3 ms·

The cost of living in a city reflects its overall desirability: the job market, access to education, safety, and so on. If you're living in an amazing city wher

The cost of living in a city reflects its overall desirability: the job market, access to education, safety, and so on. If you're living in an amazing city where you have every amenity at your doorstep but a much higher cost of living -- then you should eat those costs in the same way you would moving to a better apartment. Conversely, why should someone in a --worse-- location have their salary --reduced-- to reflect the same ratios when they're not gaining the benefits of living in the more desirable location? If I suddenly started living in a tent or sleeping on a park bench should my salary also be reduced to reflect the lack of rent and utilities I'm paying? What if I change my diet so I'm only living on rice and cans of beans? I could reduce my 'cost of living' there too. Better not pitch these ideas to VMWare. They might sell it as 'minimalism' and list it as a benefit.

yoav 6y ago
Cost of living is not personal to a person it’s an average to get basics of food cost and housing in an area. Not everyone has the privilege to just move whenever they want. To use your example: if you got paid a Montana salary and already lived in SF and had ties where you were unable to move cities you would be forced to move into a tent because that’s what you would be able to afford. (I’m just using Montana and tent as examples I’m not checking actual figures for this analogy) Adjusting salaries based on cost of living is making sure that people are not forced to move to a different city in order to afford the same size apartment and amount of food. Your outlook makes dollar amount equitable, but a dollar is only useful when you try to spend it on something. That same tent and rice costs 10x more in one place vs another place. COL based salary adjustment makes the purchasing power equitable. The real output of the dollar you’re given. Which is more equitable in my opinion. I was once asked to move to SF for a job and given a 20% bump compared to Toronto salaries so I could afford it. The same apartment actually costs 4x in sf so I’m paying 2x for half the space here. If I hadn’t had my pay adjusted for cost of living I’d struggle to pay rent here and my visa requires that I live within 75 miles of the city for 6 years.
- vecinu 6y ago
  > I was once asked to move to SF for a job and given a 20% bump compared to Toronto salaries so I could afford it Just to dwell on this point for a bit, I think your offer was not equitable. When I was offered to leave the GTA for SF I received a 50% pay bump with the knowledge that it would be closer to 200% in a few years. Fast forward 1.5 years and that's exactly what happened. A few years later and the pay bump was closer to 300% and I'm happy it worked out the way I imagined, otherwise like you said, it would not have been worth it.

yoav 6y ago

Cost of living is not personal to a person it’s an average to get basics of food cost and housing in an area. Not everyone has the privilege to just move whenever they want. To use your example: if you got paid a Montana salary and already lived in SF and had ties where you were unable to move cities you would be forced to move into a tent because that’s what you would be able to afford. (I’m just using Montana and tent as examples I’m not checking actual figures for this analogy) Adjusting salaries based on cost of living is making sure that people are not forced to move to a different city in order to afford the same size apartment and amount of food. Your outlook makes dollar amount equitable, but a dollar is only useful when you try to spend it on something. That same tent and rice costs 10x more in one place vs another place. COL based salary adjustment makes the purchasing power equitable. The real output of the dollar you’re given. Which is more equitable in my opinion. I was once asked to move to SF for a job and given a 20% bump compared to Toronto salaries so I could afford it. The same apartment actually costs 4x in sf so I’m paying 2x for half the space here. If I hadn’t had my pay adjusted for cost of living I’d struggle to pay rent here and my visa requires that I live within 75 miles of the city for 6 years.

vecinu 6y ago
> I was once asked to move to SF for a job and given a 20% bump compared to Toronto salaries so I could afford it Just to dwell on this point for a bit, I think your offer was not equitable. When I was offered to leave the GTA for SF I received a 50% pay bump with the knowledge that it would be closer to 200% in a few years. Fast forward 1.5 years and that's exactly what happened. A few years later and the pay bump was closer to 300% and I'm happy it worked out the way I imagined, otherwise like you said, it would not have been worth it.