San Francisco or Las Vegas - What would you do? (Mountain View: attorney, house)

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by irishman_irl

Hi,

I am living abroad, moving for the 1st time to the US and I have two job offers:

1. Las Vegas - 70k
2. San Francisco (mountain view) - 78k

and I am trying to decide which is the better option.

The role (database developer) is pretty much identical with both companies, except the SF one pays a little more.

Because of this my decision comes down to where is a better place to live, if we go for SF we would like to live a close as possible to the city as mountain view seems a little quiet from my one time visit observation.

We live fairly modest lives, both have cars, like to go out to eat once a week, once a week to the movies etc...

Just wondering if anyone else out there has any experience of living in both cities or has any thoughts / suggestions on this?

Thanks!

With an unemployment rate of 12-13% in California, I'd love to know how you've gotten TWO job offers in the span of two days..(I know many people that have been out of work for nearly a year) or is this all just hypothetical speak?

Commuting to Mountain View from San Francisco is not really doable unless you telecommute sometimes. (I commuted to San Mateo from SF during the peak hours and hated every minute of it). Owning two cars in the City is not a good idea from the standpoint of higher car insurance, parking nightmares etc. If I were to be employed in Mountain View, I'd probably live in Mountain View. (It's quite a nice town actually and has plenty of restaurants/bars but it's not San Francisco by any stretch).

I've never been to Las Vegas, and I wouldn't ever move there because the Bay Area region is my home, but I'm positive that your income would stretch much farther there. I'm sure everything is cheaper there.

[Ultrarunner]

For me... San Francisco...

I don't like the Climate in Las Vegas... too hot or too cold!

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by humboldtrat

No, but San Francisco has culture and nightlife. If you think the Strip in LV passes for culture, think again. Outside of the strip, there isn't much in LV except strip malls and forclosed homes and condos stretching out to the horizon.

So true.

Outside of the strip-literally one block over in any direction, LV is very shabby and undesirable imo.

[destroycreate]

LV has no class...let's get real people. It's white trash galore and basically attracts the lowest quality of Americans. The people living in the middle class gated communities made out of cardboard in LV are those who'd otherwsie be living in trailers in the Bay Area. Yikes!

It's a place devoid of urbanity and culture, it's all about profit and material, there's no distinct walkable neighborhoods or adequate public transportation.

I'm sick of people thinking that cheaper lifestyle = higher quality of life. I'd rather live in a shack in SF and have all that there is to do, cosy cafés, nightlife, interesting places to see, than live in a mansion in LV where I can't find intellectual friends or where I have to drive literally EVERYWHERE to do anything.

[destroycreate]

Although I say if you want to live in LV, live off the strip on the highrise condos.

If you're from Europe, you have no idea what you're getting into living in LV...

[olecapt]

Any neighborhood or tract on the peninsula has an almost exact equivalent costing 1/3 as much in Las Vegas.

The climate on the peninsula is better than the climate of Las Vegas. That is about it...and you pay 3X on houses and 25% on cost of living for that climate.

For someone making less than $100K LV wins pretty much every time.

[matt345]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

It's a place devoid of urbanity and culture, it's all about profit and material, there's no distinct walkable neighborhoods or adequate public transportation.

I'm sick of people thinking that cheaper lifestyle = higher quality of life. I'd rather live in a shack in SF and have all that there is to do, cosy cafés, nightlife, interesting places to see, than live in a mansion in LV where I can't find intellectual friends or where I have to drive literally EVERYWHERE to do anything.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. We as Americans have gotten so caught up in how many bedrooms and baths we can afford, that we automatically equate quality of life with the size of the house and have completely disregarded all other factors. There's a reason why you'll pay more for a studio apartment in Manhattan than a 2 BR apartment in Lubbock. You're paying for the location and all that surrounds you.

I'm sure I could get a much larger apartment or maybe even a house if I packed up and moved to Boise, ID. But guess what? I don't want to live in Boise and the size of the place I can afford doesn't dictate my moving decisions.

For many of us, there's more to our American Dream than a brand new cookie cutter McMansion on 2 acres in an enormous gated subdivision. In fact, at for me, that type of living environment is more of my American Nightmare.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by DMenscha

I just got back from Vegas and I'd say it's an easy call to go there instead of the Bay Area. Your cost of living is going to be substantially lower in Vegas. It definitely has some quality of life issues, but you would be $$$$ ahead by going there.

Plus, unlike the perspective of the many Bay Area snobs on this thread, who's only experience with the Las Vegas metro is typically on or near the strip, there are some really interesting residential areas away from there. On one side of the coin are expansive very suburban hoods and on the other side, funky chalets and outright cabins near Mt. Charleston.

If I were in the OP's shoes, it would not be an easy decision to make at all.

LV might actually be compelling enough to forgo ... gasp ... Baghdad By the Bay!

[City Boy]

Move to the Bay Area it will make Visiting Vegas more fun. Vegas is great to go to party etc but to live there, I have friends out there who are bored now and trapped because they can't sell their house. They don't care about going to hoover dam or driving to the grand canyon. Once the partying is over, unless you have a family you'll get bored and will hate the weather.

[Jonotastic]

Originally Posted by irishman_irl

Hi,

I am living abroad, moving for the 1st time to the US and I have two job offers:

1. Las Vegas - 70k
2. San Francisco (mountain view) - 78k

and I am trying to decide which is the better option.

The role (database developer) is pretty much identical with both companies, except the SF one pays a little more.

Because of this my decision comes down to where is a better place to live, if we go for SF we would like to live a close as possible to the city as mountain view seems a little quiet from my one time visit observation.

We live fairly modest lives, both have cars, like to go out to eat once a week, once a week to the movies etc...

Just wondering if anyone else out there has any experience of living in both cities or has any thoughts / suggestions on this?

Thanks!

It depends on what kind of lifestyle you want. You will live in a small old house in Mountain View or a beautiful new house in Vegas with your income. However, you won't have the culture of San Francisco. I would visit both cities before deciding because they are so different and I love both of them, but for different reasons. If you check out Vegas, visit Summerlin, it's a beautiful residential community in Las Vegas. Based on your income, I would choose Vegas!