Is there a measure that uses both cost of living plus income?
"The key term you're looking for is ""purchasing power parity"", which considers the local prices of goods and services when making comparisons between countries. For example, you can look up the GDP by PPP per capita to get a sense of much people on average incomes can buy in each country. Of course, average incomes may not be too relevant to your own specific circumstances, but nonetheless you can look at the PPP data itself to figure out how to translate specific numbers between two currencies. However, note that the ""basket"" of goods used to calculate this measure itself has a significant impact on the results. Comparing prices of food and electronic equipment respectively will often give very different answers." "But what if I am getting paid salary from a source in India? In other words, it may be that in India a research assistant at a college on average earns a third of what a research assistant like me earns here in US. In that case, even if my cost of living there is much less, so is my salary. There are sites that provide a good guidance for what the average salary for an profession with x years of experience would be. Of course some would get paid more than average. So you can try and make a logic, if in US say you are being paid more than average, you would be paid more than average elsewhere. Plus If moving from Developed to Developing country, one has the Advantage of positive pedigree bias.  There are also websites that would give the Purchasing Power Parity for quite a few currency pairs. The Real difficulty to find is whether the Lifestyle you have in a specific country would be similar in other country. If you compare like for like it becomes slightly skewed. If you compare equivalence, then can you adjust.  A relevant example my friend in US had a Independent Bungalow in US. It was with Basement and attic, 2 levels of living space with 4 bedroom. He shifted to India and got a great salary compared to normal Indian salary. However this kind of house in India in Bangalore would be affordable only to CEO's of top companies. So is living in a 3 room apartment fine? There are multiple such aspects. Drinking a Starbucks coffee couple of times a day is routine for quite a few in US. In India this would be considered luxury. A like for equivalent comparison is ""One drinks 3-4 mugs of Coffee"" in US, and average Indian drinks ""Tea/Coffee 3-4 mugs"". In India the local Tea / Coffee would be Rs 10 - Rs 20. A Starbucks would come with starting price of Rs 150. The same applies to food. A McBurger in India would be around Rs 100. The Indian equivalent Wada Pav is for Rs 10. A Sub Way would be Rs 150. A Equivalent Mumbai Sandwich around Rs 25. I personally am picky about food, so it doesn't matter where I go, I can only eat specific things, which means I spend a huge amount of money if I am outside of India. When I was in US, I couldn't afford a maid, driver or any help. In India I have 2 maids, a cooking maid and a driver. Plus I get plumber, electrician, window cleaner, and all the help without costing me much. Things that I absolutely can't dream in US. My colleague in UK preferred to stay in a specific locality as it has a very good Church. So if its important, one may find few good ones in India if one is Roman Catholic, if one follows Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, tough luck.  Citizenship: Does it matter ... A foreign national may never get an Indian citizenship. Children don't qualify either unless both parents are Indian. Health Care: Again is quite different. One may feel Health care in US is not good or very expensive ... but there are multiple aspects of this. So in essence its very broad there is traffic, cleanliness, climate, culture, etc ... PS: A research assistant in India is poorly paid, because colleges don't have funds. Research in fundamental science is quite low. Industry to university linkages are primitive and now where close to what we have in US."
"I am admittedly not giving a scientific or mathematical analysis here, just giving my anecdotal take on what I've lived through. I don't know if my assessment of 'tripled' is even accurate, just that there's a palpable sense of things being a lot more expensive &amp; it just seems to me that the cost of living has gone up quite a bit for average people from what it once was, especially considering most of us now have cable bills, internet costs and in my case several different cell phone bills for different members of the family. I realize these are not necessities but they are important things that most people are now expected to have. I didn't mean to imply that we've had ""insane"" inflation &amp; I understand that these things are mathematically measured as both Core inflation and CPI and by these measures things have held pretty steady. It just seems to me that these sorts of indexes have not yet taken a lot of things into account regarding the realities of modern day living and their resultant expenses." You work backwards. A top-down budget. i.e. 'bottom-up' is to list what you want, and perhaps find that there's nothing left for retirement savings, top-down divides from your gross income down to each expense. Say you make $60000/yr, $5000/mo. $1250 is about what you can spend on housing. You can go with the smallest apartment you can tolerate, a tiny 2 BR with roommate, or get the biggest apartment or house you can afford for this money.  