Job offer...Where should I go?

I don't know what Flagpole is talking about but Sacramento isnt' that hot in the summmer. And if that were a criteria, then Austin would most definetley not be a place you'd want to go.

I'd pick Vancouver, Sacramento, Austin

Sacramento does suck... If you want night life, go to Austin not Sacramento. If you don't mind the winters do Vancover. Hell, get out of the U.S. while you can! Only problem is their hotties are pasty. I like a little ethnicity in my ladies.

Snoochie Boochie wrote:

Sacramento does suck... If you want night life, go to Austin not Sacramento. If you don't mind the winters do Vancover. Hell, get out of the U.S. while you can! Only problem is their hotties are pasty. I like a little ethnicity in my ladies.

Metro area populations:

Vancouver 2.1 million people

Sacramento 2.1 million people

Austin 1.5 million people

The nice thing is in all the places you can find "small-town" charn despite the size of these cities.

Weather:

1. Sacramento

2. Vancouver

3. Austin

I've lived only in Sacramento, and I liked it there. Great running commmunity, great road races, track all-comer meets, good running weather. Olympic Trials in 2000 and 2004. NCAAs outdoors were there a few years too.

I wouldn't worry about the rattlesnakes. I used to run the trails all the time in the summer and only saw two rattlesnakes in about 7 years. Rattlesnake danger is overstated--if you get near they simply get scared and slither away. As long as you keep an eye on the trail ahead you won't get bit (heck, you might not ever even see one cause they spend most of their time under big boulders). And if you fear rattlesnakes, run on the big wide trails or roads.

The people here are alright. It's an interesting mix. You've got rich yuppies, bible slapping conservatives, liberal transplants from the bay area, many immigrants (mexican, asian, russian primarily), hicks, emo punk freaks, young families, old people, etc. It's a nice variety and all people are generally respectful. You aren't going to get bottles thrown at you when you are running (this happens in Texas). Plus you are close to two of the most beautiful places in the WORLD: San Francisco Bay Area and Tahoe.

Austin and Vancouver are probably cool too, but Sacramento is a great place. If you can make it work financially, I'd go there. Now is the time to buy with all the repos on the market. If you don't like it, you'll probably be able to turn over your house in a few years for a profit anyway.

please don't move to austin. i don't want another non-native texan roaming my streets, lost and driving like an old woman. i will run you off the road.

LantermanC wrote:

I don't know what Flagpole is talking about but Sacramento isnt' that hot in the summmer. And if that were a criteria, then Austin would most definetley not be a place you'd want to go.

I'd pick Vancouver, Sacramento, Austin

According to Weather.com:

Sacramento in July -- 94 average high

Sacramento in August -- 93 average high

Austin, TX in July -- 95 average high

Austin, TX in August -- 96 average high

Pretty damn close, and certainly damn hot in Sacramento...and with all things else being considered, I'd be in Austin over Sacramento any day. Personally I can't even consider living in Canada. I love to visit there, but the US is my home. I ain't leaving it volunarily.

The humidity is what kills you in Austin Flagpole. 95 and dry is totally different than 95 and humid.

I agree that Austin is a far better place to live though. If it doesnt involve cold weather or snow you pretty much have it in Austin. City has a great vibe.

age wrote:

The humidity is what kills you in Austin Flagpole. 95 and dry is totally different than 95 and humid.

I agree that Austin is a far better place to live though. If it doesnt involve cold weather or snow you pretty much have it in Austin. City has a great vibe.

I understand that, but I've been in Sacramento when it was damn hot and humid. I've never been to Austin though, but from what I know about it, I would be able to handle the heat just fine. I mean, there's really nothing great about Sacramento, so the heat there has GOT to be worse right? With the stuff to do in Austin, I would learn to deal with the heat.

First of all, is there anyway you can visit all three places before making a decision? That would definitely help.

If you are concerned with costs though, Austin is the clear winner. Besides having the lowest housing costs/cost of living, you will also make more money in Austin.

When you say "salary is the same in all 3 offers" I assume you are talking pre-tax numbers. If you live in Vancouver, will you pay Canadian income taxes? When you look at federal plus provincial tax rates, top earners (>$120k-much lower than the top brackets in the US) reach a point where they pay about 45% of their income. This is about is the equivalent of living in a state with a high tax burden such as Cali, where state income tax rates go up to 9.3% fairly quickly. Texas on the other hand, doesn't have a state income tax.

Texas makes up for having no state income tax by having incredibly high property taxes.

age wrote:

Texas makes up for having no state income tax by having incredibly high property taxes.

But there property values are lower than the others.

So you still see the benefit of no state income tax.

Let your wife pick.

This guy is right on about the commute from the foothills. i'd love to live up there just for the trails but that will have to wait for when we retire. for now, we are choosing to live where both of us bike commute to work. If not having to do the daily commute appeals to you, you can probably find somewhere to live in sac where biking in just may work...but, that is assuming your company isn't in the Elk Grove or Roseville area.

From what I know about Austin and Vancouver, I think you have great choices all the way around. But I do feel the need to correct a few misconceptions about Sacramento. While 10 years ago the town shut down at 10:00, there is now a lively restaurant district and a fair amount of night life (I don't think it comes close to Austin or Vancouver, but it is not a cow town anymore).

The areas within 10 miles of downtown have a great mix charming single family homes and smaller apartments (some of the apartments building were unfortunately built at a time when no one had a sense of style, but most of the building are charming). Once you get into the suburbs, like any area you can find some really nice towns and some towns that have vacant lots and trash, but on the whole there are lots of great choices; some of the stuff up in the foothills come with great views.

The weather here is not "ungodly hot." There are a handful of days each year where the temperature exceeds 100 degrees (that is what AC is for), but for the most part summer temps are much cooler. I know this next statement is generally met with a roll of the eyes, but it is a dry heat. When I go back east in the summer, I have a hard time running at all with the humidity. While the humidity tends to keep things uncomfortable all day and all night, in Sacramento the evenings and mornings are generally very comfortable. I would not want to run on a hot Sacramento summer day at the hottest point of the day, but there is rarely a day where a morning run is problem. On the flip side winter temps are rarely below 40, and always get up into the 50's or 60's during the day (yet if you like snow, some of the snowiest places in the USA are 80 miles away.

As for running, Sacramento is great place to run and has a fairly strong running community. But I can't say if it is better or worse than the other choices.

Cost of living is much lower than San Francisco or LA, but is higher than most of the country. I would think it is lower than Vancouver, especially when you calculate in the historic exchange rate.

i will with Austin...cause in vancover is too cold..and in sacramento is too populated and some what expensive.

austin is cheap..you cure get a house for under for under 150,000

http://www.austintexashomes.com/our_listings.htm#Hughmont

Doesn't Sacremento have similar problems that New Orleans does? Related to potential flooding

not anymore. any grow-op with over 500 plants will get you a minimum of 2 years. the bill is in the process of getting passed. as for skiing, forget the 2 hours to whistler, you can either go to north van or even mt baker across the border in washington state

marijuologist wrote:

In Vancouver you can get busted with thousands of plants and not even serve jail time.