Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm 22 years old, living in Maryland. I'll be graduating from college this May with a degree in accounting, and should have enough credits to sit for CPA exam etc.
I'm curious about the job markets in California. From my research, it seems like the Bay Area has by far the best pay scale, but I know that it also has a very high cost of living.
My interest in California largely comes from the fact that the state offers such incredible natural beauty like the Sierras, Death Valley, the coast ranges. I'm a nature lover at heart, and I like the idea of recreational settings that are unavailable on the east coast (especially the mountain climbing). It also offers lots in the way of cultural/social opportunities, moreso than other western states.
I don't mind living in a dangerous and/or crummy town or suburb to get started as long as I can make a reasonable commute to a job. I don't care about the beach or the water, so that's not a priority for me.
Given this background, I have a few questions:
1) How is the job market for entry-level accounting or finance type work in the Bay area? Any city; SJ, SF, Oakland etc. would be fine.
2) More generally, are there any other areas of the state that I should consider? Again, the beach means nothing to me and I'm willing to live in a more dangerous area but it would be nice to have an array of cultural/social opportunities within driving distance.
3) How much trouble would my out-of-state status cause me in searching for jobs there? I didn't go to a name-brand school, just a reasonable school with a good reputation locally. My GPA is excellent, though, so that may help a bit.
2) More generally, are there any other areas of the state that I should consider? Again, the beach means nothing to me and I'm willing to live in a more dangerous area but it would be nice to have an array of cultural/social opportunities within driving distance.
.
San Jose is your best bet. Alot of techy/accounting jobs there. It's the only city in CA I can think of that is not dead broke and full of job opportunities. Lots of natural scenery. The only bad thing is, is that it's extremely expensive. San Jose boasts one of the highest rents in the nation. Also, if you like an array of cultural and social opportunities, be prepared to drive at least an hour to get to San Francisco because San Jose has none. If anything, I would suggest going to Oakland. It's a more urban and hip experience and definitely has more flavor than Frisco based upon what I have heard.
I had wondered about Oakland. I wouldn't haved expected that someone would say it has more flavor than San Francisco. It's believable, though, as cheaper yet still urban areas often attract a less gentrified crowd.
The main drawback to Oakland is how long of a commute it would be to San Jose. That's something like 40 miles. San Fran would be a more reasonable commute I'd think, although I'm not sure how bad the traffic gets across the bridge during rush hours.
Outside the scope of your question, and perhaps it is not my place, but it seems to me you should reevaluate whether this is a good idea to move to California.
1: The job market's bad here. I haven't seen your resume, but you have said nothing to me that would suggest you will be able to find suitable employment here in the current economy. If you do find work, the ratio between salary and cost of living is worse in the SF Bay area than virtually else anywhere in the U.S. (I say this from personal experience having lived in 4 major U.S. cities over my life).
You mention pay scale, so I want to make sure you understand the reality here... a reasonable starting salary expectation for a standard-issue accounting or finance related position in the San Francisco Bay Area is around $35-45K and that's working long hours in subpar conditions. At a big-4 place, you could get up to $55K, but unless you have an offer in hand right now, or are deep into interview processes, the boat has sailed on that. Obviously if you got into a hedge fund, major corp, etc., it could be different, but I don't see that in the cards based on what you are describing.
Most online "cost of living calculators" understate significantly the cost of living in San Francisco, because they use "average rent" or "average mortgage payment" figures, rather than doing an apples-to-apples comparison on housing that compares the cost of same size house in an area of similar demographics between two locales. Additionally, most do not seem to properly take into account the tax implications that flow from the higher cost of living/higher income situation here. To have an equivalent lifestyle to say $40K/year in middle America, you need to earn a minimum of $100K here (really substantially more than that but I don't want to argue with the people who come out of the woodwork). I make just over $200K (long story, don't get your hopes up), and I would say that I am doing only slightly better than I was when I made $46K living in Denver a few years ago. I eat out more often but my apartment is worse.
2: Much better: Sacramento. Slightly better: anywhere in Southern California, the job market is a bit easier and the cost of living a bit lower. Real solution: don't move to California, there's a reason everyone is leaving.
3: Having attended a non-brand-name school will hurt you immensely in your job search here; the fact that it is out of area exacerbates that. There is more competition here in that regard due to numerous strong (and fairly large) California colleges/universities.
Your statement to having an "excellent" GPA is a bit subjective. I assume you mean you have in the range of a 3.8 to 4.0 on a standard scale. That will help a bit, but you still have a very tough road.
