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.
Between two equally matched cities, would you choose the city with the better job market, or the city with a lower cost of living (especially the cost/availability of housing)?
It depends, really--depends on your where you're at in your professional career, your personal career goals/aspirations, if you're making ends meet or not, if you're working a job that's beneath your level of education/experience/expertise due to your desire to live someplace you enjoy living, whether you're single or not, whether you have kids or not, if you desire a bigger home with a backyard and/or more elbow room, if you prefer a warmer climate vs. a four-season climate or coastal vs. non-coastal living, etc.
Your answers to those questions should help make your decision easier.
As an aside, cities with a higher COL usually have better job markets. If you're a corporate ladder-climber, then there's going to be greater propensity for you to move up the ranks and, in turn, earn more money in a better job market, if "better job market" = larger corporate presence. In a city like that, chances are good you'll be more gainfully employed and, in turn, happier/more content with your career and life in general.
Thanks. Yeah the reason the 2nd city has a lower cost of living is because the job market hasn't turned around as much yet, as well, it's a smaller city. In places where the job market has picked up, the housing market has also rebounded in a big way. I'd probably enjoy living in either city, which is why I described them as "equally matched", with a slight preference toward the city with higher cost of living. They both have different pluses and minuses, which just about equal out.
I'm in the middle of a career change for a creative career (multimedia specialist/design), so I'm not bound to a particular industry. I'm single with no kids, but that being said, have always preferred being in a house of my own. So, I would be buying a house with one income in a field with middle of the road earnings. What I have saved could buy a house straight out in the city with the lower cost of living. It would be more of a downpayment in the more expensive city, where it would be also be very competitive to buy a house (multiple bidders). I also like to invest in real estate on the side, so the city that hasn't turned around yet is interesting for that reason.
More job opportunities would equivocate being able to change to a different job more easily if I wanted. I'm not too much a corporate climber. However I do take on contract work and individual photo/video jobs as well, which would be more prevalent in the larger city.
No, I don't have a job yet, nor a place to live. So I'd be starting from square 1 with both options. I will probably have to find a job upon arriving, as i think companies rarely offer relocation for creative positions. I don't mind moving myself, as I don't have much to move. No kids, just a dog
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.
