Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
The Almighty Buck Technology

Austin Has Highest Salaries For Tech Workers, After Factoring In Cost of Living 285

McGruber writes "Austin ranks number one in the nation when it comes to offering the largest tech salaries that have been adjusted for cost of living expenses, such as housing, groceries, utilities and other necessities. This is according to a study by TriNet, a company I had never heard off, that provides (buzzword alert!) cloud-based human resources services. The seven major tech hubs, ranked by cost of living adjusted average salaries: 1. Austin: $105,000; 2. Atlanta: $103,000; 3. Denver-Boulder: $98,000; 4. Boston: $79,000; 5. Silicon Valley: $78,000; 6. Los Angeles: $70,000; 7. New York: $56,000." It's true that Austin has cheaper real estate than Silicon Valley, or London, but what this kind of analysis can't capture well is the worth for an individual of living in a particular place. Some jobs are easier to do from Texas (or Timbuktu) than others, and opinions vary wildly about the importance of climate, culture, alternative job options, and other factors. New York living is expensive, Yes, but it comes with a free bonus if New York is where you want to be. Some people even like Los Angeles. Is there a place you'd rather be but forgo because of the cost of living, or a place you'd consider simply because it would amplify your salary?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Austin Has Highest Salaries For Tech Workers, After Factoring In Cost of Living

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Denver? Atlanta? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08, 2014 @02:10PM (#46435189)

    But is Seattle technical enough to make the list? Microsoft is full of people that are anti-technology and do no technical work. When I worked there as an admin, I know I met at least 500 people that worked there but none of them were developers. Yes, is a real tech company, but it is just one, albeit large, company in a large metro area. No, I don't think Seattle qualifies. That is even ignoring the sad state of Internet access. I don't have a single friend with more than 2 Mbps here, and I'm stuck with a less than 1 Mbps connection with CenturyLink. The city government has fought hard against companies that want to provide access. If this was a technical city, the people wouldn't continue to elect anti-Internet candidates.

  • Re: really (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08, 2014 @03:08PM (#46435509)

    Yeah...and those areas are huge and sprawling, with inadequate roads and little (if any) public transportation to help. The companies are moving there for cost reasons above all else.

    Have you ever tried to drive the length of 360 at about 5 pm? It's a special kind of hell..when it's 110 degrees outside on top of the traffic...I don't even know where to begin.

    What I'm trying to say is that it might only be 10 miles between your home and your job, it's 10 pretty horrible miles. If you're living and working downtown, you've got better options. Walking, biking, busses, and even the occasional car2go, etc. If you work on realistically have one option...

  • by Yosho ( 135835 ) on Saturday March 08, 2014 @03:37PM (#46435657)

    That's way too high of a rent estimate. Even in San Francisco, you can get a decent place for 1 person for $3000/month.

    To be fair, that's still an insane amount to somebody living in central/south Texas. You can buy a house suitable for a four-person family in a decent neighborhood for under $1000/month.

The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away.