In the end, this question may be closed as 'opinion-based.' It's not simple to answer and it's more about your own preferences. Quality of life is more than your house/apt size. I've known people who lived in tiny spaces, and used public transportation, but took 3 week-long trips each year. Others who lived in big houses, drove fancy cars, and somehow when their first kid entered high school, realized they had saved nothing for college.  Decide on your own priorities and tilt the budget to reflect that. True economy consists in always making the income exceed the out-go. Wear the old clothes a little longer if necessary; dispense with the new pair of gloves; mend the old dress; live on plainer food if need be; so that, under all circumstances, unless some unforeseen accident occurs, there will be a margin in favor of the income. A penny here, and a dollar there, placed at interest, goes on accumulating, and in this way the desired result is attained. It requires some training, perhaps, to accomplish this economy, but when once used to it, you will find there is more satisfaction in rational saving, than in irrational spending. Here is a recipe which I recommend; I have found it to work an excellent cure for extravagance, and especially for mistaken economy: When you find that you have no surplus at the end of the year, and yet have a good income, I advise you to take a few sheets of paper and form them into a book and mark down every item of expenditure. Post it every day or week in two columns, one headed “necessaries” or even “comforts,” and the other headed “luxuries,” and you will find that the latter column will be double, treble, and frequently ten times greater than the former. The real comforts of life cost but a small portion of what most of us can earn. Dr. Franklin says “it is the eyes of others and not our own eyes which ruin us. If all the world were blind except myself I should not care for fine clothes or furniture.” It is the fear of what Mrs. Grundy may say that keeps the noses of many worthy families to the grindstone. In America many persons like to repeat “we are all free and equal,” but it is a great mistake in more senses than one. "To begin, I'm not sure you understand what COL refers to.  It's what you spend, not what you bring in.  Let's say Bob makes 60k in some midwest town, but spends 30k for living.  If his salary and his cost of living both increase at the same rate, let's say they both double, this means Bob now makes 120k but spends 60k.  He now saves double what he would have before.  That 30k extra saved is 30k extra saved.  His purchasing power has now gone greatly up, especially in respect to housing outside of an expensive area like the valley.  For one, let me clear this up - SF, the city itself, is expensive.  I'm talking more generally about the bay area, and silicon valley as a whole.  Most tech jobs from the big tech companies that we think of as ""the bay"" are not in SF.  they are in mountain view, Sunnyvale, and that area.  So this might explain some of our disagreements.  Most people who work for large tech companies understand they have a decision to make - live in the city proper, pay a lot more than the greater valley, use transit into work (all of the giants have regular shuttles in), but get to love a more ""hip"" life, or be more conservative in the valley, where rental prices are on par with NYC.  In talking to a lot of people who work for the big companies, they know this.  Younger folks who want to live the city life pay the premium, but by far and wide they live outside of it, where it is closer to work, and they take the rail up for weekends out with buddies.  I'm still not sure where you are getting a doubling of the COL in the valley versus outside.  Yes, housing as a single item is going to be a person's largest expense.  But all the rest of their expenses are not going to see a similar increase.  It's also important to remember that saving 10% of 60 v 10% of 120 is significantly different.  Lots of people take jobs in the valley, are able to save vastly larger amounts of cash, and then leave.    In my calculations I evaluated the COL markup to be ~30% for the valley for a 200k job.  That is, I spend maybe 50k of my earning on all living expenses in the Midwest (in a downtown, nice area), and would expect I'd pay about 70k for the same standard in the valley.  But I'd be saving a shitton more.  I've done the math, I'm not here to argue with someone who just googled SF cost of living searching for the answers I want.  I've talked to actual people out there.  I appreciate your passion for this, but your 100% increase in COL estimate is simply wrong.  But then again, it depends on how you live and where you live in your current situation.  I live in a large midwest city, actually in the city itself." Let an app do it for you, group items and see where you spend your money. One example: https://www.tinkapp.com/en/ Should provide a starting point for showing income vs expenses. The long-run goal is to eliminate poverty through wealth creation. If that makes for some weird new social interactions, I'd say that's a reasonable cost.  