I've seen this sentiment posted before and it's pretty much untrue. At 120k/year, even spending 4K/month on rent, your leftover pay is still more than my gross salary. I know SF is expensive, but if you can't have a nice QOL on a the leftovers of a 120k salary, your location isn't the problem.

$120k in SF probably amounts to take home just under $6k/mo. $4k goes to rent, so you have $2k for everything else.

That's not a great QOL. For comparison, I ran the Mexico City / SF cost of living on Numbeo[0]. $38k in Mexico City would need to be $140k in SF for comparable quality of life.

(side note -- this COL calculator is super neat! anyone have any evidence of the accuracy?)

[0] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...

I have. it grossly underestimates.

a while ago, this and other sites said I needed 120k in LA and 140k in SF to maintain my south america 40k.

turns out I moved making more than the SF salary in LA. and it still falls short on what I have money to do on short trips and night life.

I guess it is acurate if you dont go out every friday and saturday and never, ever leave the city for the longer holidays.

$2k/month is what many people I know take home after tax and before rent.

So, for reference, after taxes a single person takes home what? $80k. That's about $6,666 per month, leaving $2666 after paying rent. That's not including food. Also for reference, when I lived in a South American country, rent was running about $400 a month, but even if it was $700, wouldn't you be doing better in South America? You can't ignore the fact that food and services are extraordinarily cheaper due to the lower cost of living.

But 120k remote salary while living in central America is probably better than 40k local salary while living in central America ;)