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.
Let's say your your average college grad working in corporate America living in a Chicago suburb. Can you get a better house and suburb after factoring in career advancement and increased pay with the higher cost of living in Chicago or cities like Indy, Milwaukee, St. Louis? Obviously a lot of people can based on all the rich suburbs. But is this true for most corporate folk and professions? Most job titles in Chicago pay a little more, but not enough to make up for how much more taxes and housing are. Do people just get better and faster promotions in large cities?
It's a lifestyle choice for many I think versus salary difference which is fairly negligible for most. A 75K job in Chicago while not going as far as a 70K comparable in Milwaukee, offers much more for the average younger working professional along with your already mentioned better/more varied opportunities for advancement.
It's a lifestyle choice for many I think versus salary difference which is fairly negligible for most. A 75K job in Chicago while not going as far as a 70K comparable in Milwaukee, offers much more for the average younger working professional along with your already mentioned better/more varied opportunities for advancement.
I've always been of the belief that if you choose to live in the suburbs, rather than the city, whether you live in a bigger metro versus a smaller one doesn't make that much of a difference. Particularly once you have children and don't have much free time. Indeed, if you live in a smaller metro, it will be a shorter commute to get into the urban core to socialize, so you might end up spending more time in the city, even if the array of options available isn't quite as impressive.
It is interesting that you equate better standard of living with a better house and a better suburb. As others have pointed out, this does not necessarily improve after moving to a big city. I don't have the exact first had experience with the cities in the example you've given, except that I lived in Milwaukee while going to grad school. Now I live in San Francisco, which I think is comparable to Chicago, at least in terms of corporate establishment. I certainly don't have a better house, in fact it's less than half the size. Most would consider it way too small. I don't live in a nice suburb, I live in SF proper. Despite that, I would say that my standard of living has increased significantly. Professionally it is very difficult to even compare. I would never get the opportunities to work on the projects I'm involved in had I stayed in the Midwest or PNW, where I moved later. I don't drive on a daily basis, I commute using public transportation. I find it much less stressful, despite the occasional overcrowding and far from perfect service overall. The side benefit of this is that I am much more active physically because I'm on my feet for at least an hour a day, on some days for several hours. Of course climate here helps. I also watch much less TV. There are just so many other factors - dining, travel, being able to find likeminded people interested in any pursuit imaginable. I guess another way to sum it up is this - after moving to a big city I may be materially poorer in relative terms, but I feel richer in many other ways.
It is interesting that you equate better standard of living with a better house and a better suburb. As others have pointed out, this does not necessarily improve after moving to a big city. I don't have the exact first had experience with the cities in the example you've given, except that I lived in Milwaukee while going to grad school. Now I live in San Francisco, which I think is comparable to Chicago, at least in terms of corporate establishment. I certainly don't have a better house, in fact it's less than half the size. Most would consider it way too small. I don't live in a nice suburb, I live in SF proper. Despite that, I would say that my standard of living has increased significantly. Professionally it is very difficult to even compare. I would never get the opportunities to work on the projects I'm involved in had I stayed in the Midwest or PNW, where I moved later. I don't drive on a daily basis, I commute using public transportation. I find it much less stressful, despite the occasional overcrowding and far from perfect service overall. The side benefit of this is that I am much more active physically because I'm on my feet for at least an hour a day, on some days for several hours. Of course climate here helps. I also watch much less TV. There are just so many other factors - dining, travel, being able to find likeminded people interested in any pursuit imaginable. I guess another way to sum it up is this - after moving to a big city I may be materially poorer in relative terms, but I feel richer in many other ways.
What industry are you in? I also don't see how your standard of living is not worse except for climate. I also don't believe that dining could be better in san fran.
