cost of living does not scale w/ salary increases. it's a silly calculation. not essential at all.
Making $236k in seattle is going to be much more fruitful than making $115k in whatever flyover place. this argument is always used by people that need to justify living in their boring towns
every cost of living calculator assumes you spend 100% of your paycheck on cost of living.
I don't see why the argument is about spending 100% of one's salary. We all spend a percentage of our salaries on things like rent, etc, and that percentage is going to be larger in Seattle than Columbia.
"Making $236k in seattle is going to be much more fruitful than making $115k in whatever flyover place. this argument is always used by people that need to justify living in their boring towns"
Imagine unironically calling towns that aren't Seattle, "boring". Alright, chief. Columbia certainly isn't Chicago (my birthplace), but that doesn't make it boring either. People have their reasons for electing to live in different areas, no need to be condescending about it. Yes, $236k is mathematically higher than $115k, this is no surprise to anyone. However that $115k usually goes a lot further in smaller towns than $236k might in Seattle. ...due to differences in cost of living (and the housing market).
"every cost of living calculator assumes you spend 100% of your paycheck on cost of living. "
Basic googling disproves this. Of the cost of living calculators that I looked at, they just listed basic things like school, transportation, gas, etc, and make comparisons between areas. Nothing saying that you need to spend 100% of your salary.
"$150k in Austin equates to $236k in Seattle (knock off 35%) $150k in Austin equates to $296k in SF Bay (knock off 50%)"
That literally only makes sense if you're using 100% of your salary for cost of living. This is what you're responding to.