I would not suggest moving here until: (A) you have a job already lined up, (B) you have visited the apartment you are going to be able to rent on your anticipated salary, and (C) you have very seriously looked into options in other major metropolitan areas in the U.S. that supply what you are looking for but have better cost/salary ratios (e.g. Denver, Portland Oregon, etc.).
Your comments are very realistic and I appreciate honest feedback.
I'm in the process of interviewing with Big 4 here in Maryland, but I don't honestly want to live in this area if I can help it. Yes in every sense it would be easier and more practical, but I'm trying to determine what I could give up in terms of living conditions that would give me the most leverage in successfully moving elsewhere. I'm thinking that my best bet would be willingness to live in a high crime, ghetto-type neighborhood.
You are correct in stating that the chances of my getting into a hedge fund or elite business are essentially nil at this point coming from my background. I'm not really shooting for something like that.
I've not heard much about Sacramento. The unemployment rate appears to be comparable to the rest of the state. How would you describe the cultural scene in the city?
I have thought about Denver, and it does appeal to me in several ways. So does Seattle. The main reason that I prioritized California over Denver is that I have been told by others that the urban experiences available in California are superior to those in Colorado. I've never been to Denver, either. I've traveled in Colorado, but it has just been climbing in the San Juans--no cities.
Sacramento could be a good choice if you're trying to get a feel for CA. It's cheaper than the Bay Area and Socal, and it a bit urban. the metro area is at 2 million. But the job market is not very good unless you want to work for the state or health care industry.
Sac has decent nightlife and cultural scene. Plenty of clubs, bars, restaurants, shops in and around the downtown/midtown area. Midtown is the place to be in Sac. Nice Victorian homes
The weather is great too - except for the summer months when it reaches 100 degrees or more for several days straight. Otherwise it's not too bad. Warm in the fall, cold in the winter but not East Coast cold, beautiful in the spring. However, if you're an allergy sufferer then Sac may not be the best choice.
Geographically speaking Sac is in the center of the central valley. It is two hours from the mountains, Tahoe, Reno, an hour-and-half to San Francisco, two hours to San Jose, 3 hours to Yosemite. Tons of places for skiing, hiking, rock climbing, etc near the Sacramento area.
Geesh...I'm so tired of people saying that you can't get by living in the Bay Area--cost of living is too high. Yes, the cost of living is higher than other areas, but you will do fine living on 40k if that is your starting salary. And No Lucania, you don't have to live in a high crime ghetto neighborhood to live in San Jose or nearby towns even. You can live in a beautiful home in the hills with housemates / roommates... penthouse downtown by sharing a room... there are sooo many options here. Start looking on craigslist and you will find excellent options pop up for places to live (YES, roommates are a must, but much better to have when you aren't familiar with an area). I spent about 400 a month in a gorgeous gated 2 bed/2 bath condo right across from San Jose state while in grad school (and yes, I did share a bedroom with a roommate who was really nice and rarely there)...pool spa gym, etc...I got by on a part time job making only $15 an hour, grad school paid for with gov.aid because I had a low income, and did fine with living expenses (no outstanding debts of course). If you wait for the right opportunity it WILL come.
And although I haven't personally lived in Sacramento, it's "beauty" doesn't compare to the foothills, hills, and mountains in the Bay Area...I wouldn't settle for Sacramento when you can have so much more beauty close by in the Santa Cruz mountains, beaches nearby, or cities within driving distance. Don't let people scare you with the "cost of living" bit...there are always ways to get around it without needing to live in the ghetto or live on peanut butter and jelly.
The reference to culture is a very personal and subjective thing. It's hard to reduce to a few words or to guess what you value. I can only give you my thoughts and values on it.
In that regard, I think San Francisco's culture is only modestly superior to that of the average metropolitan area. It is markedly below NYC and Chicago, and probably does not fully equate even to Boston in the scheme of things. This isn't Paris or London, or Dublin for that matter, and it would be very hard to fool yourself, even transiently, into believing that it is. If you are looking not to waste your life away in an anonymous nowhere, it may meet that standard though.
As an urban conglomeration, it receives very low marks. The city is supposedly quite dense but it doesn't feel like it. First, public transit here is an abomination, so the city is not easily navigable. Second, the genuinely dense places are the financial district and SOMA and they basically close at night--I live in essentially the center of town and it's tough to find a good place for dinner most nights. Third, substantial portions of San Francisco are dangerous during the day, and nearly all of the urbanized portion of the town--with the exception of a very small sliver along the Embarcadero -- is unsafe at night. (Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive or has just been lucky so far.)
