2 ms·

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 i

by 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.

by wheels 6y ago

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.