Is making less money in a cheaper area REALLY the equivalent to making more money in a more expensive one?

[BrothaZay]

I know it’s popular narrative but is there any actual research behind it?

Do ppl who take 20,000+ pay cuts in cheaper areas really end up with the same amount of discretionary income than ppl in more expensive cities ?

 

[Yinny]

Yes, they’re called cost of living indexes and employers use it all the time to vary salaries by region/city for the same role.

And it’s not “same amount” it’s a relative metric. And which is better is an opinion and preference of the individual.

 

[BrothaZay]

Yes, they’re called cost of living indexes and employers use it all the time to vary salaries by region/city for the same role.

And it’s not “same amount” it’s a relative metric. And which is better is an opinion and preference of the individual.

Answer the question

 

[acri1]

Yes. If your rent is $1000 in one area and $3000 somewhere else, that extra 2K is certainly going to make a difference.

 

[Thavoiceofthevoiceless]

As someone who moved from one state to another over $20K I definitely miss the cheaper living. I make more money, but the rent difference is brutal and it's essentially the same apartment as I was living in before.

 

[voiture]

I refuse to accept that cost of living narrative employers try to pull to lowball.
If a job brings some value to the company, pay me the market value regardless of where I live. You must demand that

 

[At30wecashout]

Now folks are just talking about raw wages. Those lower wages usually also comes with worse infrastructure and services. Expensive ass cities usually come packed with a bunch of stuff. Offhand for Chicago:

-Free events all over the city year round. Summer is popping with them now.
-Hospitals are everywhere.
-Public transport is plentiful
-Arts and culture is funded and plentiful
-Well-manicured public parks everywhere

I can think of more but where the money is, the services typically scale up as well.

 

[Turbulent]

I'd rather make more in the more expensive city because mathematically, it might come up to the same but i would argue the more expensive city is probably also more vibrant

 

[UWasntThere]

Yes and no. Living expenses are definitely more in the city but the cost is goods is a set price.

A pair of sneakers ect costs the same in NYC as it does in Ohio so you end up ahead

 

[Uitomy]

Personally, unless you have the kind of job you can work in many locations, like being a construction worker (or more specifically a blue collar tradesman) or something like a doctor n such, then I'd say no most of the time. I'm a photographer that doesn't specialize in weddings, mostly corporate stuff and events. So I gotta be around a semi-expensive to expensive place to get the volume of clientele I need to sustain myself and my family. I don't think I could do what I do now in Florida in a state like Mississippi or South Carolina, or even Louisiana outside of the capital metros

 

[skokiaan]

Quality of life. Cost dont matter.

 

[Geek Nasty]

Completely depends on how the numbers work out. Quality of life, how much will you have left over each paycheck, retirement saving, etc. friend of mine moved to SF from KC for a better job and it kind of balanced out.

But its situational to me.

 

[Red11]

Yes and no. Living expenses are definitely more in the city but the cost is goods is a set price.

A pair of sneakers ect costs the same in NYC as it does in Ohio so you end up ahead

Rent in OHIO is like 1/3 that of NYC so unless they are paying you 3x more its not a wash. Housing is folks most expensive expense. Especially, since SAVINGS/RETIREMENT are the same everywhere.