U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-10-2014, 11:04 PM
 
Location: Paris
1,671 posts, read 1,923,071 times
Reputation: 963

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sconesforme View Post
It is very easy

1. Which is best for your career?
2. Which pays the highest salary?

The city is not important when it comes to a job even if it means to moving to Northern Alaska.
Lol, not everyone has the same priorities and you seem incredibly shallow/one dimensional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-10-2014, 11:06 PM
 
5,635 posts, read 13,320,252 times
Reputation: 2904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sconesforme View Post
It is very easy

1. Which is best for your career?
2. Which pays the highest salary?

The city is not important when it comes to jobs even if it means to moving to Salt Lake City.
The difference is that you need SIGNIFICANTLY more money to have the same quality of life in SF compared to Chicago. Everything from rent to food to going out to transportation costs is more expensive here. Rent being the main factor. Wrigleyville is probably the "coolest" neighborhood for young urban professionals. I've been looking at places as I may be moving in with my best friend there. You can get 1 bedroom apartments there for $1k/month or less. Rooms in shared apartments can be around $750/month. In SF, studios in the ghetto will run you more than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2014, 11:08 PM
 
409 posts, read 438,223 times
Reputation: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarstl View Post
Lol, not everyone has the same priorities and you seem incredibly shallow/one dimensional.
Agreed. I would NEVER just consider salary and career when choosing where to live. If Mongolia had the highest pay, it isn't like I would move to Ulan Bator tomorrow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2014, 11:12 PM
 
409 posts, read 438,223 times
Reputation: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
The difference is that you need SIGNIFICANTLY more money to have the same quality of life in SF compared to Chicago. Everything from rent to food to going out to transportation costs is more expensive here. Rent being the main factor. Wrigleyville is probably the "coolest" neighborhood for young urban professionals. I've been looking at places as I may be moving in with my best friend there. You can get 1 bedroom apartments there for $1k/month or less. Rooms in shared apartments can be around $750/month. In SF, studios in the ghetto will run you more than that.
Wrigleyville isn't really that nice, though. It's hardly the "coolest" neighborhood in Chicago. It's actually the cheapest and least desirable part of Lakeview, and Lakeview is hardly the "coolest" neighborhood in Chicago (though it is fairly nice overall).

And while agree SF is more expensive than Chicago, it's pretty much only housing that's more expensive. Food, taxes, transportation, clothes, etc. are all basically the same. And salaries are higher in SF than in Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2014, 11:15 PM
 
5,635 posts, read 13,320,252 times
Reputation: 2904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Standard111 View Post
Wrigleyville isn't really that nice, though. It's hardly the "coolest" neighborhood in Chicago. It's actually the cheapest and least desirable part of Lakeview, and Lakeview is hardly the "coolest" neighborhood in Chicago (though it is fairly nice overall).

And while agree SF is more expensive than Chicago, it's pretty much only housing that's more expensive. Food, taxes, transportation, clothes, etc. are all basically the same. And salaries are higher in SF than in Chicago.
Well for a young person with nightlife, Wrigleyville has some really awesome bars and nightclubs. For me, it's the ideal neighborhood Everyone has their opinions.

I found food cheaper in Chicago. And salaries may be higher here, but I don't think enough to outweigh the higher housing costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2014, 11:19 PM
 
1,462 posts, read 1,507,842 times
Reputation: 1019
You seem terribly negative on the internet, I can only imagine your outlook IRL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2014, 11:40 PM
 
6,795 posts, read 6,602,606 times
Reputation: 5411
Lincoln Park may be Chicago's trendiest neighborhood at the moment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2014, 12:00 AM
 
271 posts, read 294,027 times
Reputation: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
The difference is that you need SIGNIFICANTLY more money to have the same quality of life in SF compared to Chicago. Everything from rent to food to going out to transportation costs is more expensive here. Rent being the main factor. Wrigleyville is probably the "coolest" neighborhood for young urban professionals. I've been looking at places as I may be moving in with my best friend there. You can get 1 bedroom apartments there for $1k/month or less. Rooms in shared apartments can be around $750/month. In SF, studios in the ghetto will run you more than that.
I’m very aware of the difference in price but if the job in SF will help you to better your career a studio in the ghetto may be better than a worse I job in Chicago even though you can get a better apartment and spend more money. This has been discussed before. Live in a tiny flat and being poor working a job in New York that potentially can give you a high salary and that house in the Hamptons or take that municipality job in Chicago and live in a nice flat in Lincoln Park with no prospects of “making it big”. If I was given a tenured professorship at Chicago University I would rather take it before Columbia University even if Columbia would give me a little higher salary and the position was little more “prestigious” than the one in Chicago. Why?