It is interesting that you equate better standard of living with a better house and a better suburb. As others have pointed out, this does not necessarily improve after moving to a big city. I don't have the exact first had experience with the cities in the example you've given, except that I lived in Milwaukee while going to grad school. Now I live in San Francisco, which I think is comparable to Chicago, at least in terms of corporate establishment. I certainly don't have a better house, in fact it's less than half the size. Most would consider it way too small. I don't live in a nice suburb, I live in SF proper. Despite that, I would say that my standard of living has increased significantly. Professionally it is very difficult to even compare. I would never get the opportunities to work on the projects I'm involved in had I stayed in the Midwest or PNW, where I moved later. I don't drive on a daily basis, I commute using public transportation. I find it much less stressful, despite the occasional overcrowding and far from perfect service overall. The side benefit of this is that I am much more active physically because I'm on my feet for at least an hour a day, on some days for several hours. Of course climate here helps. I also watch much less TV. There are just so many other factors - dining, travel, being able to find likeminded people interested in any pursuit imaginable. I guess another way to sum it up is this - after moving to a big city I may be materially poorer in relative terms, but I feel richer in many other ways.
Depending on your job, you probably would have seen similar benefits from going from Milwaukee to Chicago (i.e. more professional opportunities, larger projects, not having to drive daily, being on your feet more often, improvements in dining, travel and finding like-minded people). I think it's a lot more about just going to a larger city than a different region.
Let's say your your average college grad working in corporate America living in a Chicago suburb. Can you get a better house and suburb after factoring in career advancement and increased pay with the higher cost of living in Chicago or cities like Indy, Milwaukee, St. Louis? Obviously a lot of people can based on all the rich suburbs. But is this true for most corporate folk and professions? Most job titles in Chicago pay a little more, but not enough to make up for how much more taxes and housing are. Do people just get better and faster promotions in large cities?
In moving to Chicago, I found that jobs pay more, but the number and quality of high paying jobs is MUCH greater than many of those other places. There are hundreds of thousands of quite high paying jobs around the city.
I have a general accounting degree from a public university. I graduated in 2001 and made $40,000 a year, had moved up to around $65,000 a year by the time I was in my mid 20's, and now I'm making around $115,000 a year in my mid 30's. Not a CPA, just a good degree and looked through jobs in Chicago and chose one. I certainly would NOT be making that amount of money if I stayed in Iowa. Jobs paying that much are far and few between. Housing and cost of living between the two doesn't come close to making up the difference.
I don't find Chicago all that expensive. Housing is about the cheapest there is among very large urban cities, anywhere from $150,000 for a nice small condo on the north side to million dollar mansions - but if you go to a more middle class area of the city it's far cheaper.
Not sure on taxes. Income taxes are 3.75% which is on the bottom half when looking at states. Property taxes in the city are around 1% to 2% of housing price, which isn't insane (the suburbs are a TOTALLY different picture, much higher). I pay $8,000 a year on our $650,000 condo in the city, in the burbs I would probably be paying well over twice that.
Sales taxes are pretty high, but honestly I get a lot tax-free off Amazon/online for big purchases and I'm not spending thousands and thousands in stores to the point that a few % difference in sales taxes is going to change my mind on moving to the city.
Let's say your your average college grad working in corporate America living in a Chicago suburb. Can you get a better house and suburb after factoring in career advancement and increased pay with the higher cost of living in Chicago or cities like Indy, Milwaukee, St. Louis? Obviously a lot of people can based on all the rich suburbs. But is this true for most corporate folk and professions? Most job titles in Chicago pay a little more, but not enough to make up for how much more taxes and housing are. Do people just get better and faster promotions in large cities?
How many times have you asked this exact question?
Salaries in Chicago can range from marginally more than nearby places to signifcantly more. Really depends on what you're doing. On average, people in Chicago make more. The COL in Illinois and Chicagoland compares quite evenly with the COL in the greater Midwest, Texas, North Carolina, and others.
The only places in the U.S. where an average college grad that doesn't come from money may struggle are the West Coast and Northeast (NYC/DC/Boston).
Presently, I'd say Chicago is the best bang for your buck. Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston are also good options. Really depends what you're looking for. If you'd prefer to live in a city, the answer is Chicago. If you prefer car-centric development, look to Dallas, Atlanta, or Houston (although you can easily find that in suburban Chicago as well).
