I hate SF/SiValley. I would love nothing more than to go home, but I'm not about to take a paycut that's measured in multiples of the median Canadian salary.
Don't mean to pick at your comment, but it's something I've seen around lately and makes me wonder.
I'll grant that's higher than in some US states, but come over to Europe where VAT is usually 19-25%. Although at least in Europe prices are advertised including VAT, so no mental math is required to calculate how much it will end up costing.
That's a huge outlier, though. The average is 5%, and many states exempt huge swaths of goods (such as groceries) and some have no sales tax at all.
Groceries are exempt from GST/PST or HST in Canada as well.
With 1 USD = 65 INR, we're used to converting with cost of living and Purchasing power in mind.
Japan is a good example because people have an idea that it is a rich, expensive country.
Living in Japan with a Japanese lifestyle is not that expensive. I have many Japanese friends living in Tokyo for under $1.5-2k a month. They’re not living in luxury, but they quite enjoy their lives, travel every once in a while, etc. You won’t be doing that in SF (and Tokyo is a much more pleasant city than SF in more ways than one).
On the other hand, living an american lifestyle in Japan (big car, big house, eating lots of red meat, buying imported American goods, etc) is going to cost you a lot of money though.
Just normalize everything to a single currency; we can still talk about differences in cost of living. Sure, exchange rate fluctuations can be related to the cost of living, but it's not everything.
Thus for the casual observer it look like the difference is in the exchange rate---not in the prices.
This is an honest question - is it worth living somewhere you "hate" for increased pay? Why not take less money and live in place that would make you happy?
Here is an example. Would you accept 100 million dollars to work in Saudia Arabia for a year? I probably would. I'd do it for a year, and then retire.
People do lots of things where they are exchanging happiness now, for happiness in the future.
For him, it means that he can save up a whole bunch of money, and then retire 20 years earlier at the least.
No, not everyone has a price for which they are willing to exchange their happiness for.
I also completely disagree that everyone "should" have a price they are willing to exchange their happiness for. It's strikes me as quite odd that you choose to pronounce these things(your opinions) as universal and absolute truths.
There are many people who work jobs that offer them happiness at the expense of lower pay. Artists, teachers, journalists, social service workers are all examples of this. I recently met some Americans and Britons who were working in tech in Berlin. Even though they could make a better salary back home they chose Berlin because the quality of life there makes them happier. So no, not "everybody" has a price.
>"Here is an example. Would you accept 100 million dollars to work in Saudia Arabia for a year?"
This is a total straw man. The OP actually stated that they were able to triple their salary by working in SV/SF. How is that at all comparable with being able to retire as one of the most wealthy people on the planet after 1 year? You are comparing a possible practical reality with a fantasy.
Also along with tripling one's salary by working in SV/SF comes a higher tax bracket and probably triple what you would pay in rent in the most expensive Canadian tech hub. It's not very realistic to think that you are going to retire 20 years earlier on just a SF/SV salary, not even close.
It is not about trading happiness for money. It is about trading a small amount of happiness NOW for a large amount of happiness later or a large amount of ability to achieve your goals.
If you are a teacher/Journalist/artist who wants the world to be more educated, more informed, or more artistically enriched, you are universally better able to achieve those goals with 100 million dollars in the bank.
So yes. Everyone SHOULD have a price. Maybe that price is 100 million dollars. Maybe it is 10 thousand. But a price is a price.
But back to the actual question at hand. Yes, i do believe that tripling your salary could lead to you retiring 20 years earlier.
It is simple math, really. Even with the increase in taxes, you will have about double at least the total amount of take home pay. And if you have a ~40 year work life, but take home twice as much money after taxes, that means you only have to work ~20 years to make the same amount of after taxes income.
Call it 15 years to be more conservative. But the numbers are close.
Are you just trolling then?
The "what if someone offered you 100 million dollars?" game is a game that children play. Your insistence on repeatedly interjecting this bit of childishness is just bizarre. The context of the discussion and the OPs comment is working as a salaried employee.
There was was never any question of a job "liked moderately less." The OP said quite unequivocally that they "hate" living where they live. Hate is a pretty strong emotion, it does not describe a state of being moderately less happy.
At that point one starts hating low pay and need to move somewhere with high pay if possible.
Many of the devs worth their dime in Vancouver end up remote working when they get to the Sr. level. Get paid in USD, and for 25-30% more in a stronger currency. Works out to almost 60% more?! also if you aren't a city person you can then move to one of the gulf islands.
I know a few vancouverites who live in Vancouver, who are working for Texas based companies, no local office in the country
They are paid in USD.
When the cdn dollar tanked against usd after being on par, it was like a 30-40% raise for them in cdn just cause of the exchange rate
Its very hard to attract workers when the salaries just cant compare.