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.
I remember after college my best friend and I had this dream to move to San Francisco. It was the total millennial thing to do. I remember back then (2008) you could rent a room in the city for like $700 (LOL).
Long story short, she moved to Canada for a few years and then to Chicago where she is happily married and leads a new-age yoga/meditation group for women. I bounced around a bit, but never to SF. I've visited a number of times and realized it was absolutely nothing like the city I had imagined in my hopes and dreams. I'm glad I didn't have to move there to realize that.
And you can still do that in a lot of cities. You just can't do that in the most desirable ones.
Exactly. In places where you can get 400 dollar apartments, I'm sure it's doable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Unfortunately in SF its very common for people making $100K+ to need a roommate. I find that deplorable.
This region is not keeping up with housing demand.
But are they willing to move to a less desirable (but not bad) neighborhood?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Very few people in Manhattan are paying $4,000 per month for housing (meaning the total amount of money coming out of their pocket towards rent each month). Only 12% of units of any size in Manhattan rent for $3,500+.
The average price for a non-doorman studio on the UWS is $2,327, $2,322 in Murray Hill, $2,109 on the UES, and between $2,300-$2,400 in Midtown. And this is based on the March 2017 Manhattan Real Estate Market Rental Report.
Sure, the average highly educated dude in NYC is going to pay a lot more money for a lot less space than the average highly educated dude living in Pittsburgh, but most people moving into Manhattan understand the tradeoffs. But the idea that the average highly educated dude in Pittsburgh will be saving a lot more than his Manhattan counterpart isn't true. The biggest advantage average highly educated dude in Pittsburgh has is much cheaper real estate.
And let's not forget that there are neighborhoods in NYC, even in Manhattan, that are way cheaper than that. If I was making 100k, I would probably live in upper Manhattan, or somewhere in Queens along the Queens Blvd line and have my own place.
And of course, the average NYC resident makes nowhere near 100k.
And you can still do that in a lot of cities. You just can't do that in the most desirable ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by l1995
Exactly. In places where you can get 400 dollar apartments, I'm sure it's doable.
This is vastly overstated. Especially from people who live in HCOL areas.
If you can find an apartment that rents for $400, the area is either economically depressed or very dangerous. It's not a smart decision to attempt living on your own at 19. It will likely have a impact on your earning potential and future financial stability. So I wouldn't consider it to be viable for the majority of people at 19.
I really hate having roommates. I have 3 now and appreciate the cost, but man it sucks. Feel like a perpetual college student, even though I have a full time job at a well reputed employer andam only a couple years from thirty.
I really hate having roommates. I have 3 now and appreciate the cost, but man it sucks. Feel like a perpetual college student, even though I have a full time job at a well reputed employer andam only a couple years from thirty.
Wouldn't catch me living in that type of climate for that much, and with roommates. Get some experience and then get out of Boston!
This is vastly overstated. Especially from people who live in HCOL areas.
If you can find an apartment that rents for $400, the area is either economically depressed or very dangerous. It's not a smart decision to attempt living on your own at 19. It will likely have a impact on your earning potential and future financial stability. So I wouldn't consider it to be viable for the majority of people at 19.
I think 400-500 dollars is actually the price floor for most places in the country that aren't in or near a major city. So if one can get a job that's at least decent, it should be doable. If one is making at least 14 an hour or so, this can be done pretty comfortably.
Also, people have different comfort levels. There are places that many on CD would not be comfortable in, but I would be fine with.
I think 400-500 dollars is actually the price floor for most places in the country that aren't in or near a major city. So if one can get a job that's at least decent, it should be doable. If one is making at least 14 an hour or so, this can be done pretty comfortably.
Also, people have different comfort levels. There are places that many on CD would not be comfortable in, but I would be fine with.
Depends on what you consider a major city. Opinions vary widely about that definition on here. Someone that's 19 is very unlikely to make that. $9hr-$11hr would be more realistic for an unskilled job. On top of that it will most likely be through a temp agency. People 18-60 years old are fighting for that $14hr job in a LCOL area. If you make around $16 you can consistently pay the bill and save maybe $200 a month. I'm factoring in a car note, because most people will have to eventually get one. Quality public transportation is non existent in a LCOL area.
I'm not talking out the side of my mouth either. I live in a low cost of living metro. In fact, it's one of the lowest in the country. I moved out at 20 and was making $20k a year, which is a little less than $10hr, and I am a Millennial. My rent was $450 per month. I didn't have a car note and was mechanical inclined which really saved me more than anything. A high repair cost on your car can offset any already meager savings for months or even the year. So I would recommend a young person to jump out to live on your own unless your circumstances necessitate it.
I agree with the comfort level thing. I grew up in a high crime area and live in a city that gets no love on CD, so I would say that I could tolerate area that most CD posters wouldn't be comfortable in myself.
I think COL would be first and foremost in my decision-making if I were a barista or worked in some type of "creative" occupation with a very low probability of leading to any type of steady, predictable income.
If I was in a service industry type job, agree, absolutely COL is all I would worry about. There are cocktail waitresses in Durham that make 400.00 a night.
Generation labels are generally generalization, ie that they aren't concrete; they often consist of generational overlaps (for example, there's typically a grey area of when Gen Z starts and millennials end, which is typically 1995-2001).
And of course there will always be people who feel out of place in their generation. I was born in that "grey" area for Millennials and Gen Z, and I detest whenever someone calls me a millennial. Nonetheless, I would have to agree with the study that people born in 80s are millennials. I guess the grey area would be 1979-1982.
I was also born in that gray area (1995). While I do like being called a Millennial, my experience differs vastly from others in this area. I remember 9/11 (my first day of 1st grade) like it happened yesterday, I partially remember when President Bush initiated military action in the Middle East, and Hurricane Katrina occurred on my 10th birthday. I remember a world that existed before smartphones, WiFi, and advanced computers entered the scene. The Great Recession happened when I was in middle school, as did President Obama's election. For those who live in Philly (I grew up in Mill Creek, West Philly), I remember how bad the city was until it really picked up steam in the mid-late 2000s/2010s. My siblings born in 1997, 2000, 2004, and 2011 all have vastly different experiences. This is especially true for my two sisters born in 2004 and 2011, who were basically raised around smartphones and advanced technology.
As for the actual thread, New York and San Francisco both appeal to me; however, each city has an INSANE cost of living. Philadelphia has most of the amenities that these cities offer at a lower cost, so that is where I will stay. As someone who will be entering the Financial Services sector next year, I may live in Philly and work in NYC. The approximately 2 hour commute via Acela will be similar to a commute from an outlying suburb to either city.
I realize the headline (as they often are) was written to be an attention grabber, but it bugs me by implying that Millenials have snubbed NYC and SF due to believing they are inferior.
A much more accurate headline would turn the phrase around and say "New York and San Francisco turn their back on Millenials" since extreme cost of living have made these place practically impossible for just about every hard charging Millenial (other than one with extreme wealth already in place most likely due to being born into the plutocratic elite) to get even their foot in the door, with even a modest lifestyle.
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.
