I'd love to read this. Is it just an interest piece or is there some statistical data that goes with it? I know there are a lot of people who are not in a great place in cities. I also know, there are a lot of people not in great places in rural areas.

For my situation personally, it's never been an issue, and it's not for the people in our social circles. We were never going to be a single income household, it's not something either of us have ever wanted. The thing with cities, is you can't move to a city and do things the same as you do when you didn't live in a city. You've got to find a way to drop commuting, live in smaller spaces, be closer to thing things that you love. I know a lot of people who have moved to the city but can't live in a small space, so they buy a house out on the edge then spend hundreds of dollars and countless hours commuting into the city and it just breaks them. I can understand how they'd want to live else where but even then, when I talk to them, they are turning down job offers in non-coastal cities.

I think this is the piece mentioned. They have an expense/income breakdown of each family from my quick skim. Google query was "new york times four families iowa" just in case that helps.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/03/your-money/mi...

> The benefit of higher coastal salaries only works if you can somehow contain the overall cost of living from eating it all.

When I worked in NYC, I literally saved more, after taxes and all expenses, than I could make in total before taxes (or any expenses) where I live now.

Even a zero cost of living wouldn't begin to make up for that. People simply refuse to understand this, though. They just keep on repeating "but muh cost of living!" even though it's clearly not relevant.

It's their prerogative I suppose, but the thing that gets me is that these same people are constantly complaining about how they can't hire anyone!

Have you considered paying more, I ask?

We pay more than enough already!

No, you obviously don't.

lol, I've gotten offers or pitches where the pay bracket is 33% what I make now but the cost of living is 17% less. Thanks but no thanks.

God, that's even worse. The thing that comes to mind is "are you sure you actually want to hire someone who would be stupid enough to accept this?"

You don't need to contain the cost of living, you just have to increase income faster than your costs. And therein lies the rub. There is such a vast difference in probability of potential future income between certain urban areas and the rest, that it makes it worth it for many to gamble on achieving it, especially because of "who you know, not what you know" means rubbing shoulders with the right people can really launch you. If that's what you want.