[ivraatiems]

I'm telling them that cost-of-living is a valuable consideration when deciding on a job offer in a different city. They suggested that it wasn't (or maybe misunderstood what I was saying).

I'm not disrespecting their particular experience; it's awesome that their move worked in their favor. But I have interviewed for jobs in cities like SF and I have crunched the numbers on their salaries and so I have direct experience, too. Neither of our stories on their own are proof, they're just anecdotes; cost-of-living calculations are the result of lots of hard data.

[perspectivep]

Say you're making $60k with $40k in expenses. Saving $20k.

You move and now make $120k and your expenses double to $80k. You're saving $40k; twice as much. But in reality, not all of your expenses increase that much, and the other benefits (bonuses, matching, raises, interest, etc.) are % based, so the discrepancy increases quickly.

[tcoppi]

Taxes are also percentage based, and progressive at that. Your effective tax rate at $120k is quite a bit higher than at $60k, so you won't be saving double in that scenario because more of it will be going to taxes. Also, the percentage increase of 401k contributions etc. is very easy to calculate out to a dollar value, I recommend everyone do that when comparing salaries(though you have to remember not to consider taxes for those).

I find the idea of overall expenses only doubling for a family moving from OK or MI to a place like Seattle somewhat silly. The vast majority of household budget's largest expense by far is housing. If they want to downgrade their standard of living from a 3-4 br 2000+sq feet house, then maybe it will only double. Otherwise it could easily triple or quadruple, as the original article discusses and evidence for is easily found. Salaries are not 3-4x larger in high CoL areas generally. The difference is pretty stark even starting from an area like Metro DC/Baltimore that isn't exactly known for being cheap, but nowhere near SF, Seattle, NYC or Boston levels.

[majormajor]

I can tell you personally that going TX -> CA 60k->120k I was able to save way more money (in the five figures a year range) despite taxes and despite housing costs in a way that the naive "online cost of living calculators" wouldn't tell you about.

Yes, the square footage of my apartment went way down. Pretty much everyone out here lives in less space, generally it's less a "standard of living" thing than a "that's the norm" thing, but obviously if you really need 2K sqft you're going to want to evaluate things separately.

[tcoppi]

> Yes, the square footage of my apartment went way down. Pretty much everyone out here lives in less space, generally it's less a "standard of living" thing than a "that's the norm" thing

I see you've gotten Stockholm Syndrome already :) But yes, it is definitely an individual-situation type of thing for sure. I'm merely responding to the blanket assertion that just because you ~double your salary in a ~2x CoL area you are always coming out ahead. As you say there are assumptions built into calculators that you personally have to decide how to value, and how you value things like a good commute, schools, and a backyard can change over time as well.

[plandis]

It's funny you mention taxes. WAs no income tax is an added bonus. I also came from the Midwest and it was a nice perk.