Which would you choose: $165k in the Bay Area vs. $95k to work remotely (Oakland: appointed, rent)

[HappyinCali]

I would give you the advice when I was given when starting off. You can always work from home down the road and Silicon Valley will open a lot more doors. My chosen career was actually finance/consulting. I had an offer that would have sent me to a top Southern metropolis and another one for NYC. I was told – “get NYC on your resume and you can do anything you want after that.”

This has been great advice. I wouldn’t be where I am right now if I had gone to the southern metropolis. Going to NYC was by far the best thing for my long-term career. Going to the southern metropolis would have been penny-wide/pound-foolish.

You will be getting paid a lot of money. Working at SV at the beginning of your career will open a lot of doors. I also don’t think that your first job should be work from home. Maybe you think it fits your personality, but it is important to create professional friends/network early in your career. That will help you progress down the road. Working from home might be too isolating and set your for failure down the road.

If I were in your shoes, I would choose Bay Area and not even think twice about it. I did that when I was 22 and it was the best decision career-wise.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by Justin Scott

I would like to add that Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina are similar to California. Not politically, but as far as topography. My personal favorites are Alabama and North Carolina.

I've been to GA and NC (in fact, we have family in NC and spend weeks there), but I see zero similarities in the topography and landscape. NC feels like central European countryside to me, certainly not Mediterranean. It's a real four seasons, wooded landscape out there.

[Peasy973]

Not sure where you are in your career path, but you could make an argument for both options. With either option, come with a game plan to attack each situation and an exit strategy. Don't be afraid to adjust along the way.

[Novatoman]

...One good thing about working remote is that you can live literally anywhere, including SF, maybe even 5 minutes away from your office... Another good thing, if you don't like it, you can move to other place, anytime you like.

[Lablitz]

I currently work from home.

If I was single and under 30, I'll choose the SF job for $165k. You can then look for a remote work from home job that pays more than $165k 2 years later.

[phantompilot]

I mean, I say do it since you're only young once.
You won't want to live in SF when you've got family and need to save money (but save what you can right now regardless)

On the other hand I just don't know what the singles scene is like in SF. People are really phony/shallow and have obnoxious liberal attitudes. If you can handle bonking obnoxious chicks that typify everything wrong with modern society, I say go for it.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by Forever_Researching

My two cents: take the remote job and move somewhere without state taxes and has a decent nightlife (like Las Vegas NV, or Houston or Dallas TX). That way your money will go further, the cost of living would be cheaper (well, cheaper than the Bay Area), and when you want/need to interact with people, you can enjoy that city's nightlife and activities.

Reno, Austin, and Fort Lauderdale would be my top tax-free picks.

Probably not in that order. I'd have to really think about it.

[iberanon]

95k you can buy a house, or 2 or 3 and enjoy the appreciation. You'll built up side income which will allow you to actually retire some day. 165k in SF is actually below new grad pay btw (they start at 200k now).

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by iberanon

95k you can buy a house, or 2 or 3 and enjoy the appreciation. You'll built up side income which will allow you to actually retire some day. 165k in SF is actually below new grad pay btw (they start at 200k now).

This is not correct.

[bfpri]

Long term career potential-> SF
Heart -> Seems to be remote for you.