4 ms·

Part of it are; parts of it definitely are not.

by robhunter 6y ago

iKevinShah 6y ago
Curious as an outsider, which parts are not?
- wheels 6y ago
  The middle part. It's a little more complicated than that, but mostly, away from the coasts and famous cities (Chicago, Austin, etc.), most of middle America is pretty cheap -- by American standards. It's still a lot more expensive than most of the world, obviously. But there are lots of places you could live reasonably comfortably for 2-3 years on $125k. Hell, there are a lot of places you could buy a house for $80k, and $45k buys a lot of food and internet. ;-)
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    I can live at my current spending level in the Bay Area for 3-ish years on $125k. In my small, Midwest hometown, I’m sure I could stretch that to 6-8 years. The disadvantage, of course, would be living in a podunk town in the middle of nowhere.
    - devoutsalsa 6y ago
      Is that living in a shoebox? Eating comfortably? Raising a family? Having any fun?
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        That’s living in a 2BR apartment by myself, eating well, and having a bit of fun here and there.
        throwawaygh 6y ago
        Maybe the confusion is net vs gross? Just a 2BR and food for 3 years = close to impossible on $125K gross. But it is very much possible on $125K net. NB: you're right, in the sense that if you're living off of savings it's net (and then some). But I can see why parent is... more than a little confused :)
      - kcorbitt 6y ago
        As another datapoint, my family of 4 has lived in the Bay Area for the last 4 years on an average budget of $62k. Rent is extremely expensive (60% of our total spend), but everything else can be had quite cheaply. It's true that we're more likely to spend the weekend camping in the Santa Cruz mountains than flying down to Disneyland, and prefer a charcoal barbecue at the park to dining in a restaurant downtown. Honestly though, that's how I'd spend my time even if the alternative were free. And we also take at least one international vacation each year -- even during COVID, we spent a month in the Mexican Riviera. My salary could support a much looser budget, but we find our life very fulfilling as-is and don't see a compelling reason to spend more. Different way of seeing the world I guess.
- coder543 6y ago
  I just played around with this tool some, and it seems to paint a reasonably accurate picture: https://howmuch.net/cost-of-living/ny/new-york https://howmuch.net/cost-of-living/ny/new-york In general, the more rural an area is, the lower the cost of living. Rural college towns are more likely to have an abundance of cheap apartments than the average rural area. However, it's all highly relative. San Francisco and NYC are the two most expensive locations in the United States. By comparison, everywhere else is cheaper. Lots of major US metro areas are extremely affordable by comparison, and $120k could probably last a frugal person for 2 or 3 years near those locations especially if living with roommates... so you don't have to live in the middle of nowhere to be somewhere affordable. Compared to a lot of places outside the US, even the affordable parts of the US probably seem expensive, but my limited understanding is that most of Western Europe is relatively expensive... so probably not too different from the US in many places, but definitely outside my area of expertise.
- hctaw 6y ago
  The places with higher supply of housing or land and lower demand. To be less snarky, about 80% of Americans live in urban or suburban areas. Those tend to be more expensive due to the higher demand. The other 20% live in rural or exurban areas where land is extremely cheap. However, access to education and healthcare outside the urban/suburban regions can be very bad.

Part of it are; parts of it definitely are not.

iKevinShah 6y ago

Curious as an outsider, which parts are not?

wheels 6y ago
The middle part. It's a little more complicated than that, but mostly, away from the coasts and famous cities (Chicago, Austin, etc.), most of middle America is pretty cheap -- by American standards. It's still a lot more expensive than most of the world, obviously. But there are lots of places you could live reasonably comfortably for 2-3 years on $125k. Hell, there are a lot of places you could buy a house for $80k, and $45k buys a lot of food and internet. ;-)
- pmiller2 6y ago
  I can live at my current spending level in the Bay Area for 3-ish years on $125k. In my small, Midwest hometown, I’m sure I could stretch that to 6-8 years. The disadvantage, of course, would be living in a podunk town in the middle of nowhere.
  - devoutsalsa 6y ago
    Is that living in a shoebox? Eating comfortably? Raising a family? Having any fun?
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      That’s living in a 2BR apartment by myself, eating well, and having a bit of fun here and there.
      - throwawaygh 6y ago
        Maybe the confusion is net vs gross? Just a 2BR and food for 3 years = close to impossible on $125K gross. But it is very much possible on $125K net. NB: you're right, in the sense that if you're living off of savings it's net (and then some). But I can see why parent is... more than a little confused :)
    - kcorbitt 6y ago
      As another datapoint, my family of 4 has lived in the Bay Area for the last 4 years on an average budget of $62k. Rent is extremely expensive (60% of our total spend), but everything else can be had quite cheaply. It's true that we're more likely to spend the weekend camping in the Santa Cruz mountains than flying down to Disneyland, and prefer a charcoal barbecue at the park to dining in a restaurant downtown. Honestly though, that's how I'd spend my time even if the alternative were free. And we also take at least one international vacation each year -- even during COVID, we spent a month in the Mexican Riviera. My salary could support a much looser budget, but we find our life very fulfilling as-is and don't see a compelling reason to spend more. Different way of seeing the world I guess.
coder543 6y ago
I just played around with this tool some, and it seems to paint a reasonably accurate picture: https://howmuch.net/cost-of-living/ny/new-york https://howmuch.net/cost-of-living/ny/new-york In general, the more rural an area is, the lower the cost of living. Rural college towns are more likely to have an abundance of cheap apartments than the average rural area. However, it's all highly relative. San Francisco and NYC are the two most expensive locations in the United States. By comparison, everywhere else is cheaper. Lots of major US metro areas are extremely affordable by comparison, and $120k could probably last a frugal person for 2 or 3 years near those locations especially if living with roommates... so you don't have to live in the middle of nowhere to be somewhere affordable. Compared to a lot of places outside the US, even the affordable parts of the US probably seem expensive, but my limited understanding is that most of Western Europe is relatively expensive... so probably not too different from the US in many places, but definitely outside my area of expertise.
hctaw 6y ago
The places with higher supply of housing or land and lower demand. To be less snarky, about 80% of Americans live in urban or suburban areas. Those tend to be more expensive due to the higher demand. The other 20% live in rural or exurban areas where land is extremely cheap. However, access to education and healthcare outside the urban/suburban regions can be very bad.