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.
Those things assume that the person will buy a house I think.. That just sounds off..
Rent in Boston is 2100. There's 5.35% state tax, and 3% higher for Federal tax for higher income bracket. So that's about 20K difference total for that.
Food is probably about the same, gas a little more but you don't need to drive as much, everything else... Maybe beer, etc cost more at bars. There's no way that there's a 42K difference.
According to the price calculators, they say 100k in Dallas is like 145K in Boston, 135K in LA, and like 125K in Chicago... I don't think any of those statements are anywhere accurate.
As someone who has lived in two of the cities you are questioning, it's a lot more accurate than you think. Boston is a very expensive city (only NYC and SF are more). If you don't prepare, you're in for a rude awakening. Moving from LA to Dallas with the same pay, we ended up with at least an extra $1500 per month.
As someone who has lived in two of the cities you are questioning, it's a lot more accurate than you think. Boston is a very expensive city (only NYC and SF are more). If you don't prepare, you're in for a rude awakening. Moving from LA to Dallas with the same pay, we ended up with at least an extra $1500 per month.
So 115K Boston is probably only a little better than 100K in LA or about the same?
So that means 115K in Boston, 100K LA, and 85K in Chicago is all about the same when factoring in cost of living? Not sure why so many people voted for Chicago. Chicago is a great city but doesn't seem like worth the pay cut for the bad weather...
I'm just a little nervous about LA going bankrupt... lol.. I figure I can always move again in a few years if things don't work out.. Three years at a company isn't that bad on your resume.
So 115K Boston is probably only a little better than 100K in LA or about the same?
So that means 115K in Boston, 100K LA, and 85K in Chicago is all about the same when factoring in cost of living? Not sure why so many people voted for Chicago. Chicago is a great city but doesn't seem like worth the pay cut for the bad weather...
I'm just a little nervous about LA going bankrupt... lol.. I figure I can always move again in a few years if things don't work out.. Three years at a company isn't that bad on your resume.
I would actually feel much better about 100k in LA than 115 in Boston. I would actually take 85k in Chicago over both.
Honestly, of the cities you are questioning, Chicago is by far the easiest to live cheaply (other than Dallas of course). I remember when I moved out of LA (the first time) to Chicago and thinking of how much cheaper everything was. Living expenses are much cheaper in Chicago than Boston or LA.
I'd either pick Boston or Dallas. The salaries in Chicago and LA (considering cost of living) are major downgrades from what you currently have in Dallas. 100k in Dallas will still go quite a bit further than 115k in Boston, but the added bonus of living in an amazing urban setting such as Boston is worth it in my opinion.
LA- 95 to 100K salary (maybe able to negotiate to 100K)
Boston- 110 to 115K salary (probably be able to negotiate to 115K)
Chicago- 85K max
Dallas- 100K current
So I have some 2nd and 3rd interviews lined up and in these area's with these salaries..
I'm leaning towards Boston with that salary and the area (essentially be taking a slight pay cut bc cost of living). LA may be do-able.. Chicago, not really willing to take a pay cut like that plus the added state taxes.
I just posed a similar question without the salary component (and different cities). I'm curious to what people say online that live in those respective cities. You get a better feel from people that "actually" live there.
From those options, I'd seriously take a shot at LA. You can make a good living in CA on 90-100 K. Chicago is cheaper, but the pay cut would probably make it a wash.
That said, it depends what you want to spend your money on or what your lifestyle is like. You also have to think about your future and where you really see yourself in the long-haul. Most Californians rent well into their 30s and spend their money on a luxury car to sit in during L.A. rush hour. Some of my coworkers were in their 40s/50s and owned condos. Most of my friends in Los Angeles can not afford to buy a nice big house or take vacations--I guess the idea is that you already live in a vacation spot, so you don't need to take vacations. On the other hand, most of my Chicago/midwestern peeps were homeowners before the age of 30 and they have more money to take vacations and most of the them go to Florida, California or Hawaii during the winter.
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.
On the other hand, most of my Chicago/midwestern peeps were homeowners before the age of 30 and they have more money to take vacations and most of the them go to Florida, California or Hawaii during the winter.
