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.
We're a family of six in Manhattan, kids 6 and under. We really love it here, but the real estate and taxes are not workable for us as the kids get older. We are both well employed in great careers and I make about double her salary. My wife wants to stay home with the kids but we just can't do it here. We've lived in Manhattan for 15 years, but we're native Midwesterners. We hope to move only once while the kids are young.
Our first-choice destination is Milwaukee for family and cost of living reasons, and has been for a while. I am in the final round for a job in Milwaukee that would pay me about the same as I make here for the same job. It's an old-line manufacturer with worldwide operations and is doing very well.
I talked to the company today the discussion was kind of uninspiring. In my area (finance/international), the company has--in my estimation--a bloated group. The group president and I got along really well. But he mentioned in passing that even if more talented, younger, motivated people come aboard, he may not be able to bring them in at the proper level because he does not want to upset the older group (long-timers in their late 40s to early 60s) due to their institutional knowledge. I respect that to a certain degree, but I don't want to wade into management/staffing problems that have already existed for about 20 years.
In the meantime, I'm also prospecting some smaller, more nimble San Francisco/Bay Area shops for roles that would offer me an immediate leadership position for considerably more pay (in a much higher cost of living area, of course). Those jobs would excite me, but it would be a huge move for us and move us further from family whereas an MKE job would get us closer.
Here is my concern, as I think with my head and not my heart: if I take a job in San Francisco (or London or here in NYC), I will get a large raise and a significant promotion. This would make it easier for me to get top-level roles down the road. The Milwaukee job would not push me ahead either financially or professionally. By taking the MKE job instead of, say, a SF job, I am probably giving up between $100k-$150k in total annual compensation (stock+ bonuses + salary).
Question: Is moving to a place we both want more important than making the best career move?
This is really a very personal situation. Only you and your wife together can decide what is best for your family. You want career & money. Your wife wants family nearby and laid back lifestyle for children. You two have to decide this on your own. Anonymous posters on internet forums cannot give you an answer. Your question is not so much about work and career but about marriage and family and which comes first..
Unless the SF job gets you to a new "tier" in life that you can sustain, I am somewhat inclined to say take MKE job and just hang out there until you can find something better 2-3 years later. Nobody says you have to stay at that company forever. The more important question is which job sets you up better 5 years from now? If the SF is something you can leverage back to Midwest in a better situation then go for that. If it's just some grueling consulting/boutique job that pays well but you're still at "what next" in 5 years then I'd give a crack to the MKE job. 2-3 years goes by fairly quick so you need to think 1 move after that more than anything else.
This is really a very personal situation. Only you and your wife together can decide what is best for your family. You want career & money. Your wife wants family nearby and laid back lifestyle for children. You two have to decide this on your own. Anonymous posters on internet forums cannot give you an answer. Your question is not so much about work and career but about marriage and family and which comes first..
Yes I also posted this in General Moving but wanted to cast a wider net because I'm not sure who reads which forum.
I'm not here seeking answers, but rather hoping to tap the experiences of others who may have faced a similar situation and can speak objectively because they have no stake in my decision. Obviously the final choice lies with us.
If your wife can still be a SAHM I'd probably do SF for a few years, then revisit MW. Or if that won't be possible then just go to MW.
My wife can stay home either way. The issue for us is that SF would be an immediate boost for my career and our income and sort of a "family adventure", but we likely don't want to stay there long term. It should make me more marketable to be sure, but there are very limited opportunities in the MKE market for me. The type of job I'm looking into right now may not come around again.
If you are moving to a city you prefer it is a move up, no matter what they say. And if you are moving from New York you will almost surely have a lower cost of living, unless you are moving to San Francisco or Honolulu.
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.