Well, I would consider my career but there would be other variables like social and economic costs. Me not taking that job wouldn’t hinder my career in any significant way anyway, maybe just slowing it down, so why should I make the move? It is like having the money to buy a nice house in Winnetka or Wilmette. It is just a matter of taste and maybe Winnetka is a little bit better but maybe I just like Wilmette little bit more because of social reasons. We do not know the background of this guy. If it stand between working two equally good paying jobs and none of them dramatically change your future career prospect I move to Chicago right away – because you get more for your money in Chicago and I think there are many more pros in Chicago than in San Francisco but there is a lot of taking account – not only low costs. What is strange on this forum and maybe its typical American is that “cost” is so important. Everything that is “cheap” is good and we should strive to consume more junk. Even though I may be “poor” in SF the quality of life (disregarding shopping) maybe better for me and then SF would be better. This American strife of getting “stuff cheap” takes even parodist expressions in American media-commercials when a restaurant sells “We offer luxury for little money”. If something is cheap it isn’t luxury because luxury is bounded to context.

Starbucks sell expensive coffee in a hipster environment inspired by Seattle Grunge-mentality. It worked great for years and years but than people just started to hate Starbucks because it turned into the new Subway or McDonalds. Starbucks was going well because it was “affluent” but with 21 000 stores it is not very affluent anymore and so they lost their appeal. Starbucks grew because they introduced European style coffee and setting among corporate junk-food stores and so they become popular but now when they are a corporate-junk food store people will not buy their coffee anymore and so they are losing stores. If a luxury restaurant says “We sell food cheap” do you want to go to that luxury restaurant? No you wouldn’t. When a luxury restaurant is dropping their prices they are losing customers. Apple did the same thing for years and years until Steve Jobs came back and said that we will sell working stuff and package it as a luxury sell product. Then we will place it in the hands of all the middle class hipsters and people will buy an apple phone or computer – and so they all did. This was something the once larger corporation Nokia didn’t get. They just sold plastic cell phones with high technology for a fair price – than Steve Jobs came in and sold the same things but in a more expensive shell and with smart marketing. So – cheap is not always important. Yes, I use an iPhone 5 and I drink coffee sometimes at Starbucks – even though I know they rip me off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2014, 12:08 AM
 
5,635 posts, read 13,320,252 times
Reputation: 2904
I see where you're coming from, but I was under the impression that the OP had similar job offers. I don't mean to generalize and maybe I assumed to early, but I DID assume that the OP is working in a certain job field already and got similar job offers from similar employers. If your view is the correct view, then I fully support your reasonings. However, if my view is correct, I don't mean to simply say the cheaper thing is better. I'm saying that IMO Chicago is a better place overall. And tbh, if I had the money to move to either and income wasn't a problem (say I won the lotto but had family in both and had to choose between them) I would choose Chicago. I prefer the bigger size of the downtown area, the more laidback friendly vibes of the residents, the better nightlife, the change of seasons, the better public transportation, the usable beaches, and IMO Chicagoans are much more attractive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2014, 12:21 AM
 
409 posts, read 438,223 times
Reputation: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
I prefer the bigger size of the downtown area, the more laidback friendly vibes of the residents, the better nightlife, the change of seasons, the better public transportation, the usable beaches, and IMO Chicagoans are much more attractive.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I don't think too many people will agree on these points.

Even people voting for Chicago will not be likely to say it's because of "laid back people", "seasons", or "beaches". I mean, Pacific vs. a Lake, January in Chicago is a selling point, and Chicago is some laid back town? Definitely no. And really neither city is known for attractive people, but Bay Area is much, much healthier and fit.

And transportation and downtown is a wash, IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top