3 ms·

I’ve wondered, for the Average Joe, if that was the case (is it?) Anecdotally, I’m used to getting recruiters for Bay Area firms reaching out for, say, a 50k j

I’ve wondered, for the Average Joe, if that was the case (is it?) Anecdotally, I’m used to getting recruiters for Bay Area firms reaching out for, say, a 50k jump in compensation. On paper that’s a great deal more but rents always seemed exorbitant for a simple 1 bedroom such that I never bothered contemplating these pitches. It seemed like my quality of life would remain or lessen (cheap, small city) to (expensive, large city) with most of my increased income being sucked up by landlords, increased taxation, and (presumed) higher cost of goods. So, for the typical guy working at an off-brand company, not making 300k+ at FAANG was SF ever really worth the move?

zhivota 3y ago
For a long time it really was. The cost of living increases didn't eat up all the salary increases. I think even today it might still be the case, if you consider all of total comp (base, bonus, and stock), but not quite like they heyday of the last 10 years or so, when FAANG stock appreciation was so high that the stock award alone made it worthwhile. If it's anywhere close to flat, as in all the extra wages are eaten up by cost of living increases (pretty easy to price this out with Zillow + tax calculator + nomadlist for daily expenses), it's not worth it IMO, because what you're doing is adding risk to your situation. What I mean by that is a lower cost of living is just less risky, because if you ever lose your job or need to go without work for some other reason (like when I needed to go home and help my parents for a while a few years back), lower fixed expenses make that easier.