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's CNBC. That says it all. The second list is more accurate. Career opportunities and an active single lifestyle is what is going to be most desirable.
CNBC didn't come up with the list. An outfit called Growella did.
I think all the cities on the list have job opportunities and are conducive for an active single lifestyle. Also, many people under 35 are married or in a long term relationship.
All 3 of those lists fluctuate too much. One has Nashville as #3 and the other doesnt include it all, but includes Dallas suburbs. The other list has New York #1 then also doesnt include NY.
Whats best for millennials is obviously still subjective. NY is best for my field, by far, but it is majorly expensive, and not just in rent. Garland, TX is cheap, but does nothing for me career wise.
These lists give a good indicator and all the healthy places, but none of them can be taken as gospel, even if theyre using calculations and not "what looks cool on instagram."
This list is a terrible idea for an "average" person as far as cost of living goes. Anyone with a normal paying job couldn't make it in San Francisco,San Jose, Seattle, etc... unless they had 10 roommates. I understand the scenery & things to do factor, but it's just not accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg10556
I wouldn't say overstated, the average price of a 1 bedroom in SF is $3500. I live in the "East Bay" around Walnut Creek (30 mins from SF) and pay $2200 for a 2 bedroom, which is obviously more affordable, but still not cheap by any means.
The average person, making $50K-$70K will not find it easy to manage everything here, without roommates.
Obviously a tad overstated utilizing ten as an example don't you think? Like anywhere else people adapt to what they can afford via either longer commutes or changing cities. The point is given population growth and market conditions it's clearly not a detriment to the majority.
All 3 of those lists fluctuate too much. One has Nashville as #3 and the other doesnt include it all, but includes Dallas suburbs. The other list has New York #1 then also doesnt include NY.
Whats best for millennials is obviously still subjective. NY is best for my field, by far, but it is majorly expensive, and not just in rent. Garland, TX is cheap, but does nothing for me career wise.
These lists give a good indicator and all the healthy places, but none of them can be taken as gospel, even if theyre using calculations and not "what looks cool on instagram."
Yup... that was my point in providing other sources.... these lists are bit all over the place. The original list for me would be the worst from a career and earnings potential perspective.
How does a person know what he will get paid at a company in a city if he's never applied to companies in that city and been made an offer. To generalize about salaries in a city, it seems like a person would at least need to get a handful of job offers. Companies in the same city don't all pay the same salary.
Generally, to maximize salary, a person should focus on employers, not living in a specific city.
I don't know why people feel the need to say these kind of lists are subjective. That seems obvious especially given they are arbitrarily weighting their criteria and arbitrarily selecting certain criteria. But some of the criteria the list is based on is based on data, such as cost of living. They weighted cost of living at 50 percent.
I would have included weather and proximity to mountains, lakes, and beaches as criteria.
Last edited by ClemVegas; 06-03-2017 at 12:56 PM..
Obviously a tad overstated utilizing ten as an example don't you think? Like anywhere else people adapt to what they can afford via either longer commutes or changing cities. The point is given population growth and market conditions it's clearly not a detriment to the majority.
Okay, 10 was probably overkill, but you get my point. And while longer commutes can cut down costs, in the Bay Area it doesn't make it worth it in my personal opinion.
Pay $3500 for a 1 bedroom in the city of SF, $3000 in Oakland. Then a little further inland (my area) you get to the $2000 range.
However if you go further away than that, and get lucky to pay $1500, you then deal with no public transit such as BART, and deal with 2hr-3hr commutes with traffic at times. To each their own I suppose
The main point I was making, that with normal average salaries, staying afloat in certain cities is a major challenge
Whne it comes to San Fran, there are people who come straight out of college and can afford those rents because of the cushy tech salaries, but they are not the average millennial.
Same for NYC. Some guys are fortunate enough to step out of college then step into Wall Street, but they are not average.
I think the CNBC list does the best job represeting average and a broader scale of folk, though still not perfect. While the other lists do a good job showing cities for people who are more career-focused.
I have to say though one thing that bothers me about these lists is that Atlanta, GA is on none of them. You cannot tell me that Reno, Garland, and Lubbock are better places for millennials than Atlanta. In both jobs and activities. Atlanta punches above its weight in corporate presence alone, which is a reason NY and SF are valued so high.
Whne it comes to San Fran, there are people who come straight out of college and can afford those rents because of the cushy tech salaries, but they are not the average millennial.
Same for NYC. Some guys are fortunate enough to step out of college then step into Wall Street, but they are not average.
I think the CNBC list does the best job represeting average and a broader scale of folk, though still not perfect. While the other lists do a good job showing cities for people who are more career-focused.
I have to say though one thing that bothers me about these lists is that Atlanta, GA is on none of them. You cannot tell me that Reno, Garland, and Lubbock are better places for millennials than Atlanta. In both jobs and activities. Atlanta punches above its weight in corporate presence alone, which is a reason NY and SF are valued so high.
That whole list lost credibility when it included Lubbock, Garland, Reno, and Harrisburg PA. Actually, I didn't realize it had Garland, TX on there. I stopped reading it after I saw Harrisburg LOL.
That whole list lost credibility when it included Lubbock, Garland, Reno, and Harrisburg PA. Actually, I didn't realize it had Garland, TX on there. I stopped reading it after I saw Harrisburg LOL.
Haha same here... ridiculous locations especially the original list.
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.
