  You don't get to expect a mortgage in the city.. It's a city.
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    So you don’t get to adjust based on CoL, because you don’t spend all your money and have more disposable income. You don’t get to compare on housing, because you live in a city. So meanwhile city dwellers have more disposable income, who continue to dispose of more income on rent, while their counterparts outside the city get to invest their money in their own property, which they can later sell for a fat return, while continuing to begrudge city dwellers for making a few more bucks in disposable income in the short term? Living in a city has its upsides and downsides. One of the upsides is higher pay. One of the downsides is pissing away lots of that higher pay paying someone else’s mortgage instead of your own.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      Yeah, the truth is that no matter what lifestyle you choose, you'll have to give up something in the process. "City dwellers" get more money but live in smaller housing. "Town dwellers" get less money but live in bigger housing. However, one thing is certain. Once you have children you'll need bigger housing. A lot of hyper competitive cities aren't very welcoming to families.
cameldrv 6y ago
The starting salary for a Madison cop is $52k. SF is $89k. That's $3k more per month, before tax. The mortgage on a 3 bedroom house in Madison is $1400. In San Francisco, it's $7500. You'd be spending more on a mortgage payment than your take home pay.
- dionidium 6y ago
  The problem with this kind of comparison is that it attempts to compare like-for-like housing (and transportation) arrangements, when obviously people in San Francisco have different living arrangements than people in Madison. When I moved from St. Louis to NYC I didn't expect to live in exactly the same kind of arrangements and it would have been absurd to calculate my cost of living based on the assumption that I would. And, yet, that's what most COL calculators try to do, rendering them practically useless.
  - cameldrv 6y ago
    But why do they have different living arrangements? Because SF/NYC is more expensive, i.e. the cost of living is higher. Perhaps you value other things like having access to cultural activities, etc, but if you want the same material standard of living, it's much more expensive in these cities.
    - dionidium 6y ago
      One does not have the "same material standard of living" in identical houses independent of where the houses are located. That's why the costs are different in the first place. You're imagining that the real estate can be valued in the abstract, independent of its location. But it can't. If you have two identical houses, one in Manhattan and one in suburban Arizona, the one in Manhattan represents a vastly higher material standard of living.