If you’re making Rs 20,000 a month in a village, you might live like a king. But if you’re earning Rs 1 lakh in Mumbai, you could still feel broke. That’s the stark reality entrepreneur Akshat Shrivastava painted in a viral post on X from his account @Akshat_World, sparking heated discussion on the ever-widening cost-of-living gap in India.
Shrivastava wrote, “If you live in a metro: Delhi, Mumbai, B’lore — the cost of living is exorbitantly high (and will keep going up).” He pointed out that even places like Sharjah and Ajman in the UAE, where incomes are tax-free, are cheaper than major Indian cities.
For those looking to escape sky-high prices, smaller towns might seem like an option. “If you live in tier-2/3 cities (and are willing to compromise on facilities), you can live at lower salaries,” Shrivastava added. But even that comes with a caveat. “In tier-2/3 cities: if you don’t own a house—buying a house is very expensive.”
He also drew an example from his personal life to reflect on the trend. “I am from Gwalior: and the cost of real estate is crazy. I can buy a house much cheaper on the outskirts of Bangkok than in Gwalior,” he claimed, highlighting how rapidly rising property prices are reshaping affordability.
Users jumped in to share their own struggles. One commenter noted, “Some Tier 2 cities are now competing with metro cities in terms of land rates. Take my hometown, Gorakhpur, as an example – the real estate rates have skyrocketed in the last 2-3 years.”
Others weren’t shy about slamming the metro lifestyle. “Tier 1 cities are worst place to live in,” one user ranted, listing out the problems: “Traffic jam, air pollution, no clean water, extremely high cost of living, vegetables and fish are not fresh, congested living space.”
On the flip side, some users championed life outside the big metros. “In tier 3 or tier 4 cities, we can get fresh veggies—purely organic without chemicals,” one wrote, adding, “since we have internet, kids have same exposure as city grown kids.”