‘Everything is more expensive here’: Man with ₹30 lakh salary asks if he should move to Mumbai without a hike

A job transfer can look exciting on paper. A new office, a new city and possibly a better career path can make the decision feel easy. But the calculation changes when the transfer comes with no salary hike.

According to a Reddit thread, one employee earning around ₹30 lakh a year in Hyderabad is now facing exactly that question. He may have to move to Mumbai because of a career transfer, but his salary would remain the same.


The employee is not moving alone. He has his wife with him and no children. His housing budget is around ₹30,000 a month, and he wants either a spacious 1 BHK or a normal 2 BHK. He is not asking for a luxury apartment, a high-rise building or a posh society. He wants a regular residential area with basic facilities and without serious issues such as water, sewage or slum conditions. That makes the question less about luxury and more about whether his existing standard of living can survive the move.

The employee already pays rent in Hyderabad, so moving to Mumbai would not introduce rent as a completely new expense. The bigger question is how much more his existing monthly budget would have to stretch. A salary that works comfortably in one city does not automatically provide the same lifestyle in another city.

This is particularly important when the person is moving without a raise. If the salary rises along with the cost of living, some additional expenses can be absorbed. But if income stays exactly where it is, every increase in housing, commuting, food or services comes directly out of the money available for savings and other goals.


The Reddit responses were much more pessimistic. One user responded quite literally: "Nope. No hike no move. Everything here is expensive."

Whereas another wrote "No reason to come if there is no hike. Please stay in hyd. This city is a shit hole." And another one set the bar even higher: "Don't until you reach 50 lakhs to live a comfortable life in Mumbai."

Hence, it can be stated that household expenses depend on many things: a rent, lifestyle, savings goals, how much one can set aside on commuting, picking a location and the financial flexibility they want.

Another way of looking at the decision is that the employee is not making a decision on the basis of whether he can afford the move. He is making a decision on the basis of whether the opportunity the transfer offered had a substantial benefit in terms of career progression. If the post in Mumbai offered the employee greater responsibility, scope for advancement, or a different dimension to his career, he would be prepared to make the sacrifice and bear the extra expenditure.

However, for such a decision to be rational, the employee has to have a rough idea of how long he will be in Mumbai and what the transfer was going to achieve for him in terms of career progression. If there is no substantial benefit in terms of career, no justification for the extra expenditure, then the decision to agree to the terms would not make sense to him.


A transfer can sometimes be a worthwhile exchange even if there is no immediate hike. The new role should offer increased visibility or leverage for a higher compensation in the future. Without that the employee would be assuming the added costs of a new city without any increase in current income.

The most important figure in this scenario isn't ₹30 lakh or ₹30,000. It is the value of the current expenses and savings that the employee is incurring in Hyderabad compared to what he would be spending and saving in Mumbai. If the gap is significant enough it would require a substantial long term career benefit to sweeten the deal.