In nyc 100K is a modest salary. Judging by cost of living calculators, it is roughly the same as teachers make where I live.

I don't have a problem with NYC paying teachers whatever it wants, as long as it's NYC paying the NYC differential.

After all, it's NYC folks who get the benefit of living in NYC and they're also the folks who drive up NYC prices.

In Manhattan, decent 1 bedroom apartments go for $1000 per square foot. My grocery bill increased 150% (somewhere between 2x and 3x) as compared to the midwest. My utilities ran $200/mo to air condition a 570 square foot apartment. $100k isn't an adult income in Manhattan. And lets not forget the what, 3.5% city income tax that starts at $60K?

I thought that was part of the point of living in high density, that one gives up living space and some conveniences in exchange for economies of scale and other conveniences.

In suburbs and rural areas, there are transportation costs which must be paid separately for groceries and commuting. How much do those cost you, compared to people who commute from, say, Huntington?

Transportation costs are comparable to $1000+ ft^2 housing prices? Please.

And in the context -- people decrying $100K/year salaries -- it's important to understand that $100k is a small income to live in the city.

I was asking the question, not making the statement.

I agree, $100k is a small income to live comfortably in Manhattan. It's also a small income to live comfortably in Palo Alto.

The inbuilt assumption by those who decry such salaries,is that it is more than plenty to live comfortably somewhere else and commute to a job in a place with expensive housing.

If a 40 mile (one way) commute costs under $1k monthly, the assumption strikes me as quite reasonable.