95k in Seattle, WA vs 85k in St. Louis, MO: Which one is better in terms of savings? (Washington: condo, how much)

[jlawrence01]

Originally Posted by JohnSmith05

Hi - I have two job offers and I am kind of confused as to which one will help me make larger savings. 98k in seattle or 85k in St. Louis.

I do know that cost of living in St. Louis is pretty low but will it help me make larger savings even in 10K less salary then what I can make in Seattle.

Most expenses - housing, food, transportation - will be significantly lower in St. Louis than in Seattle. Congestion is generally a lot less in St. Louis. For my family, we could live like kings in St. Louis while we would really need to budget to live in Seattle.

Housing is the real determining factor. What type of housing are you looking for? If you are looking for a single family home, what you could be paying in a nice area of the St. Louis as a house payment might only pay the rent on a small apartment in a desirable area of Seattle.

We made a similar decision a few years ago between Cleveland and Orange County, CA. Our house payment on a large old Victorian in a desirable area was65% of what a 1 BR apartment in Irvine, CA would cost us.

[aragx6]

Housing in Seatlle is really, really expensive. Though I know less about its suburbs, I suspect the same is true. St. Louis is a great value and you could live very well on that salary.

That said, I would focus more on where you want to live -- where you think you'll be happiest. I adore St. Louis and we'd all be more than happy to provide you any more information about it.

[topospace]

Housing is more expensive in Seattle but has been hit hard by the housing bust.

What is your lifestyle? If you love the mountains and all of the recreation associated with it then there is no choice. There are things to do outdoors around St. Louis but you can't even begin to compare to whats in the Pacific Northwest. Trust me. I moved here four years ago from living in the western mountains for most of my life and it's miserable for a person like me. Winter weather in Seattle is not the best but it's no worse then what you suffer with here.

In terms of "city" things to do, Seattle has more simply because of it's size.

If all you care about is money and you have a Midwestern lifestyle, then choose St. Louis. But there is a whole lot more to life than the size of your house and the amount of materialistic things you own.

[BoomBoxing]

Originally Posted by topospace

If all you care about is money and you have a Midwestern lifestyle, then choose St. Louis. But there is a whole lot more to life than the size of your house and the amount of materialistic things you own.

x 100,000

City-Data is full of just incredible ignorance sometimes. I love the PNW but to imply the only reason someone would choose here over there is because they are materialistic is just incredibly off base. Some people like to save money, go on vacations, invest, send their kids to the best schools, afford more of their hobbies, and own property. All of which is easier to do with a much lower cost of living.

[jlawrence01]

Originally Posted by topospace

If all you care about is money and you have a Midwestern lifestyle, then choose St. Louis. But there is a whole lot more to life than the size of your house and the amount of materialistic things you own.

Different strokes for different folks.

I like things in the midwest like actually KNOWING your neighbors. Like not spending hours parked on I-5 and I-405 for hours of our life.

And there are a lot of us who like to do radical things like owning a home rather than being a renter for life and of course, saving for retirement so that we can retire years before we head into a nursing home.

[aragx6]

The idea that Seattle is so much larger than St. Louis is exaggerated.

Seattle has 617K people in 142 sq/mi and St. Louis has 354K in 66 sq/mi, so actually St. Louis is significantly more dense.

And even in terms of corporations, they have a comparable # of Fortune 500s: seven in and nearby Seattle and eight in and nearby St. Louis.

And while you can certainly argue that Seattle's surroundings are simply gorgeous (because they are!), the weather still leaves a lot to be desired. You don't get the large temperature swings that we get in the St. Louis area, but at least it's not cloudy here an average of 201 days per year (and partly cloudy another 93 days per year!) St. Louis has, on average, 424 extra hours of sun per year (18 days!)

To topospace: I would highly suggest reading a bit on this forum about some of the fantastic recreational activities available in the St. Louis area. I'm getting the feeling you may have spent too much time in Ladue.

[topospace]

Originally Posted by aragx6

The idea that Seattle is so much larger than St. Louis is exaggerated.

Seattle has 617K people in 142 sq/mi and St. Louis has 354K in 66 sq/mi, so actually St. Louis is significantly more dense.

And even in terms of corporations, they have a comparable # of Fortune 500s: seven in and nearby Seattle and eight in and nearby St. Louis.

And while you can certainly argue that Seattle's surroundings are simply gorgeous (because they are!), the weather still leaves a lot to be desired. You don't get the large temperature swings that we get in the St. Louis area, but at least it's not cloudy here an average of 201 days per year (and partly cloudy another 93 days per year!) St. Louis has, on average, 424 extra hours of sun per year (18 days!)

To topospace: I would highly suggest reading a bit on this forum about some of the fantastic recreational activities available in the St. Louis area. I'm getting the feeling you may have spent too much time in Ladue.

Actually, I have only lived in Ladue for a year. I lived in the CWE, Tower Grove, and Dogtown before that. Typical ignorant Midwesterner you sound like

Like I said, there are outdoor recreational activities around here. Believe me, I have sought them all out. But to compare them to what's available in the PNW is just silly.

[moorlander]

We're talking the 15th largest metro vs the 18th largest metro. (3.4 million people vs 2.8 million people)

St. Louis is a pretty good area for biking, hiking, running, boating, fishing, camping, hunting, and floating. We don't have mountains but we do have the Ozark 'mountains.' The Smokey Mts are a 7 hr drive and Denver is a 2-3 hr flight.

The Mark Twain National Forest in southern MO is pretty cool.

We don't have the pacific ocean, but we do have several large bodies of water within a few hours drive. (Mississippi River, Missouri River, Lake StL, Innsbrook, Rend Lake, Lake of the Ozarks, Table Rock Lake, Kentucky Lake, and Bull Sholes Lake, etc etc)

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by topospace

But to compare them to what's available in the PNW is just silly.

That's why I didn't compare them. Seattle has the clear advantage when it comes to the beauty of the land and the plethora of outdoor activities (though truly, MO is gorgeous and anyone who says otherwise is blind).

My argument was that you won't have much desire to participate in them when it rains half of the days of the year.

[moorlander]

Originally Posted by aragx6

And while you can certainly argue that Seattle's surroundings are simply gorgeous (because they are!), the weather still leaves a lot to be desired. You don't get the large temperature swings that we get in the St. Louis area, but at least it's not cloudy here an average of 201 days per year (and partly cloudy another 93 days per year!) St. Louis has, on average, 424 extra hours of sun per year (18 days!)

I'd argue that it's many more than 18 days. You are including night time by dividing by 24. If you divide by say, 15 hours of daylight, that's an additional 28 days.