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 05-25-2014, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
4,318 posts, read 4,839,991 times
Reputation: 3766

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
I wish that there was something more recent, but this gives you an idea about average annual income/pay by metro: Northern California enjoys nation's highest salaries - The Business Journals

It doesn't pay 50% more, whole it cost 50% than the average city. Sometimes 60% to 70% more than the average city. So I wish people would stop making this argument. Going from 85k to 100k isn't a 50% salary increase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2014, 07:55 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 7,630,135 times
Reputation: 3248
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913 View Post
It doesn't pay 50% more, whole it cost 50% than the average city. Sometimes 60% to 70% more than the average city. So I wish people would stop making this argument. Going from 85k to 100k isn't a 50% salary increase.
Exactly, if the average salary was 120k, then there would be a valid point.

Just look at the bay area forum, where people making 50k a year have trouble affording rent in a decent area. And people making 100k a year can't afford houses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 09:41 PM
 
52,711 posts, read 75,602,776 times
Reputation: 11636
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913 View Post
It doesn't pay 50% more, whole it cost 50% than the average city. Sometimes 60% to 70% more than the average city. So I wish people would stop making this argument. Going from 85k to 100k isn't a 50% salary increase.
I'm not arguing, but I was showing a different view in terms of pay given that the OP used median pay and that article used average(mean) pay/income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2014, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Washington State
15,402 posts, read 8,054,172 times
Reputation: 13200
I looked at a number of cities using this tool and the thing that strikes me is that the cities with the best incomes like DC, SF, Seattle, Boston are always expensive so you still do well but not that much more than middle income cities that are low cost such as Atlanta, Baton Rouge, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Dallas, etc. The cities that you really struggle in are LA, SD, and some small low income cities that are also expensive like Medford, Or, Santa Fe, Redding, Ca.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 11:59 AM
 
Location: NYC
3,246 posts, read 4,553,094 times
Reputation: 2011
"Bang for your buck" really only means anything if you can get the same job in either city, and get the same salary for doing it. And that's much easier to do in some professions than others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 04:38 PM
 
10,292 posts, read 12,418,846 times
Reputation: 5994
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProkNo5 View Post
You actually really don't need a car in Indy. IndyGo isn't the best system, but the city is flat and has amazing bicycling infrastructure. Plus, it's really compact and has everything you need downtown including transit connections to Chicago and Cincinnati.

I've lived Car-Free in Milwaukee, Chicago, and Cincinnati. Chicago is always talked about as a "transit city" but it's just bigger than the other cities and there's a difference in scale. People talk about how hard it is to get to Keystone Mall in Indy, or Kenwood Mall in Cincinnati, or Mayfair Mall in Milwaukee on transit...but they always leave out Chicago. That's like talking about going to Woodfield Mall in Schaumberg. Good luck with that...

The fact of the matter is that Midwestern Cities are more manageable, walkable, and easy to navigate than many cities on the coasts. There may not be light rail everywhere, but they're actually pretty darn easy to live in car-free. I've done it for eight years with no issues whatsoever and I plan on raising a family in Cincinnati without a car.
If you live in Chicago why in the world would you go to a suburban mall?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,304 posts, read 17,948,992 times
Reputation: 6255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
If you live in Chicago why in the world would you go to a suburban mall?
LOL no kidding - the only mall worth going to in the suburbs if you live in the city is the "Fashion Outlets of Chicago" which have high end designers and is hardly out of the city, not to mention decently close to the Blue Line
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2014, 12:49 AM
 
80 posts, read 98,468 times
Reputation: 63
I'm beginning to think the whole "you can't move to place X because it costs too much" is a little misleading. I saw two jobs last night. One job was a IT Business Analyst working for the City of San Francisco and it started out $80,000 a year; seeing as you would be working for the city, it may be reasonable to assume you could make $90-100,000 year in the private sector. The second job was Network Tech for a school district in southern Illinois; the pay was $12 an hour! Both jobs required 4 year degree's and experience. I know there may be a higher demand for one skill set over the other but still that is one big gap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2014, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
4,318 posts, read 4,839,991 times
Reputation: 3766
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjb122982 View Post
I'm beginning to think the whole "you can't move to place X because it costs too much" is a little misleading. I saw two jobs last night. One job was a IT Business Analyst working for the City of San Francisco and it started out $80,000 a year; seeing as you would be working for the city, it may be reasonable to assume you could make $90-100,000 year in the private sector. The second job was Network Tech for a school district in southern Illinois; the pay was $12 an hour! Both jobs required 4 year degree's and experience. I know there may be a higher demand for one skill set over the other but still that is one big gap.
A network tech is a very entry level position. It's basically a level 1 type of job, where you monitor and then escalate. Some technical skills may be required, but it's hardly the same class of job. In the Bay Area so position would play maybe $18-$20. A Business Analyst is far more essential. They often do Business Intelligence, provide metrics and analytics to the business team. Very essential to the requirement stage, stakeholders, and product management. These roles are night and day in how important they are. 80k is not a competitive salary for a Business Analyst by any stretch of the imagination.
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
Similar Threads
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