COL in San Francisco (vs. Minneapolis/St. Paul)

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by morfoide

Honestly, I hate to sound arrogant, but the idea of sharing a 2BR apartment with 3 other guys to pay less rent just no longer appeals to me.

Let me repeat: I currently live ALONE (710sf apartment) on HALF of that salary - so on the salary you've been offered, I would be able to have a 2br townhouse all to myself, and probably enough left over to save a decent amount monthly. When I lived in SF I was making about the same, maybe $55K/year at the most, and only had 1-2 roommates in 2-3 bedrooms. I've never had to share an actual room, and managed to get by okay on that money.

Granted, the rents in SF have skyrocketed since I left in 2011 - but if you're not a snob about neighborhoods, you can still do well on $125K (particularly if you leave the city itself). So unless you have extremely high non-rent expenses, I don't know how you conclude that $125K would mean sharing rooms in a tiny apartment. Seriously, what kind of money are you all spending regularly? I don't live like a pauper, even treat myself to "luxuries" occasionally, and still can't imagine feeling broke on a 6-figure salary.

I understand that 125k is what most people consider a good salary, but then again, at some point I may have a family (who knows) and would like to buy a reasonable sized house in a decent area of wherever I am. I'd even prefer to buy a house while single to start building equity. I've been paying rent for close to 10 years (undergrad + PhD) and it irritates me when I think of the total amount I've sunk into rent, and have absolutely 0 equity to show for it.

I understand wanting to buy a house, but then again, I personally love the freedom of being a renter... I can leave at any time with little/no penalty, don't have to pay property taxes, have amenities I'd never get in a SFH, and also have maintenance staff 24/7 to fix or do anything necessary. To each their own, though, and I do plan to eventually purchase something small. Again, on $125K I could accomplish that in a fairly short amount of time. Having children adds a new dimension, but your future spouse/partner could also have a decent job (as is often the case around here).

P.S. I've been paying rent for over 20 years now!! Scary to think about, but it's what has worked for my lifestyle thus far.

[Timogrey]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

I understand wanting to buy a house, but then again, I personally love the freedom of being a renter... I can leave at any time with little/no penalty, don't have to pay property taxes, have amenities I'd never get in a SFH, and also have maintenance staff 24/7 to fix or do anything necessary. To each their own, though, and I do plan to eventually purchase something small. Again, on $125K I could accomplish that in a fairly short amount of time. Having children adds a new dimension, but your future spouse/partner could also have a decent job (as is often the case around here).

P.S. I've been paying rent for over 20 years now!! Scary to think about, but it's what has worked for my lifestyle thus far.

I don't usually post, but this called to me. I am a renter, and I never want to buy a home again - EVER. These reasons you stated are why. I've owned two homes in my lifetime (bought my first at 24 and second at 30), and I will just say that owning is so overrated. I made a profit on the first home, but trying to sell/rent out my second home was such a pain that I'd rather waste $3000+/mo in rent, just so I never have to go through that again. We could afford to buy here, but I see no justifiable reason to do so. I really enjoy not having the commitment of home ownership, the 24/7 maintenance, amenities, etc. Basically, I'm willing to pay for my freedom, and that's the way I view renting -FREEDOM! But, to each his own, and if that is what the OP is striving for long-term, then MN is probably a better choice than the Bay Area.

[ssmaster]

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...erage-u-s.html
As far as housing cost of living someone making $80,000 is considered low income in s.f.

[artemis78]

No, they aren't. $80K is moderate income, although that does still qualify for some programs to help afford housing in San Francisco. Low income is under $54K. The numbers are based off of the area median income in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties, so as overall household incomes rise in these areas, those thresholds will rise too. (The East Bay counties are in a separate HUD area, so the numbers are somewhat lower.)

[bentobox34]

It depends how long-term you are thinking. $125k is a great starting salary in the Bay Area. If you are renting and don't own a car, you will probably be able to save more out here, and your salary will go up faster. Also consider that if your company offers a 401(k) match it will be calculated off this higher salary, giving you a great start at retirement planning. 5-10 years down the road when you're ready to settle down, you can take all that savings and plunk it down into a nice cheap Michigan/Minnesota/wherever house. Just a thought.

[AngusHsu]

I used to work with a lot of people from Minneapolis and visited twice on business. $90K will get you very far and it is better to own than rent there. Minneapolis is a far cleaner and cheaper city than that of SF. People have that midwestern friendliness not found very often in SF. SF has better food, weather, and things to do on weekends. Minneapolis is much more family friendly and family-oriented as well as less materialistic. I can't stand the humid summers and freezing winters in Minneapolis.

SF housing prices fluctuate quite a bit. These prices will not stay this high forever. We are experiencing a failing housing policy that will be mitigated a bit. Whether the needle moves toward actually affordable housing remains to be seen.

[EricS39]

Originally Posted by morfoide

Both companies are large and well-known in my field. I'd be happy at either one.

I think San Francisco weather and life quality must be factored in. You can also live in say Daly City near the BART and pay less and ride into SF and then it should be a closer rival to the 90K in Minneapolis.

For weather Minneapolis is quite cold in winter and gets uncomfortably hot in summer and only so many nice spring and fall days

San Francisco gets ideal weather 365 days a year for outdoor activity. And one cost you can cut in SF but not in Minneapolis is heating and air conditioning. In SF you can probably live without either one.

[SForMNLee]

I'm a recent transplant from Mpls to SF. Those salaries are prett comparable for SF and Mpls.

BUT you have to have different expectations between the two cities. In SF you can live comfortably in a small apartment with no car on $125k a year. In Minneapolis you could live comfortably in a 3 bedroom home and a car on $90K. Both will be just as easy to do, but you need to understand that there is a difference between big city life and medium city life.

If you want to buy in SF, you're going to be paying $700K on the low end. In Mpls you could get a nice house for under $200K.

My advice would be to do both. Go to SF for the next few years. Occasionally check out Mpls though while you are here. Make sure you go in winter. Then take the job in Mpls when you are ready to settle down and buy a house.