I mention comparing to earlier periods simply as a measure of progress to determine whether or not there is a problem that needs correction, such as a specific group in society experiencing real wage stagnation, or truly anemic growth rates relative to earlier periods. It's the slope of the trend line for each group that I'd be worried about, where linear or exponential is good, and logarithmic should indicate a potential crisis.  Ultimately, I believe that it's not a persons absolute circumstances that matter, but the rate at which those circumstances are improving throughout their lives that most strongly affects their subjective well-being (but that's just my theory).  As for real estate costs, you're absolutely correct that this is a problem, but it's as easily explainable problem. Supply is artificially constrained in most of the US due to the need for explicit government permission (in the form of building permits and zoning laws) in order to build new units. Basic economics says that when supply is artificially restricted, prices will rise.  In areas where government is restrictive, such as San Francisco, prices rise sharply. In places where government is more permissive, like Houston, prices remain much more reasonable. Yea, so they mention household and income....Am I supposed to count both my spouse income and my own? Because if that's true...then I'm part of the 1% at 27, yet it sure as shit doesn't feel like it. "It's very hard to measure the worth of an abstract concept like money, particularly over long periods of time. In the modern era we have things like the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the United States, where the Bureau of Labor Statistics literally sends ""shoppers"" out to find prices of things and surveys people to find out what they buy. This results in a variety of ""indexes"" which variously get reported by media outlets as ""inflation"" (or ""deflation"" if the change in value goes the other way). There are also other measurements available like the MIT Billion Prices Project which attempt to make their own reading of the ""worth"" of currencies. Those kinds of things are about the only ways to measure a currency's change in ""value to itself"" because a currency is basically only worth what one can buy with it. While it isn't ""all the world's currencies combined"", there is a concept of the International Monetary Fund's ""Special Drawing Rights (SDR)"", which is a basket of five currencies used by world central banks to help ""back"" each other's currencies, and is (very) occasionally used as a unit of currency for international contracts. One might be able to compare the price of one currency to that of the SDR, or even to any other weighted average of world currencies that one wanted, but I don't think it's done nearly as often as comparing currencies to the basket of goods one can buy to find ""inflation"". Even though one might think what would be important to measure would be overall Money Supply Inflation, much more often people care more about measuring Price Inflation. (Occasionally people worry about Wage Inflation, but generally that's considered a result of high Price Inflation.) In order to try to keep this on topic as a ""personal finance"" thing rather than an ""economics"" thing, I guess the question is: Why do you want to know? If you have some assets in a particular currency, you probably care most about what you'll be able to buy with them in the future when you want or need to spend them. In that sense, it's inflation that you're likely caring about the most. If you're trying to figure out which currency to keep your assets in, it largely depends on what currency your future expenses are likely to be in, though I can imagine that one might want to move out of a particular currency if there's a lot of political instability that you're expecting to lead to high inflation in a currency for a time." The IRS defines income quite specifically. On the topic What is Taxable and Nontaxable Income, they note: You can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. This section discusses many kinds of income that are taxable or nontaxable. It includes discussions on employee wages and fringe benefits, and income from bartering, partnerships, S corporations, and royalties.  Bartering, or giving someone wages (or similar) in something other than currency (or some other specifically defined things, like fringe benefits), is taxed at fair market value: Bartering Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. For additional information, Refer to Tax Topic 420 - Bartering Income and Barter Exchanges. Bartering is more specifically covered in Topic 420 - Bartering Income: You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 for information on filing an amended return. More details about income in general beyond the above articles is available in Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income.  It goes into great detail about different kinds of income. In your example, you'd have to calculate the fair market value of an avocado, and then determine how much cash-equivalent you were paid in.  The IRS wouldn't necessarily tell you what that value was; you'd calculate it based on something you feel you could justify to them afterwards.  