Chicago is only worth the cost if you have a Corporate career? (Detroit: buying a home, neighborhood)

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Berteau

That was regarding construction jobs. I actually answered that specific instance in my original post, but the person didn't read it so I had to reanswer it again. My original question was regarding the jobs where it isn't a wash like corporate and consulting jobs. Read my original post! Looks like this question is above peoples heads.

Well, that's a broad swath of things out there that are possible occupations. There are probably a lot of industries that don't even really exist in a lot of other smaller cities. Certainly some of your own examples of what can not come out ahead seem off. Construction? Well, if you're trying to specialize in certain types of construction, wouldn't that have different ceilings in different places? Doesn't things like skyscraper construction come with some specialization in the field? Skyscrapers can show up anywhere, but most smaller cities generally don't have a going pipeline for that. For healthcare, not every city receives as much in research funding and there's certainly specialization in that field. For education, there's a pretty wide range in the level and breadth of research and work in academia among different institutions. Certainly there's quite a bit of remarkable institutions for this.

[Berteau]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Your question was already answered. Chicago is worth the cost depending on one's preferences. I know people in construction here and they are very happy. It's worth the cost to them.

No. The first word of my post was FINANCIALLY!

[NewHomer556]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

I'm not a huge fan of Chicago but Indianapolis just sucks. Anyway, this same argument could be applied to any number of big cities. Is it worth living in San Francisco if you aren't making $250k per year at some high tech job? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what you're looking for.

Indianapolis sucks so bad it has the lowest Unemployment rate in the Midwest and the 5th lowest nationally.
https://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laulrgma.htm
Indy's unemployment rate is 3%
Chicago is 4.3%
An even better metric for how good or bad a city is. Population growth or decline.
Since the 2010 Census Indianapolis has gained 40,000 people in the city limits and 150,000 in the metro area.
Chicago in that exact same time frame has gained 9,400 people in the city limits and 70,000 people in the entire metro area.
A city that is 4.5 times larger than Indianapolis has a slower population growth in both the city limits AND metro along with a higher unemployment rate.
Then you have economic development projects like this that Chicago never gets: https://www.theindychannel.com/news/...d-airport-site
3,000 good paying tech jobs from a World Class company based in India. When is the last time Chicago snagged something like that? A corporate headquarters that adds maybe 100 jobs is child's play compared to that.
When Amazon announces the location for HQ2 if Indianapolis gets it you can bet it will be rubbed in the nose of every Chicagoan for a long time

[Berteau]

Originally Posted by NewHomer556

Indianapolis sucks so bad it has the lowest Unemployment rate in the Midwest and the 5th lowest nationally.
https://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laulrgma.htm
Indy's unemployment rate is 3%
Chicago is 4.3%
An even better metric for how good or bad a city is. Population growth or decline.
Since the 2010 Census Indianapolis has gained 40,000 people in the city limits and 150,000 in the metro area.
Chicago in that exact same time frame has gained 9,400 people in the city limits and 70,000 people in the entire metro area.
A city that is 4.5 times larger than Indianapolis has a slower population growth in both the city limits AND metro along with a higher unemployment rate.
Then you have economic development projects like this that Chicago never gets: https://www.theindychannel.com/news/...d-airport-site
3,000 good paying tech jobs from a World Class company based in India. When is the last time Chicago snagged something like that? A corporate headquarters that adds maybe 100 jobs is child's play compared to that.
When Amazon announces the location for HQ2 if Indianapolis gets it you can bet it will be rubbed in the nose of every Chicagoan for a long time

"A company based in India" , but not Indy. The corporations in Chicago are huge international well known with their corporate headquarters IN Chicago. They usually have between 2000 - 4000 employees, not 100. Lilly is really all Indy has that has some type of national recognition. And What's important is WHO is leaving and coming to a metro. Is it professionals or welfare bums and criminals? There are something like 50 high rises currently under construction in Chicago now. How many in Indy!

