> Determining equivalent cost of living is a complex question,
While that's true, the calculator presented isn't as bad as you make it out to be. It splits up the calculations across several different indexes. Food, Housing, Utilities, Transportation, Health, and Misc.
It's increase is based merely on the average. This is probably fair, considering if you want to maintain the same life style you have in one location, this gives you an estimate as to what you'll need. And I imagine if you live in Detroit and spend a substantial portion of that on housing, you'll need that much of a pay raise to maintain that same level of housing. You even suggest this: "The one kicker will be housing--you'll probably need to settle for a smaller living space."
That's the point. The monetary comparison assumes you maintain the same level of housing. Obviously it's not precise. However, if you accept that housing will be different, you can remove it from the equation. In this case, the overall percentage is used, but housing is the reason for that. Remove housing, and it helps get a good idea of overall living costs.
You can't maintain the same level of housing no matter where you are. That's what my example comparing my home town (backwoods Connecticut) with San Francisco is about--it simply doesn't make any sense at all to compare a hundred acres in rural farmland with the equivalent housing situation in a major metropolis. Cost doesn't really enter into it.
The type of housing you can afford is a quality of life issue as much or more than it is a cost of living issue. If you live in San Francisco or New York, you accept a smaller living space than you'd get elsewhere. In return, you get access to nightlife, concert venues, and other amenities that can only be had in a densely-populated area.
If living on a hundred acres of woodland is important to you, you will not live in San Francisco. If being able to bike to work is important to you, you will not live in Los Angeles. If staying out of the cold is important to you, you will not live in Minneapolis. Money won't buy you any of these things.
At some levels, it may seem that it's just an issue of money. You can, of course, buy a detached, single-family house in San Francisco. It'll cost you millions, but you can do it if you're rich enough. Attempting to paint this as a difference in cost of living, however, is simply disingenuous--the detached home in San Francisco is the local equivalent of a mansion in my home town. It's not equivalent, any more than hiring Michael Franti to make a personal trip out to Connecticut to play for you would be equivalent to catching a show at a local concert hall.
And, finally, it's important to remember that unless you're living entirely hand-to-mouth, not all of your income goes to living expenses. If you're in the well-paid engineer club, then hopefully only a relatively small portion of your income goes to living expenses. Moving from a cheap location to an expensive one may increase that portion, but it doesn't make any sense at all to multiply your current income by a constant factor to determine the "equivalent" in a different location. That's what that calculator does, and it's deceptive and wrong.
> You can't maintain the same level of housing no matter where you are.
I realize that, and what you said. My point was, the numbers there had housing playing a major role in affecting your cost of living. Simply put, if I wanted the same 4 bedroom, 2500 sqft house between here and San Francisco, it's going to cost me a LOT more. However, if I ignore the housing, the rest of the estimates are still useful, and as a result, you can still find out how much more or less you need to make to maintain what you are used to.
> That's what that calculator does, and it's deceptive and wrong.
If you look at the numbers blindly, sure. But their is value in knowing the comparative values in things besides housing. After all, it's not just giving you one single number.
My argument isn't that the calculator is completely right, only that it's not completely useless as you make it out to be.
Finally, you also talk a lot about other factors. While it's true, it's also pointless. Of course people aren't going to just look at the calculator and base everything off that. However, for many people, it's a helpful indication of what to expect. A 20% increase across the board for all expenses could mean someone moving for a job for a small pay raise might need to plan accordingly.
Basically, knowing how much things cost relative to where you are now is important. Yes, the more money you make, the less it matters, but there are far fewer people in that situation.
While that's true, the calculator presented isn't as bad as you make it out to be. It splits up the calculations across several different indexes. Food, Housing, Utilities, Transportation, Health, and Misc.
It's increase is based merely on the average. This is probably fair, considering if you want to maintain the same life style you have in one location, this gives you an estimate as to what you'll need. And I imagine if you live in Detroit and spend a substantial portion of that on housing, you'll need that much of a pay raise to maintain that same level of housing. You even suggest this: "The one kicker will be housing--you'll probably need to settle for a smaller living space."
That's the point. The monetary comparison assumes you maintain the same level of housing. Obviously it's not precise. However, if you accept that housing will be different, you can remove it from the equation. In this case, the overall percentage is used, but housing is the reason for that. Remove housing, and it helps get a good idea of overall living costs.