Even if housing is 20% of your income in both HCOL and LCOL and it seems completely ridiculous to pay $500k * 20% and not ridiculous to pay $150k * 20%, you can still by more cars, phones, etc. with your remaining $500k * 80%.
This is ignoring the cost of consumables like food, etc. But I believe the same argument applies.
In the states of course. That logic no longer applies in Singapore.
But yes, many expenses are fixed across the country; they might even be cheaper in high COL areas (international travel, foreign food). So 100k in mobile Alabama isn’t 200k in SF. Once you get over your housing differential, everything else is much more mellow.
150k/500k were numbers I pulled out of the air for "well compensated engineers" in L/HCOL. I absolutely agree that people who are not well compensated are fucked. But the thing I've never understood is people who could make 500k by moving to the Bay Area arguing that they're better off staying in a LCOL for purely financial reasons.
Now, note that I currently do not live in the Bay Area and have consistently refused to move there for employment reasons, because there are other things to value besides money. But I've definitely seen the argument made on a purely financial basis, and I think it is misguided.
The house I spent my teenaged years in was purchased for less than 100k and will still sell today for less than 100k. I think my mom would get her money back, and maybe some appreciation, but the sale price of that home will reflect the dwindling economy of the town and region it's in.
In contrast, the house for sale a quarter mile from my current apartment is listed at 2.4 million. It's a little bit larger than my mom's, but the plot of land is probably a little smaller (big house, small yard vs. post WW2 development full of ranch houses with yards big enough for kids to run around and play in).
The town my mom's in isn't a food desert, but I can get an order of magnitude more variety of produce, substantially fresher (for most of year -- during the local late summer and harvest season she can get fresh, local, cheap produce).
And similarly, the town my mom still lives in isn't a dead economy, but there's no way i'm getting a tech job with an office within bicycling distance of her house, whereas from my current apartment i can bicycle to a few dozen local technology employers.
Also I'm currently willing to pay a premium for good weather.
The HCOL area isn't the obvious net win it should be on paper. I live in a "blighted shithole" so to speak. I paid $10 for a buffet dinner and $0 for parking. All those nickles and dimes really add up fast.
Usually, neither type is able to provide meaningful discussion about the topic at hand.
Not being from US, but often traveling there, I have always wondered how mimimum-wage workers are able to afford living even remotely close to Manhattan or SF.
The answer seems to be that they increasingly can't.
Minimum wage workers in these communities are usually immigrants who double up on very family style living accommodations. It’s still better for them in SF than it was in say Manila.
They split the cost with someone. Either with roommates or a wealthy parent who lives somewhere else.
People on HN can afford it because they get paid a lot. It’s pretty simple.
It fits the definition of the word, so it's taken as such. Not sure what's confusing you.
There's a difference between:
"Doesn't matter to me, I can afford it lol, sucks for people who can't."
and
"I pay X for housing and get paid Y in salary and that's why living here makes sense for me."
You nearly cannot discuss housing costs in Florida or Indiana on the internet without someone from SF feeling the urgent need to say "lol that would get me a cardboard box where I live".
Why they feel the need? I don't know.