I guess my thread is hijacked now for a city vs city.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by Berteau

Cashiers are't corporate careers or even careers. I'm talking about salaried positions at their corporate offices, but I figured I didn't need to spell that out. From my post "You have so many large international corporate headquarters and consulting jobs in Chicago"

So you're asking if it's only worth living in Chicago if you work at a major corporate headquarters or as a consultant for them? In that case, the answer is a resounding NO! (I wasn't being a smartass in asking for a specific definition-- just for clarification. "Corporate career" is a rather vague term that I don't really hear used often in the real world, TBH. I would assume it to mean anyone who works for a corporation.)

There are many other ways people make a living in Chicago. I can honestly only think of one friend in Chicago who works in a high-paying position at a major corporate headquarters, and he's a scientist, not a management or CEO-type. I have known more "consultants" (since you included them in your definition) in Chicago than other places I've lived, for sure, but they're still a relatively small percentage of people I know overall in town, and they don't all consult for major corporations.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by Berteau

Okay. But what if you live in the suburbs? Naperville basically equals north Indy burbs. They have the same amenities, and without the traffic and long commutes.

Suburbs are fairly similar anywhere, I agree, and I personally wouldn't want to live in any of them. I can see how if you wanted to live in a suburb and weren't planning to go into the city very often, it would make more sense to live in a metro area where the "nicer" suburbs are cheaper than Chicago's are. If you want to live in a city, though, I don't think there's any comparison between Chicago and Indy.

There is a separate forum on this site for the Chicago suburbs where your question would be better posed if you're asking about that, by the way.. This is a forum is for the city of Chicago.

[Tall Traveler]

According to my favorite COL site, Chicago is 23% more expensive to live in than Indianapolis so financially speaking, you would need o make above 23% more in Chicago to be better off financially than you would be in Indy....however, the average income in Chicago is more than 23% higher according to the same site.

Personally I wouldn't want to live anywhere in the Midwest but if I did, it would be Chicago.

[Maintainschaos]

If the COL is the only reason you live where you live, then by all means move to the cheapest place possible. Most people don’t just live somewhere because of COL. Chicago offers an experience in big city living that can’t be matched really by anywhere else in the Midwest, which is why many choose Chicago. I personally find little interesting about a place like Indy, so I would be unlikely to choose it, despite the fact that it is cheap, and I would apply the same criteria to many other locations.

[dtcbnd03]

Originally Posted by Berteau

Financially, the only people who can come out ahead in Chicago are people who have careers that you can't find the same progression or opportunities that other large midwest cities have. For example, if you work in construction, healthcare, or education, you can do that anywhere. Granted you do get paid more in Chicago, but you don't have any better advancement or promotion opportunities. But lets say you work in corporate america, finance, or consulting. The same opportunities and jobs just aren't available on the high end in other cities. You have so many large international corporate headquarters and consulting jobs in Chicago and a higher ladder to climb.

From personal experience, I work for a construction management company and moved to Indianapolis. I actually got paid more in Indy for the exact same job and the cost of living is so much smaller. Staying in Chicago would not have offered me any greater career opportunities.

Yes I agree and this is one of the main reasons why I live in Chicago. I work in financial consulting and own investment properties on the side. Both allow me to "stay ahead" of the rising wave of taxes and COL. I don't want to turn this into a taxes thread but I remember when I was complaining about the massive Chicago tax hikes and Illinois debt in recent years and was thinking of moving and my brother basically put it this way "You'll take a pay decrease in any other non-major city and won't be able to charge as much rent or experience as much property appreciation....all to save about $5-10k/year in taxes". I know I can make more than the tax hikes in Chicago aside from it being a world class true big city. For the average Joe though on a basic salary or hourly wage I don't know why financially they stay in Chicago when their getting pay decreases every year...

[treemoni]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

Chicago offers an experience in big city living that can’t be matched really by anywhere else in the Midwest, which is why many choose Chicago.

It's really unfortunate that the Midwest doesn't have other cities with similar offerings. The coasts and the South have more diversity. Lack of attractive options is a a major failure of the Midwest.