3 ms·

I live in an above average COL area, but I would have to pay atleast 6x to have a similar sized home if I were to live within commuting distance from Manhattan

by gtop3 4y ago

I live in an above average COL area, but I would have to pay atleast 6x to have a similar sized home if I were to live within commuting distance from Manhattan or SF/Palo Alto. Not to mention the other expenses that would rise, with increased tax liability being about as significant as the child care number presented in the article. Those of us that left the cities had the opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of dollars since 03/20. I'll look into commuting if the compensation exceeds the savings.

paulcole 4y ago
Then don’t look for a similar size home? Look for one that’s much smaller and fits your budget. Or don’t. I also live in an above average COL area and rent the smallest apartment I could find for a monthly rent of about 1/750th the cost of the single family homes next door. Unless you’re hella wealthy you can’t live in an expensive city and expect the same housing arrangement you’d get in the suburbs. The trade offs are worth it for some people and aren’t for others.
- foogazi 4y ago
  > Then don’t look for a similar size home? Why not ? the employer gets the full 40 hours
  - paulcole 4y ago
    I’m really struggling how what your employer “gets” has to do with this. Regardless, my point is that anyone who says, “I’d have to pay 6x as much for the same house near Manhattan as in Iowa” has a truly unrealistic view of living near Manhattan. You make do with less space than you’d “like” and get the benefits of living near Manhattan. If that tradeoff isn’t appealing to you, keep the remote job and stay in Iowa.
    - gtop3 4y ago
      Moving to a central office location has real costs associated with it. If I were to live near Manhattan or SV I could spend 6x and get comparative housing, or I spend 2x and live somewhere smaller but adequate. I am in a position that I could do either of those things. I don't want to, because I think it's a bad use of my money. I understand the city has benefits. Been there, done that. I don't have an unrealistic view, I just have preferences, and a detailed understanding how different markets meet my preferences.
      - paulcole 4y ago
        I’m not sure if you think you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me here. I’m saying that it’s unrealistic to expect to pay $X in Manhattan and $X in Iowa and to get identical living arrangements. That’s it. If your employer is located in Manhattan and requires in-office work, your employer doesn’t care that you can’t afford the McMansion of your dreams in Midtown. You just need to make a choice that is realistic: move and get a smaller place and commute to the office or find a remote job and stay in Iowa.
    - foogazi 4y ago
      Work is a trade of my time for money My employer gets the same time in both locations, but in one I get a big house and the other one I get “the smallest apartment available” and ride the subway
      - paulcole 4y ago
        Right and a big house isn’t a benefit to everyone and riding the subway isn’t the burn you think it is to everyone. If you want to trade your time for money at a job that requires in-office work in Manhattan, either hope that job pays a ton of money so you can get a big place, accept a smaller place, or find a new job.

by gtop3 4y ago

paulcole 4y ago

Then don’t look for a similar size home? Look for one that’s much smaller and fits your budget. Or don’t. I also live in an above average COL area and rent the smallest apartment I could find for a monthly rent of about 1/750th the cost of the single family homes next door. Unless you’re hella wealthy you can’t live in an expensive city and expect the same housing arrangement you’d get in the suburbs. The trade offs are worth it for some people and aren’t for others.

foogazi 4y ago
> Then don’t look for a similar size home? Why not ? the employer gets the full 40 hours
- paulcole 4y ago
  I’m really struggling how what your employer “gets” has to do with this. Regardless, my point is that anyone who says, “I’d have to pay 6x as much for the same house near Manhattan as in Iowa” has a truly unrealistic view of living near Manhattan. You make do with less space than you’d “like” and get the benefits of living near Manhattan. If that tradeoff isn’t appealing to you, keep the remote job and stay in Iowa.
  - gtop3 4y ago
    Moving to a central office location has real costs associated with it. If I were to live near Manhattan or SV I could spend 6x and get comparative housing, or I spend 2x and live somewhere smaller but adequate. I am in a position that I could do either of those things. I don't want to, because I think it's a bad use of my money. I understand the city has benefits. Been there, done that. I don't have an unrealistic view, I just have preferences, and a detailed understanding how different markets meet my preferences.
    - paulcole 4y ago
      I’m not sure if you think you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me here. I’m saying that it’s unrealistic to expect to pay $X in Manhattan and $X in Iowa and to get identical living arrangements. That’s it. If your employer is located in Manhattan and requires in-office work, your employer doesn’t care that you can’t afford the McMansion of your dreams in Midtown. You just need to make a choice that is realistic: move and get a smaller place and commute to the office or find a remote job and stay in Iowa.
  - foogazi 4y ago
    Work is a trade of my time for money My employer gets the same time in both locations, but in one I get a big house and the other one I get “the smallest apartment available” and ride the subway
    - paulcole 4y ago
      Right and a big house isn’t a benefit to everyone and riding the subway isn’t the burn you think it is to everyone. If you want to trade your time for money at a job that requires in-office work in Manhattan, either hope that job pays a ton of money so you can get a big place, accept a smaller place, or find a new job.