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.
It doesn't pay 50% more, whole it cost 50% than the average city. Sometimes 60% to 70% more than the average city. So I wish people would stop making this argument. Going from 85k to 100k isn't a 50% salary increase.
It doesn't pay 50% more, whole it cost 50% than the average city. Sometimes 60% to 70% more than the average city. So I wish people would stop making this argument. Going from 85k to 100k isn't a 50% salary increase.
Exactly, if the average salary was 120k, then there would be a valid point.
Just look at the bay area forum, where people making 50k a year have trouble affording rent in a decent area. And people making 100k a year can't afford houses.
It doesn't pay 50% more, whole it cost 50% than the average city. Sometimes 60% to 70% more than the average city. So I wish people would stop making this argument. Going from 85k to 100k isn't a 50% salary increase.
I'm not arguing, but I was showing a different view in terms of pay given that the OP used median pay and that article used average(mean) pay/income.
I looked at a number of cities using this tool and the thing that strikes me is that the cities with the best incomes like DC, SF, Seattle, Boston are always expensive so you still do well but not that much more than middle income cities that are low cost such as Atlanta, Baton Rouge, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Dallas, etc. The cities that you really struggle in are LA, SD, and some small low income cities that are also expensive like Medford, Or, Santa Fe, Redding, Ca.
"Bang for your buck" really only means anything if you can get the same job in either city, and get the same salary for doing it. And that's much easier to do in some professions than others.
You actually really don't need a car in Indy. IndyGo isn't the best system, but the city is flat and has amazing bicycling infrastructure. Plus, it's really compact and has everything you need downtown including transit connections to Chicago and Cincinnati.
I've lived Car-Free in Milwaukee, Chicago, and Cincinnati. Chicago is always talked about as a "transit city" but it's just bigger than the other cities and there's a difference in scale. People talk about how hard it is to get to Keystone Mall in Indy, or Kenwood Mall in Cincinnati, or Mayfair Mall in Milwaukee on transit...but they always leave out Chicago. That's like talking about going to Woodfield Mall in Schaumberg. Good luck with that...
The fact of the matter is that Midwestern Cities are more manageable, walkable, and easy to navigate than many cities on the coasts. There may not be light rail everywhere, but they're actually pretty darn easy to live in car-free. I've done it for eight years with no issues whatsoever and I plan on raising a family in Cincinnati without a car.
If you live in Chicago why in the world would you go to a suburban mall?
If you live in Chicago why in the world would you go to a suburban mall?
LOL no kidding - the only mall worth going to in the suburbs if you live in the city is the "Fashion Outlets of Chicago" which have high end designers and is hardly out of the city, not to mention decently close to the Blue Line
I'm beginning to think the whole "you can't move to place X because it costs too much" is a little misleading. I saw two jobs last night. One job was a IT Business Analyst working for the City of San Francisco and it started out $80,000 a year; seeing as you would be working for the city, it may be reasonable to assume you could make $90-100,000 year in the private sector. The second job was Network Tech for a school district in southern Illinois; the pay was $12 an hour! Both jobs required 4 year degree's and experience. I know there may be a higher demand for one skill set over the other but still that is one big gap.
I'm beginning to think the whole "you can't move to place X because it costs too much" is a little misleading. I saw two jobs last night. One job was a IT Business Analyst working for the City of San Francisco and it started out $80,000 a year; seeing as you would be working for the city, it may be reasonable to assume you could make $90-100,000 year in the private sector. The second job was Network Tech for a school district in southern Illinois; the pay was $12 an hour! Both jobs required 4 year degree's and experience. I know there may be a higher demand for one skill set over the other but still that is one big gap.
A network tech is a very entry level position. It's basically a level 1 type of job, where you monitor and then escalate. Some technical skills may be required, but it's hardly the same class of job. In the Bay Area so position would play maybe $18-$20. A Business Analyst is far more essential. They often do Business Intelligence, provide metrics and analytics to the business team. Very essential to the requirement stage, stakeholders, and product management. These roles are night and day in how important they are. 80k is not a competitive salary for a Business Analyst by any stretch of the imagination.
The chart in the NPR article looks wrong. I wonder if they meant per capita income instead of median income? Even if the data are from 2012, they seem very low.
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.
