3 ms·
My thinking is that a good job with pay appropriate to the area is better in a high-cost area than in a low-cost area. The reason being is that part of your pa
by Amadou 13y ago
My thinking is that a good job with pay appropriate to the area is better in a high-cost area than in a low-cost area. The reason being is that part of your pay goes towards housing which eventually means a mortgage.
Once you decide to retire you can cash out that mortgage. A modest house in the bay area is still a million dollar house. A modest house in vegas is a $200K house. $1M in hand gives you a lot more flexibility than $200K.
- rdl 13y agoAlso, an iPod or other globally-priced goods are cheap in high-cost high-wage areas, expensive in low-cost low-wage areas. Student loans, etc. are like iPods. I think the ideal is to work in a high-wage high-cost area early on your career, to build up a high salary history and cover some of your fixed costs (student loans, etc.), while not incurring large recurring high costs (buying a house). Then, relocate to a low-cost low-wage area while working remotely for a high percentage of your original salary. A $150k/yr Silicon Valley salary that became $110k/yr to telecommute from a low-cost, low-tax, low-wage area would be awesome buying power. A lot of people do this with fixed retirement income (pensions, or even social security) -- retire to a low cost area.