I understand that, but my argument is that people usually spend up to the amount they are comfortable with because they are not rational actors.
I made this argument a lot when the prius was becoming popular. Lots of people said it was overpriced, that is cost 30k and there were similarly equipped cars for 20k. But that completely missed who was buying the car. If someone is in the market to spend 30k on a car, they most likely will, as they have entered into a different price bracket.
Same thing with apartments. Sure in Seattle you could share a space and pay less, my hunch (with no data to back this up) is that you probably wont. If I can comfortably afford 1-1.5k, then that's what I'm going to spend, regardless of city (Please don't nitpick and say 'Oh I share and pay less', I'm not speaking in absolutes).
You obviously will get a more space/features/quality in Seattle for the money, but my argument against this guides is they say you will actually be making x, because I'll be paying more in rent. but that's not the case. Yes you can argue the missed cost of having more space, but that's not what they compare. My bank account is going to be the same after rent regardless of the major city I'm in.
While there is def some sound logic to what you're saying I think the key piece you're missing is paying the same amount of monthly payments enables developers in Seattle to buy a home, which in the end means they are building equity by default while their counterparts in NYC could live their whole lives paying rent that keeps going up.
That gets into the debate of buying vs renting, and Im honestly not sold on all the benefits of buying. While you are building equity, it’s debatable whether you could make more just nuy putting money into an index fund. Im talking about the down payment, all the maintenace costs and associated costs of owning a home.
But I don’t need to dig into it further. I planning on getting out of NYC eventually to lower my costs and be somewhere with cheaper cost of living. It’s just harder to figure out true cost of living and the amount you earn as a developer then these guides suggest.
I made this argument a lot when the prius was becoming popular. Lots of people said it was overpriced, that is cost 30k and there were similarly equipped cars for 20k. But that completely missed who was buying the car. If someone is in the market to spend 30k on a car, they most likely will, as they have entered into a different price bracket.
Same thing with apartments. Sure in Seattle you could share a space and pay less, my hunch (with no data to back this up) is that you probably wont. If I can comfortably afford 1-1.5k, then that's what I'm going to spend, regardless of city (Please don't nitpick and say 'Oh I share and pay less', I'm not speaking in absolutes).
You obviously will get a more space/features/quality in Seattle for the money, but my argument against this guides is they say you will actually be making x, because I'll be paying more in rent. but that's not the case. Yes you can argue the missed cost of having more space, but that's not what they compare. My bank account is going to be the same after rent regardless of the major city I'm in.
EDIT: Spelling and Grammar