Do salaries compensate for the higher cost of living? (Boston: hotel, buy)

[EconHusky]

Originally Posted by gf2020

Wow, Us All, you like to to type long posts.

That is something I truly appreciate.

[sobo16]

Federal employee salaries do not compensate for the higher cost of living. The government has locality pay that tries to reflect the higher cost of living in different areas of the country, but it is not enough in areas like Boston, New York, San Francisco, etc. The locality pay for the DC-Baltimore region is 24.22%, and for Boston, it's 24.8%. My money went a lot further when I lived in Baltimore. I only make $500 or so more per year living in the Boston region compared to DC-Baltimore, but housing can cost ~50% more in the Boston area (my rough estimate comparing apples to apples housing). That extra $13 in my biweekly paycheck is not useful in paying for housing.

I could transfer to a somewhere like Pittsburgh, Dayton, or parts of Florida, make a little bit less per year, but live like a king because housing is so much less expensive. True, these places might not offer as many amenities as Massachusetts, but it all depends on your lifestyle. People can still lead decent, quality lives in many areas of the country.

[EconHusky]

Originally Posted by sobo16

Federal employee salaries do not compensate for the higher cost of living. The government has locality pay that tries to reflect the higher cost of living in different areas of the country, but it is not enough in areas like Boston, New York, San Francisco, etc. The locality pay for the DC-Baltimore region is 24.22%, and for Boston, it's 24.8%. My money went a lot further when I lived in Baltimore. I only make $500 or so more per year living in the Boston region compared to DC-Baltimore, but housing can cost ~50% more in the Boston area (my rough estimate comparing apples to apples housing). That extra $13 in my biweekly paycheck is not useful in paying for housing.

I could transfer to a somewhere like Pittsburgh, Dayton, or parts of Florida, make a little bit less per year, but live like a king because housing is so much less expensive. True, these places might not offer as many amenities as Massachusetts, but it all depends on your lifestyle. People can still lead decent, quality lives in many areas of the country.

Well 24% sounds like quite a bit of a raise, but the housing definitely kills it more than anything.

So are there any certain things that keep you in Boston, given the opportunity cost?

[UsAll]

Originally Posted by gf2020

Wow, Us All, you like to to type long posts.

Yeah, people that sometimes have something worth saying and the ability to say it sometimes have a basis for typing longer posts (although anyone can be too verbose sometimes ... even I). Everything in life can't always be stated so very short and sweet (like a passing comment). At times, I like to give people meat and substance, not just quickie little filller material (a 1-to- 3 sentence post or a 1-to-3 word post). There's a time and place for a substantive post and a time and place for a short passing comment (e.g., my posting #'s 96 and 99). And my "long post" got 2 reputation points per this very writing (not that I am here fishing for reputation points). Gee, I guess it didn't turn them off to seeing merit in said posting. There is a time and a place for different lengths of postings. Get it?

[sobo16]

Originally Posted by EconHusky

Well 24% sounds like quite a bit of a raise, but the housing definitely kills it more than anything.

So are there any certain things that keep you in Boston, given the opportunity cost?

The 24% figure might be a bit misleading. Everywhere gets some sort of cost of living above the base salary. There is a general "rest of the U.S." locality pay of 14.16% that I would get if I lived in say, rural Montana. DC's locality is 10.22% above the "rest of U.S.", and Boston's is 10.8% above it. I think Boston's locality pay should be closer to New York's, which is at 28.72% (14.72% above the rest of the U.S.).

So when you look at real salaries in different cities across the country, they aren't that different, and surely not different enough to pay for the increase in housing cost. For example, a GS-13 Step 1 employee makes $85K in Pittsburgh, but $91K in Boston.

Besides my job, the scenic coastline, the fun things to do and places to eat in the city, the safety of the area, and the generally decent customer service are all things that I enjoy about eastern Massachusetts. The congestion and high cost of living are the negatives. We likely won't stay here long-term, as we would like to have a nice house without being house poor.

[gf2020]

Originally Posted by UsAll

Yeah, people that sometimes have something worth saying and the ability to say it sometimes have a basis for typing longer posts...

No, I do not believe that.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the expression from Shakespeare, "Brevity is the soul of wit."

Intelligent speech and writing should aim at using fewer words, not more.

[UsAll]

Originally Posted by gf2020

No, I do not believe that.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the expression from Shakespeare, "Brevity is the soul of wit."

Intelligent speech and writing should aim at using fewer words, not more.

I do not care what you believe. You are not my master. I decide how I write at any given time; you don't. Intelligent people are capable of engaging in selective reading and passing over that which doesn't appeal to them for whatever reason (including length). I do. Do the same and pass over that which you do not choose to read.

Back off and move on. End of discussion. (and I'm sure the Moderators don't want the thread to be sidetracked or hijacked by this series of distracting posts which you started; if you have a personal comment to make to whomever, you send it in a Direct Message to him/her, not hijack a thread. So no more comments about the matter.)

I imagine that the Moderators willl delete all these postings addressing the length of my referenced posting (as being irrelevant to the OP's thread subject).

[EconHusky]

Originally Posted by sobo16

The 24% figure might be a bit misleading. Everywhere gets some sort of cost of living above the base salary. There is a general "rest of the U.S." locality pay of 14.16% that I would get if I lived in say, rural Montana. DC's locality is 10.22% above the "rest of U.S.", and Boston's is 10.8% above it. I think Boston's locality pay should be closer to New York's, which is at 28.72% (14.72% above the rest of the U.S.).

So when you look at real salaries in different cities across the country, they aren't that different, and surely not different enough to pay for the increase in housing cost. For example, a GS-13 Step 1 employee makes $85K in Pittsburgh, but $91K in Boston.

Besides my job, the scenic coastline, the fun things to do and places to eat in the city, the safety of the area, and the generally decent customer service are all things that I enjoy about eastern Massachusetts. The congestion and high cost of living are the negatives. We likely won't stay here long-term, as we would like to have a nice house without being house poor.

Okay, that makes a big difference, but it also makes sense to do it that way. Boston should definitely be closer to New York City- not there, but close.

I agree that those things are quite enjoyable in Eastern Mass, but I too will not be able to stay here very long- same reason.

The trouble is in figuring out the right place where the costs and benefits cross, given the income level. Plus, is it boring to live in more rural places after Boston?

[MocDoc]

I can't help but laugh whenever I see the title of this post. And the short answer to the original question is...no.

[MassVt]

After 11 pages, the answer is still an emphatic "NO".

Really no need to elaborate much--the cost of housing is the real killer here..