41–50 of 86 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've lived in much worse growing up, I assure you. The point is that the bay area housing market is on one extreme and Detroit's is on the other.
Would you raise kids in that same environment if given the option?
Based on your question I think we have different core beliefs about what's important in raising a child.
I think many people would still rather make $55k in SF than $91k in detroit, even if these numbers weren't completely bogus
Work remotely, live in Budapest like a King.
If you were only earning the median salary, why on earth would you pay the median amount for an apartment? A much better metric would be where is the best place to live, assuming you're making significantly more than the median salary and living in an apartment with below average monthly rent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably wouldn't want to live in a neighborhood where a house costs $35k. I used to live in Philadelphia, the median house price was around $100k, but it was skewed by neighborhoods with high crime rates.
I've lived in much worse growing up, I assure you. The point is that the bay area housing market is on one extreme and Detroit's is on the other.
Good for you. That doesn't answer the question of why you would choose to do that now when you don't have to.
Anyone with industry knowledge can look at those median salary numbers and instantly tell that the data set is faulty.
For example, maybe an apartment in the Bay Area costs, say, 300% what it costs in a major mid-western city. Groceries are 150% more expensive and other necessities are equally as expensive. (All numbers made up for the sake of example)
After you pay for the things you need though, you move on to things you want. Investments in stocks and bonds still cost the same no matter where you live. Flights actually are often cheaper from major, HCOL cities. Mobile phones cost the same online no matter where you live.
So basically I don't know if the cost of living calculators properly scale with the incomes that SWE provides in certain markets (specifically the PNW).
Does this make sense? I'd be interested if anyone had more information about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've lived in much worse growing up, I assure you. The point is that the bay area housing market is on one extreme and Detroit's is on the other.
"I've lived in much worse growing up, I assure you." Good for you. That doesn't answer the question of why you would choose to do that now when you don't have to.
Is that particularly helpful here in this discussion?
> That doesn't answer the question of why you would choose to do that now when you don't have to.
Nor does it answer the question of why that dichotomy is being presented as the only option.
I presented what I found to be the median home price, a price unimaginable to the average SF resident. It's a comparison point to highlight the vast gulf between the two markets. It's not a declaration of intent to drop what I'm doing and move to a $35k home in Detroit without critical analysis.
This is bad. If your metric for best city for software engineers excludes from its top 10 not only SFBA but Seattle, New York, Austin, and Atlanta, your whole piece better be a prolonged and detailed explanation of how you concluded that metric was valid. I love Chicago and think we benefit in a lot of ways from running a tech company (mostly) from here, but there is no way Chicago is a better place to be a software…
If you're a "median" engineer, I would not recommend SFBA.