A lot of things can and probably will be said about this, but I think this comparison and bald-faced promotion of Atlanta is deceiving. My biggest beef is the u

A lot of things can and probably will be said about this, but I think this comparison and bald-faced promotion of Atlanta is deceiving. My biggest beef is the use of numbers in a way that is annoying and frustrating (as a student of statistics). A few illustrative points by way of comparison to Seattle: 1. Seattle's tech scene is much larger than Atlanta's. Atlanta might have a top heavy average salary, but I guarantee that the upper bound is much higher in Seattle. 2. Comparing cost of living so directly and broadly applying it as a corrective factor to salary is misleading and useless for a number of reasons. For example, I doubt many people could get by in Atlanta without a car (without some serious effort). Conversely it is quite easy to live a carless or car-diminished life in Seattle. 3. Combining my previous two points: Upper bounds are important. At some point adjusting salary with cost of living conversions doesn't make sense. It is totally dependent on the individual concerned, but if somebody makes 107k in Seattle, that isn't necessarily the equivalent of 84k in Atlanta at some point you start to cover the basic cost of living and whatever you make above that is excess. It's probably a little higher than 100k for people with families, but probably not by much.