You're joking right? A quick googling shows the median price of a home in Detroit as $35k. I don't care how bad you are at budgeting, with $91k/y in Detroit you could buy two homes.

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.

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.

8 years ago a friend of mine bought a perfectly serviceable house in a nice, safe, convenient neighborhood in Pittsburgh for about 90k.

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.

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?

Between SF and Detroit? I'm not joking when I say that's a difficult choice.

Based on your question I think we have different core beliefs about what's important in raising a child.

"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.

> Good for you.

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.

"Is that particularly helpful here in this discussion?"

It's as helpful as you saying that you've lived in worse conditions in the past.

Well these are real (adjusted) salaries, and most tech people do choose SF over Detroit so I think you're wrong.

I was responding to the post as written, which did not mention adjustments.

Most tech people do not choose SF at $55k. That's all I'm saying.

Money can't change the winters in Detroit

I don't know, when you factor in homeless population and traffic Detroit may have the edge. I would prefer living at least 150 miles from both though

They're not bogus, they're adjusted for cost of living.

> I think many people would still rather make $55k in SF than $91k in detroit

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.

They are adjusted for cost of living, and you should speak for yourself.