I think many people would still rather make $55k in SF than $91k in detroit, even if these numbers weren't completely bogus
I don't have to google San Francisco to tell you that you'd be lucky to afford to rent with three roommates on $55k in San Francisco.
I get where you're coming from in terms of crime and such, but cost of living is a major part of choosing where to live and on that front there's no question.
The point is that the bay area housing market is on one extreme and Detroit's is on the other.
Based on your question I think we have different core beliefs about what's important in raising a child.
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.
It's as helpful as you saying that you've lived in worse conditions in the past.
Generally, here’s what I’ve seen gets you equivalent size/convenience/safety:
1m in NY
500k in DC
300k in Philly
150k in Pittsburgh.
I would absolutely believe you could find something nice for 5 figures in Detroit.
Most tech people do not choose SF at $55k. That's all I'm saying.
And where exactly are you going to live for $55K in the Bay Area? At least in Detroit you don't have to commute that far to live somewhere that's quite nice, and even own a house.