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.
Quality of life questions are always a little opaque because the concept of quality of life is an opaque and often subjective thing. What I'm getting at is which metro area is more liveable, welcoming, oriented and even catered to families. Things like schools and higher ed, economy, parks, diversity, useable public transit, how common families actually are, and safety are important considerations.
So too is affordability. Boston is a pricier area, but assume a 15% income jump in Boston (so that cost of living becomes at least a less dominant factor).
Quality of life questions are always a little opaque because the concept of quality of life is an opaque and often subjective thing. What I'm getting at is which metro area is more liveable, welcoming, oriented and even catered to families. Things like schools and higher ed, economy, parks, diversity, useable public transit, how common families actually are, and safety are important considerations.
So too is affordability. Boston is a pricier area, but assume a 15% income jump in Boston (so that cost of living becomes at least a less dominant factor).
The income jump doesn't come close to matching the housing cost jump--trust me. Your money will go farther in Chicago. I honstly think that Chicago has a more family-oriented atmosphere than greater Boston..
The income jump doesn't come close to matching the housing cost jump--trust me. Your money will go farther in Chicago. I honstly think that Chicago has a more family-oriented atmosphere than greater Boston..
Boston is closer to more day/weekend trips to mountains/ocean...if that’s important to you then Boston would have the advantage
I do think outdoorsiness and access to outdoor recreation is important. Both Boston and Chicago have this to varying degrees.
What Chicago doesn't have is the number of major metro areas within a morning drive or train trip that Boston does. Milwaukee is, after all, just Milwaukee.
Metro Boston has more things to do and a better job market.
Overall, yes but this is a blanket statement. Job market utterly depends on what industry you're talking about anywhere in the US. If you are a biomedical engineer, then it doesn't matter how easy it is to get a job in the finance industry wherever you are. So I would agree Boston has one of the best job markets in the country, but at the end of the day when you're talking about jobs then the industry in which you work matters most. Some areas with great overall job markets are not that great for certain types of jobs.
As a side note, let's not forget that Chicago MSA's unemployment rate for November 2019 (latest data) is 3.3% which is lower than the rates for the areas of LA, NYC, and Houston and not much higher than Dallas. I do agree Boston is one of the best in the country right now, no doubt - but Chicago's market is not what you hear in the media.
Overall, yes but this is a blanket statement. Job market utterly depends on what industry you're talking about anywhere in the US. If you are a biomedical engineer, then it doesn't matter how easy it is to get a job in the finance industry wherever you are. So I would agree Boston has one of the best job markets in the country, but at the end of the day when you're talking about jobs then the industry in which you work matters most. Some areas with great overall job markets are not that great for certain types of jobs.
As a side note, let's not forget that Chicago MSA's unemployment rate for November 2019 (latest data) is 3.3% which is lower than the rates for the areas of LA, NYC, and Houston and not much higher than Dallas. I do agree Boston is one of the best in the country right now, no doubt - but Chicago's market is not what you hear in the media.
Oh no I base my facts in the line of work I do. Chicago has a really good job market. Better for finance. But if youre in Bio/Pharma, omg the companies are begging for you to work for them. Like they are so desperate theyll pay You to move there and give you crazy money.
If Chicago was a lot closer to New England. Maybe by Pittburgh or Buffalo, Id move there. But its too far from family for me.
Again the only major negative of ChiTown is the lack of geographic diversity. But you get trade offs in Chicago.
I do think outdoorsiness and access to outdoor recreation is important. Both Boston and Chicago have this to varying degrees.
What Chicago doesn't have is the number of major metro areas within a morning drive or train trip that Boston does. Milwaukee is, after all, just Milwaukee.
Milwaukee’s great and quite close by. There’s St. Louis and Indianapolis not far away and I found St. Louis to be a really fun and interesting city. Higher speed rail has been an ongoing project for the St. Louis to Chicago route and a bit over four hour Amtrak trips between the two are pretty close on the horizon. Detroit is possible in a bit over five hours and that’s likely to see improvements, too. There’s also a lot of smaller cities.
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.
