The difference housing cost as a percentage of the small tech city salary is an irrelevant statistic.
The relevant statistic to compare is actual housing cost vs actual compensation in both types of places. For many types of tech jobs, the number still favors big cities, if not in percentage terms, then in absolute numbers.
And when it comes down to a real life decision, there are plenty of other factors (financial or otherwise) besides that one statistic.
$12000 doesn't mean the same thing when you consider the cost of living difference between the urban and rural areas.
$12k goes way farther towards purchasing goods and services in the rural area, so naturally it seems like an awful lot of money there, but it purchases far fewer goods and services in a big city. This is similar to how household incomes between different countries aren't directly comparable until you adjust for Purchasing Power Parity [1].
That doesn't mean that all big city dwellers are better off. Some undoubtedly are, and some are definitely not.
> I'm arguing that "only $12,000" is dismissive of how impactful a difference that makes to the lives of people who don't live in a big city.
But the $12k in question isn't a fungible $12k. It's specifically the difference in housing costs between urban and rural in the example given earlier.
If the point is that many people in rural areas are economically struggling, then yes we agree, just as many poorer urban dwellers are (and to whom a random $12k received would also be hugely impactful), but that has nothing to do with example proposed.
I don't understand. Is your entire point in this discussion to somehow justify talking down to other people?
> If the point is that many people in rural areas are economically struggling, then yes we agree, just as many poorer urban dwellers are (and to whom a random $12k received would also be hugely impactful), but that has nothing to do with example proposed.
My point was that the OP's use of the phrase "only $12,000" is offensive, classist language in the context it was written in. That point is unrelated to the rest of the discussion.
I don't get why anyone would want to double down on defending this language, especially since you weren't the person who used it. But here we are.
> I don't understand. Is your entire point in this discussion to somehow justify talking down to other people?
> My point was that the OP's use of the phrase "only $12,000" is offensive, classist language
OP wasn't talking down. They used "only" to compare the difference in housing cost to the much higher difference in wages between rural and urban areas, as in $12K housing cost increase < $40k salary increase, not to imply that $12K is inconsequential in an absolute sense.
$12K out of most people's pockets is a lot of money (including if it were out of mine), but the OP wasn't implying that it isn't.
They were making a simple observation that:
big city salary - big city housing costs > rural salary - rural housing costs
Looks like they even responded below stating precisely that.
There's real classism out there, often expressed across the rural/urban divide, but this isn't an example of it.
I didn't mean it like that - I meant that if you're making $100k in a suburb somewhere in a flyover state, you would probably make $140k (for instance) in a place with a higher rent but it woul;dn't really matter to your bottom line
But also: Everyone has higher rents, not just you. This will generally be reflected in the cost of living (i.e. not just for your rent will go up, but so will other expenses).
It's not trivial to do this calculation. Some things will surprise you:
You can get cheaper electricity bills in Seattle than where I live (Naples, FL), but you don't need air conditioning in Seattle. Living in Florida without AC is ill-advised.
I want to downvote you for your ridiculous show of privilege in that statement but won't since that's not what downvotes are for. $12,000 a year is a lot of money, especially when added up over time. The US median income is just over $61,000, meaning "only" $12,000 represents 20%. That's just crazy to consider that a small amount.
I think you missed the point. The point is that compensation in the Bay is much much more than $12k/year higher than other low-COL cities, and therefore the trade-off is worth it.
