Chicago vs. San Francisco? (Riverside, San Jose: health insurance, house, neighborhoods)

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by cordtwo

There are people in their 50's still paying for bad financial decisions they made in their 20's. All it takes is for a person to be irresponsible with their money, get married and have kids and they will not be seeing daylight anytime soon. With the OP's college education he will be just fine starting out in a less expensive city and relocating to a more expensive city after gaining stability.

Long term investments are a better option then running behind a job. I would prefer to see the young professional in a less expensive city putting more of their money towards their future and investing it properly.

If the OP stated that living expenses are a top priority why are we trying to convince them anything different?

If the OP only had a job offer in SF, then it would make sense to take that route, but I would not dare tell anyone with multiple offers in different cities to relocate to the most expensive place when their is no serious justification for doing so.

The OP is 24 years old. Young enough to be my kid. I would tell them the same thing I do tell my kids -- the thing that matters most early in your career is getting into a situation where your contributions are MOST VALUED and the easiest way to assess how valued you are this stage of your career is how much the firm is willing to PAY YOU. $90k surely implies a greater value than $83k. Take the offer in SF!

[Maintainschaos]

Having recently been in this scenario, I'd choose Chicago handedly.

[cordtwo]

Originally Posted by chet everett

The OP is 24 years old. Young enough to be my kid. I would tell them the same thing I do tell my kids -- the thing that matters most early in your career is getting into a situation where your contributions are MOST VALUED and the easiest way to assess how valued you are this stage of your career is how much the firm is willing to PAY YOU. $90k surely implies a greater value than $83k. Take the offer in SF!

I have to disagree. Many people are able to get $90K in SF, since it's really not a great salary in California to begin with. Getting $83K in Chicago is far more meaningful especially if the OP takes the additional funds and invest it properly. Eventually it comes down to how you value yourself and not what a firm is willing to offer. Maybe if the SF opp was paying at least $120,000 I would think differently.

Chet, there is no secret to how you feel about Chicago, but lets be realistic. I am not the biggest fan of Atlanta, however if the OP had stated they could earn $70K in Atlanta vs. $90K in California I would say Atlanta hands down, especially since they mentioned COL as a priority. We should give the OP advice based on what they asked and not how we feel, which is what you are doing in this case. You are a very sharp person, but lets not give the OP unsolicited advice considering we don't know the OP's full situation. We should not tell a young person whom may be accepting their first real job to go to SF only making $90K, when we know for a fact $83K will go waaaaay further in Chicago.

Did it ever cross your mind that since COL is a top priority maybe the OP had some financial obligations? It's easy for you to suggest going to SF not knowing the full story.

[Nafster]

Originally Posted by chet everett

The OP is 24 years old. Young enough to be my kid. I would tell them the same thing I do tell my kids -- the thing that matters most early in your career is getting into a situation where your contributions are MOST VALUED and the easiest way to assess how valued you are this stage of your career is how much the firm is willing to PAY YOU. $90k surely implies a greater value than $83k. Take the offer in SF!

Oh - I forgot to mention.

People in San Francisco also tended to be more impulsive and not consider logical thinking in decision making like they do in New York and Chicago.

Thanks for making me remember.

[OyCrumbler]

Mod cut.

Originally Posted by cordtwo

I have to disagree. Many people are able to get $90K in SF, since it's really not a great salary in California to begin with. Getting $83K in Chicago is far more meaningful especially if the OP takes the additional funds and invest it properly. Eventually it comes down to how you value yourself and not what a firm is willing to offer. Maybe if the SF opp was paying at least $120,000 I would think differently.

Chet, there is no secret to how you feel about Chicago, but lets be realistic. I am not the biggest fan of Atlanta, however if the OP had stated they could earn $70K in Atlanta vs. $90K in California I would say Atlanta hands down, especially since they mentioned COL as a priority. We should give the OP advice based on what they asked and not how we feel, which is what you are doing in this case. You are a very sharp person, but lets not give the OP unsolicited advice considering we don't know the OP's full situation. We should not tell a young person whom may be accepting their first real job to go to SF only making $90K, when we know for a fact $83K will go waaaaay further in Chicago.

Did it ever cross your mind that since COL is a top priority maybe the OP had some financial obligations? It's easy for you to suggest going to SF not knowing the full story.