The way I'd do it would be to write down the price of avocados at each pay period, and apply a dollar-cost-averaging type method to determine the total pay's fair value.   While the avocado example is of course largely absurd, the advent of bitcoins has made this much more relevant.  Publication 525 has this to say about virtual currency: Virtual Currency.   If your employer gives you virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) as payment for your services, you must include the fair market value of the currency in your income. The fair market value of virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) paid as wages is subject to federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Gold would be fundamentally similar - although I am not sure it's legal to pay someone in gold; assuming it were, though, its fair market value would be again the definition of income.  Similarly, if you're paid in another country's currency, the US dollar equivalent of that is what you'll pay taxes on, at the fair market value of that currency in US dollars. This doesn't explain the methodology used, but it appears to only include national taxes on wage income for the middle class. Do these European countries have the equivalent of state and local taxes? Do they have sales tax or VAT? Property taxes?  The American tax system is uniquely cumbersome and complicated to the point where even tax experts don't understand all of it. I highly doubt whichever method was used in this study accurately represents the tax burden on Americans, but I can't say for sure since that article doesn't share its methodology. It sounds like you're mixing a simple checkbook register with double-entry bookkeeping. Do you need a double-entry level of rigor? Otherwise, why not have two columns, one for income (like a paycheck) and one for expenses (like paying a cable bill)?  Then add up both columns and then take the difference of the sums to get your increase or decrease for the time period. If you want to break up income and expenses further, then you can do that too. "While this does fall under the ""All-inclusive income"" segment of GI (gross income), there are two questions that come up.  I invested in a decentralized bitcoin business and earned about $230 this year in interest from it Your wording is confusing here only due to how bitcoin works." I guess you could figure it out based on your total income, and the total number of hours it takes to generate that income if you want to do it simply. Count you job, side work, soda can deposits, and saving earned directly by effort (coupons and deal shopping) But the real answer to the question is understanding Opportunity Cost and what you could be doing instead.  The problem with opportunity cost is the value system that judges the worth of the other opportunities is a deeply intrinsic factor that cannot be judged by anybody else. Your problem is one that has challenged many people.  As you said there are two aspects to balancing a budget, reducing expenses or increasing income.  And you state that you have done all the cost-cutting that you can find.  Looking at ways to increase your income is a good way to balance your budget. How big is your problem?  Do you need to find another $100/month, or do you need $1000/month?  There are many part-time jobs you could obtain (fast food, retail, grocery), you could obtain a sales-job (cars, real estate, even working for a recruiting firm) where you could connect buyers and sellers.  If your need is $100/month, a part-time job on weekends would fill the gap. When I was trying to solve my budget problems a few years ago, I thought that I needed to increase my income.  And I did increase my income.  But then I realized that my expenses were too high.  And I re-evaluated my priorities.  I challenge you to revisit your expenses.  Often we assume that we need things that we really cannot afford.  Consider a few of your (possible) expenses, My problems included mortgage debt, auto loans, high utilities, high car insurance, too much spending on kids activities, and a few other problems. In comparing housing to investing in a stock market, the author claims housing is a poor investment because houses depreciate.  He's forgetting about the land component.  The improvement on the land is only a portion of the value, and it's the only part that depreciates.  In markets where the prices have risen significantly the value is largely in the land.   Land has a finite supply, which is even more evident when we are looking at land located where people actually want to live.  While strong banking controls kept Canada from suffering the same crash in the second half of the 2000's; availability of land where people actually want to live is likely responsible for a lot of the divergence between the US and Canada.  Most Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the border between the two countries; as the weather makes living more northern undesirable.  The US has lots of available land in places with a better climate than a lot of Canada.  Sure, there's some highly desirable places to live in the US where prices have skyrocketed; but the scarcity of desirable land affects all of Canada and is not going to go away.