3 ms·

> The consensus seemed to be, that if you compared the cost of living, you would need a considerably higher income in the US to have the same standard of living

by yunohn 5y ago

> The consensus seemed to be, that if you compared the cost of living, you would need a considerably higher income in the US to have the same standard of living as the UK While this does have a partial truth to it, the examples are delusional. How can anyone compare 50k GBP to 130K USD? I have lived across the USA, EU, and Asia; but such comparisons are heavily personal situation dependant. The calculations would differ for single vs family as well.

jen20 5y ago
I’ve also lived in the UK and US, though did not work for a FAANG in the UK. By the exchange rate right now, 50k GBP is around 65k USD. If you want to live within (say) an hour reach of an office, you’ll have a much easier time doing that in the London metro area with 50k than you will in the Bay Area with 130k. This is before you even consider taxes and healthcare. High quality groceries also substantially cheaper in the UK. A new wildcard is the price of energy, which looks to have gone up considerably in the UK since I left, though. Neither would be a comfortable position, and you wouldn’t be in danger of being able to buy a house absent other income. All in all though, if they were my fixed options, I’d take the money in London.
- gpderetta 5y ago
  Anecdotally, 10 years ago, two people could rent and live comfortably in zone 1 (just a few minutes from work) with a salary of ~50k. A few salary bumps later we managed to buy a flat in zone 2. Prices of flats have gone up (but not as much as houses) and so has cost of living, but I would say that two people or even a family will live more than comfortably in London on ~100k, manage to save some money and even be able to buy a flat, given a reasonable deposit. Houses, even small ones, in zone 1-2 are now prohibitively expensive, but if you are willing to move further away there are options.
  - agiamas 5y ago
    not only there are options, but there is excellent transportation in London, especially compared to the driving hell because of the all day traffic all around Bay Area. Another parameter I don't see people mentioning (not surprisingly, since its HN after all) is the monoculture in Bay Area, versus living in one of the few global metropolis. In the Bay all you see and live is tech, in London tech is only a part of the overall life experience. But yeah, overall it's highly personal depending on personal circumstances than anything else.
    - gpderetta 5y ago
      Very much agree. Regarding transportation, I have been living here for 13 years and still don't own a car.
- yunohn 5y ago
  Like I said, it depends on your circumstances. If you /have/ to live in the center of a metropolitan, SFO and LHR are equally bad - I have friends in both areas. I still wouldn’t compare 50k GBP to 130k USD.

by yunohn 5y ago

jen20 5y ago

I’ve also lived in the UK and US, though did not work for a FAANG in the UK. By the exchange rate right now, 50k GBP is around 65k USD. If you want to live within (say) an hour reach of an office, you’ll have a much easier time doing that in the London metro area with 50k than you will in the Bay Area with 130k. This is before you even consider taxes and healthcare. High quality groceries also substantially cheaper in the UK. A new wildcard is the price of energy, which looks to have gone up considerably in the UK since I left, though. Neither would be a comfortable position, and you wouldn’t be in danger of being able to buy a house absent other income. All in all though, if they were my fixed options, I’d take the money in London.

gpderetta 5y ago
Anecdotally, 10 years ago, two people could rent and live comfortably in zone 1 (just a few minutes from work) with a salary of ~50k. A few salary bumps later we managed to buy a flat in zone 2. Prices of flats have gone up (but not as much as houses) and so has cost of living, but I would say that two people or even a family will live more than comfortably in London on ~100k, manage to save some money and even be able to buy a flat, given a reasonable deposit. Houses, even small ones, in zone 1-2 are now prohibitively expensive, but if you are willing to move further away there are options.
- agiamas 5y ago
  not only there are options, but there is excellent transportation in London, especially compared to the driving hell because of the all day traffic all around Bay Area. Another parameter I don't see people mentioning (not surprisingly, since its HN after all) is the monoculture in Bay Area, versus living in one of the few global metropolis. In the Bay all you see and live is tech, in London tech is only a part of the overall life experience. But yeah, overall it's highly personal depending on personal circumstances than anything else.
  - gpderetta 5y ago
    Very much agree. Regarding transportation, I have been living here for 13 years and still don't own a car.
yunohn 5y ago
Like I said, it depends on your circumstances. If you /have/ to live in the center of a metropolitan, SFO and LHR are equally bad - I have friends in both areas. I still wouldn’t compare 50k GBP to 130k USD.