No, it can be a great salary in many parts of California. All parts of coastal California are extremely expensive, but the Bay Area is something spectacular on those grounds. Even in major coastal Californian cities, that salary would go a lot further in LA or SD than it would in SF. Of course, if the job is not in SF proper and is further out in the East Bay, it might not be so bad.

The question is really in the specifics of the jobs and where they are located. These salaries are close enough given the overall cost of living of the two places to decide upon much more specific details about future job opportunities and specific places of employment. At this point, it's also worthwhile to mention other factors that you are considering, because it's a pretty close grab at this point given what the OP has said so far.

[beaniemac]

Originally Posted by Cyclone20

Because of the through the roof costs of living and other things in SF, would 90k be enough for me to be comfortable? I'd like to buy a 2-3 bedroom home and I'd want to be in a safe area.

90K is NOT income enough to secure a mortgage for a house that size in SF.

they are renting under 500 sq ft studios out there for damn near 2K a month.

[usamathman]

Agree with the other posters.


On $90k you would be able to afford a nice apartment in just about any part of Chicago. No roommates needed.

Visited San Francisco in 2015. Really enjoyed the place and plan to visit again. But was blown away at the cost of living.
Everything there is more expensive.

In one of the worst neighborhoods in San Francisco (Tenderloin district), the cheapest studios start at $1700. In the better areas, expect to pay $2500+ per month. Roommates are an option. But even then expect to be pay close to $2k for a room.

As far as weather goes....San Francisco wins hands down. Gorgeous weather year round with occasional cool days. Much better than what you would have to deal with in Chicago.

Both cities have lots of variety as far as women are concerned. College, career oriented, outdoorsy, etc. I think San Francisco has a higher volume of single women earning six figure salaries. Can't go wrong in either place.

$90k should bring you in about $4900 per month after taxes as a single. Not including 401k contributions, etc.

Really up to you as far as how much you really want to save. Bulk of expenses will be going towards rent.

Use the $4900 as a starting point.

Build your experience. Work on saving. And when the zeal of living in either Chicago or San Fran has worn off try on of the other places.

Best of luck either way and CONGRATS. There are many people that wish they could have started off making the money you are making at your age.

Couldn't have two better cities to be able to choose from.

[compactspace]

As far as I'm concerned, the financial and career advice of Internet people should be taken with a mound of salt.

If you like Chicago then move there. It'll probably be alright... at least until you grow sick of the crime or the cold or the lack of economic growth or whatever it is that bugs people. But if you do come and go, then please refrain from coming to this forum to say how much Chicago is doomed

Alternatively, if you prefer SF then move there. That'll also probably alright. But if you wind up loathing SF for whatever reason, then please feel free to head over to their forum and gripe your head off. (I don't visit that one and I'm a selfish bastard.)

You sound smart, educated and capable. You have options. Stop fretting.

[King Harold]

SF is great for a 24 year old. I lived there when I was 27-33 and in hindsight should not have left.
That said, I feel like the kind of person who loves Chicago would hate SF, and vice versa.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by cordtwo

I have to disagree. Many people are able to get $90K in SF, since it's really not a great salary in California to begin with. Getting $83K in Chicago is far more meaningful especially if the OP takes the additional funds and invest it properly. Eventually it comes down to how you value yourself and not what a firm is willing to offer. Maybe if the SF opp was paying at least $120,000 I would think differently.

Chet, there is no secret to how you feel about Chicago, but lets be realistic. I am not the biggest fan of Atlanta, however if the OP had stated they could earn $70K in Atlanta vs. $90K in California I would say Atlanta hands down, especially since they mentioned COL as a priority. We should give the OP advice based on what they asked and not how we feel, which is what you are doing in this case. You are a very sharp person, but lets not give the OP unsolicited advice considering we don't know the OP's full situation. We should not tell a young person whom may be accepting their first real job to go to SF only making $90K, when we know for a fact $83K will go waaaaay further in Chicago.

Did it ever cross your mind that since COL is a top priority maybe the OP had some financial obligations? It's easy for you to suggest going to SF not knowing the full story.

This. The fact that Chet feels 90k in S.F. is a better offer than 82k in Chicago is outrageous. OP will realistically end up paying greater than 8k a year more in rent in S.F. than in Chicago. This alone makes the Chicago offer more attractive. If he's looking to purchase a house, then the decision is even easier. Assuming you've visited both places and feel as though you could enjoy living in either, come to Chicago...