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.
These are two of the most expensive areas in the USA. However, which one does your money get you further? Both have high rents, but one doesn’t need a car in NYC (it’s hard to get around LA with a car). For 120 a month in NYC (monthly MTA pass), you can get pretty much anywhere in NYC. 120 would probably cover car insurance in CA, but not car payments, gas, etc....
Hmmmm.... I'm not sure I'd characterize anywhere in the NYC metro as quite cheap. NJ may have places that are "affordable", but I'm not sure that I'd want to live in any of them (I'm sure LA metro has similar areas.) A 20-minute train ride more or less limits you to Hoboken or Jersey City, which are both $$$.
Anywhere that you would want to live (i.e. leafy suburb w/ downtown area & good schools) carries a premium, and remember the property taxes here are ~$25K for every $M of purchase price (which is much higher than CA.) In these towns, $1M probably gets you a decent 3BD (or not-decent in the best towns), or 4BD if you're willing to not be on a main train line. Westchester is more expensive on average, and LI is about the same.
Not familiar enough with LA to vote, but would be surprised if it were more expensive, beach cities notwithstanding. SF I could see being more $$$ on a metro-area basis.
It seems like parking in LA is also a hassle and that prob also adds up (meter parking, parking lots, valet) It’s also a hassle in NYC (even in the boroughs) but most people don’t need to drive to get around.
And it seems like LA rents aren’t all that cheaper compared to say, Jackson Heights in Queens.
It seems like parking in LA is also a hassle and that prob also adds up (meter parking, parking lots, valet) It’s also a hassle in NYC (even in the boroughs) but most people don’t need to drive to get around.
And it seems like LA rents aren’t all that cheaper compared to say, Jackson Heights in Queens.
Rents may not be significantly cheaper, but you can get way more space in LA for the same price you'd pay in NYC.
New York...because transportation costs could be much lower than LA. Using just 1 car to commute regularly in LA can easily be upwards of $8K annually. (parking, gas, maintenance, registration, purchase, insurance) versus $1500 for a year of transit in NYC. $6,500 difference gives you $500/month more to work with for rent.
It depends a lot of what you value. For me, for the same salary, NYC goes further and a lot of that is the lack of necessity to own a car and that there are a lot of “public” spaces, whether privately or publicly owned, that you can take part in to make up for the lesser space on per square footage per dollar you get. On top of that, you generally get higher pay though I reckon we’re talking about equal pay rates for the same work.
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.
