- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,679
- Reaction score
- 39,936
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
raw, or take-home?
raw, or take-home?
I think it's meaningless without many, many qualifiers. E.g., For those of us who live in large coastal cities, $75k isn't a lot of money.
And believe it or not, that number holds up even in big, expensive cities like New York.
The article mentions something that and says that the results are pretty steady even though cost of living varies widely.
I don't buy it. If their numbers do hold up in large cities, than you'd think the plateau number would be lower elsewhere. $75k/yr in Manhattan (or SF, where I live) buys a much cheaper lifestyle than it does in, say, rural North Dakota. I could see there being a plateau. That part makes sense to me. What does not make sense is the notion that the plateau is the same nationally independent of regional cost of living differences. It makes me question the methodology of the people who put together the test.