I think it depends on your industry and what opportunities are available and where. So I can only give you an in general lifestyle difference.
If you were wanting an urban life, my answer would be different. Since you are looking at suburbia, I'd give my overall quality of life nod to the moderately sized cities. Having lived in Chicago and St. Louis (and I love them both, would live in either, any time), Chicago has clearly more to offer, it's just substantially bigger...more museums, more restaurants, more shows, etc. If your lifestyle is to get out and do something new every day, Chicago has more. But most of us settle into a routine. We go out to eat every so often...once a week once a month, whatever. A moderately sized city gives you plenty and foodie culture and great restaurants are everywhere now. The moderately sized cities have touring shows, symphonies, museums, zoos, botanical gardens, concerts, etc. More than enough unless, again, you need something new every day. Most of this is focused in urban areas or inner ring suburbs.
So, this is where the difference in quality of life from the suburbs comes in. In Chicago, traffic sucks. You have far better public transport...but either way, getting from a suburb into downtown is not quick and easy. Period. You WILL spend more time getting places in Chicago than you ever would in a moderately sized city. You can live in an outer ring suburb of St. Louis or Milwaukee and get downtown faster than you can get there from an Evanston or Oak Park. If you live in an inner ring suburb, there is no comparison with the ease and frequency in which you can enjoy the city ammenties in the moderately sized cities. Add kids to the mix one day and it will be even more noticeable. I can take something as simple as my kids hockey schedule and how spread out that can be and double the amount of time I would spend in the car (at least) if I was in Chicago.
We go to Chicago a few times a year, stay downtown, go to the museums, etc. Take the kids to a Cardinals/Cubs game. I have friends in Barrington and Naperville. Their kids do these things about as frequently as mine do and they typically get a hotel room in Chicago to do so anyway. It's not an easy daytrip for them no matter how you cut it (they typically take Metra). I love Chicago and I'd do it, but I really like my easier life right now.
Still, you might be in an industry where there are simply more jobs in a bigger city or more advancement opportunities and that changes everything. I'm a healthcare professional. I worked less for better pay here than I ever would have there, so it's a different thing. A doctor is almost always better off in a smaller or more moderately sized city.
In moving to Chicago, I found that jobs pay more, but the number and quality of high paying jobs is MUCH greater than many of those other places. There are hundreds of thousands of quite high paying jobs around the city.
I have a general accounting degree from a public university. I graduated in 2001 and made $40,000 a year, had moved up to around $65,000 a year by the time I was in my mid 20's, and now I'm making around $115,000 a year in my mid 30's. Not a CPA, just a good degree and looked through jobs in Chicago and chose one. I certainly would NOT be making that amount of money if I stayed in Iowa. Jobs paying that much are far and few between. Housing and cost of living between the two doesn't come close to making up the difference.
I don't find Chicago all that expensive. Housing is about the cheapest there is among very large urban cities, anywhere from $150,000 for a nice small condo on the north side to million dollar mansions - but if you go to a more middle class area of the city it's far cheaper.
Not sure on taxes. Income taxes are 3.75% which is on the bottom half when looking at states. Property taxes in the city are around 1% to 2% of housing price, which isn't insane (the suburbs are a TOTALLY different picture, much higher). I pay $8,000 a year on our $650,000 condo in the city, in the burbs I would probably be paying well over twice that.
Sales taxes are pretty high, but honestly I get a lot tax-free off Amazon/online for big purchases and I'm not spending thousands and thousands in stores to the point that a few % difference in sales taxes is going to change my mind on moving to the city.
You wouldn't be making that amount of money in Iowa because the position wouldn't be available in Iowa? What about Milwaukee? Could you make close to that there? Aren't accounting positions pretty standard across all cities? Also, you could but the same home in Iowa for probably %40 less salary.
Last edited by jman07; 11-30-2016 at 11:22 AM..
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.
