Bad career advice from the National Review
A reader referred to a story at National Review [link fixed] about a guy who happily moved to Mississippi to escape the high cost of living and high real estate taxes in New Jersey.
I then explain that my work is mostly done by the phone or internet. So where I live has little bearing on how much I earn. But it has a whole lot to do with how much I keep.
This snippet is false. Maybe if human beings acted in a hyper-logical fashion it would be true, but my experience in corporate America is that people tend to like those who they know personally. Working at the office means that other people in the company will have an opportunity to like you, and the only people who get promoted are the people who are liked.
Furthermore, being in Mississippi makes it a lot harder to switch employers, because all of the best jobs are in places like New York City, and in the majority of cases they are not going to want to interview someone in Mississippi who will only work by internet and telephone. There is a lot of career advancement that takes place when people switch jobs.
So the guy from the National Review is wrong, location has an important long-term impact no how much money you earn. The high cost of living in places where all of the jobs are can be seen as a sort of value transference.