That's the problem with all 'world cities' - you need a high income to live well.
There's a division between those in jobs paying internationally-competitive wages and those in the service industries who serve the high income earners. Just because a city is prestigious does not mean it offers good quality of life to its residents (probably the inverse in fact).
At the other end, in Hobart you have high and entrenched unemployment. Again a divided two-class society - the workers and the welfarites. You can live very well on a modest income, if you can get a job.
Possibly the happy medium is provided in the middle cities (eg Brisbane and Perth) where there are reasonable employment prospects and more affordable house prices.
I notice though that the calculation is pretty crude. For example, it assumes Adelaide = Canberra x 0.9, no matter the income. No ifs, no buts. It should at least have told you its main assumptions! But it's a very clever (and subtle) way of encouraging immigrants to settle somewhere other than Sydney (which we know both Bob Carr and the Fed govt want)!
There is no allowance for family size or composition. Also whether you own, are buying or renting your home. Or whether you need to have a car or prefer public transport. If the latter, the inner suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne and maybe Adelaide have better public transport than the rest. Food seems to be most even between cities.
Peter