Many folks I have met who "credit" San Francisco culture over, e.g., Sacramento or Portland or Houston or Seattle or Denver, either (a) are extremely liberal to the point of it being a defining aspect of who they are, and need to be around similarly afflicted people to feel normal; and/or (b) have never actually been to or spent any significant amount of time in those other places, or, in many cases, in any other place.
Technically, our opera house is bigger here, attracts better singers, and charges more for tickets relative to any other major city in the U.S. other than NYC. That being said, I was never disappointed when I saw opera in Denver or Portland, and, at the same time, San Francisco's opera is no comparison to what one expects in Europe or New York.
Technically, we have more plays showing here at any given time. Again though, it's not exactly broadway... and the plays in Denver aren't bad either. For cutting edge stuff, Portland may actually be better.
Technically, our museums are bigger than most places, and there are more of them.
Technically, there are more expensive restaurants here and they are rated better by the critics (those who, somehow, are better at tasting than the rest of us). But again, there's a good enough set of options in any sizable American city to appeal to a normal person's tastes.
Point being, when you live somewhere, you don't go to the museum or to see a play or out to the opera every night or even once a week or frankly, ever, for that matter, for 99% of people. You spend 1/3d of your life at work, and the vast majority of the other 2/3ds at home, interspersed with time at relatives and friends houses, going shopping for essential needs, etc. In fact, with an entry level job, especially if 40% of your paycheck is going to rent, you probably aren't going to be eating out all that often either.
I am open to the idea of a place being simply lame, but I don't think any of the cities we are talking about are so small as to be risking that.
I think your post emphasizes that the facts we are talking about are the same, it is just our subjective evaluation of those facts that differ.
You mention that you made "only" $15/hr and shared a bedroom in a 2-bed, 2-bath condo across from San Jose State with a roommate. (For those not from the area, San Jose State is not a bad area in San Jose, but there is significant crime and drug activity there [and I'm not talking about the college students smoking pot]).
A few points.
First of all, I assume this was at least a couple years ago and there has been some inflation since then.
Second, $15/hr is $30K+/yr and in most of the country, you and a spouse making the same would be buying a nice house, not sharing a bedroom in a condo.
Third, being in grad school and living like that is one thing (i.e., it's borderline acceptable), but being a full-blown adult in the work force, people expect more, especially in a professional level job. Moreover, they need to start saving for the future, retirement, house, marriage, family, etc., and can't just be scraping by like a college kid, that lifestyle will run its course very quickly as life moves on regardless.
Fourth, you are talking about San Jose, which as far as the Bay Area goes is a more reasonable cost/salary arrangement than San Francisco or Oakland are.
My contention is not that one cannot "make it" in the Bay Area on 40K. I actually think one could "make it" here on absolutely nothing, just living off of welfare benefits and hitting up homeless shelters. The point is there's a certain standard of living one expects for a professional level job--I guess you can call it an entitlement that one might expect after spending $__K and ___ years on college. After that, people expect to do at least as well as their friends delivering pizza back home in Wherevercity, Whateverstate, Therestofamerica.
I once found dinner in Manhattan for 25 cents when I was down to, literally, my last quarter, on my way home from a business trip after not having eaten in 12 hours. (A chinese restaurant that was in the process of closing for the night sold me some of its remaining rice after much negotiation.) The rice tasted very good.
I do understand 40k income in San Jose will not get you the same lifestyle as if you were making that amount in a different part of the country... You very likely will downgrade your lifestyle and spending habits (hopefully!) by living in the Bay Area. I don't pretend it is cheap to live here, but for some people it is worth it to "downgrade" in order to enjoy what the area has to offer.
Since the poster is 22, and is/will be a recent grad, living with roommates is not absurd. It is wise to do this to save money...even in your late 20's and starting out in a professional job or even having worked for 5+ years. That is what smart money-conscious people do who live in expensive areas...saving for what lifestyle they do want--not feeling entitled to some grandiose lifestyle right out of college or spending to the max and driving up debt. I've met very few new college graduates who are that naive (nice word here). If living within (I should say BELOW) your means is impossible (poor spending habits) on a 40k job in the Bay Area, then yes, you probably shouldn't live in the Bay Area. This goes for people making 100k+ too... unfortunately people tend to adjust their spending to what they earn...there are people making 50k a year living in the Bay who are able to save more than those making 150k+ a year...it is about spending habits and lifestyle choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
