Two job offers: $135K in bay area... or $160K in Seattle - what would you go with?

JobAdvice1 wrote:

Got two job offers - what would you go with?

Leaning towards Bay Area since Seattle weather sux, but I can't deny that its a nice city

$135K in bay area doesn't go very far.. but still think quality of life there is superior for runners. endless amounts of trails and basically perfect weather

If you flipped the offers around I would still choose Seattle...

well actually wrote:

JobAdvice1 wrote:

Got two job offers - what would you go with?

Leaning towards Bay Area since Seattle weather sux, but I can't deny that its a nice city

$135K in bay area doesn't go very far.. but still think quality of life there is superior for runners. endless amounts of trails and basically perfect weather

If you flipped the offers around I would still choose Seattle...

Go on... why is that? You love being in a place where it rains 24/7/365 outside of the summer months?

Recklessly irresponsible to take Bay Area job and you know it. Next time you need your ego inflated go run the fun run mile, asshat.

I hope you don't have kids.

Where in each of those areas combined with how you like to live makes a pretty big difference. I enjoy living in the east bay area, but would be miserable if I worked in the city. I would either have to live in the city, which I wouldnt like, or I would have to have a terrible commute.

I would rather live on the outskirts of Seattle than middle of San Francisco, but that is because of how I like to live. I can run to multiple large open space parks from my house, be at a marina renting a sailboat in 10 minutes, and have a 3/2 with a quarter acre so I dont feel claustrophic. If I want to get out for a week, I can hit some traffic if I time it wrong, but nowhere near as bad as if I was in SF or the south bay. I have friends that live downtown SF that would never trade, though, because they enjoy different things.

If your job is in the city and you're a city person, the bay area job is the way to go. Seattle is a nice city, but SF is slightly better for culture.

I can not imagine in my lifetime that I could even earn something like that with a B.S. in Plant Biology. I just graduated, but wow...

If I were you, I would live in a city that is attractive for me, and where I wouldn't mind driving.

135K or 160k doesn't get you far in both places.

Personally I would go with Seattle too. But I would check out the RE market carefully in both places.

I know that a lot of Chinese are buying everything in Seattle right now.

Good luck

Valid point - so the job in the bay area would be in Mountain View. I am honestly not a huge fan of downtown SF and wouldnt want to live there.. honestly its kind of a dump (lol, pun intended).

I spent the summer living near Mountain View and absolutely loved it, so I could see myself being happy there. The housing situation honestly sucks out there, but I could live with it given the access to great parks like Rancho, etc & awesome weather.. I run every day so that is huge

Seattle job would be in downtown.

Does the 135K include another 200K in benefits?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8976845

hart crane wrote:

Recklessly irresponsible to take Bay Area job and you know it. Next time you need your ego inflated go run the fun run mile, asshat.

I hope you don't have kids.

Happiness is over-rated; it can't buy you money.

i tend to agree with Sdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf (above).

From the few times i visited SF, it seemed to have some cultural energy that far exceeds that which i find here in Seattle. But SF to me, by comparison was really huge, and crowded, and a bit unmanageable. The two cities are very different beasts when you consider size and culture.

Seattle is really quite beautiful. There are incredible views even from within vast portions of the city. The Puget Sound is nice and the San Juans and Lopez, etc. are right across the sound and very accessible by ferry. There's mountains to the east and mountains to the west, with lots of great outdoor stuff within easy drives.

The complaints about the weather are nonsense, frankly. Yes, it rains here a lot during the winter, but the rain is in lieu of snow most other places. It's generally a drizzle several times a day, but not downpours usually. And the summer is amazing, and is actually arid for 3 or 4 months each year (very little rainfall that time of year). And it is not too hot unlike a lot of other places.

Every time i went to SF, it was generally very chilly., esp. mornings. I bet there is less difference in weather between the two than you think.

For me, if i was really into an active social scene, SF has the edge by a long shot. Seattle seems to me better for those people who like to do their own thing, and it has a bit of a reputation for being a bit standoff-ish. Not unfriendly, but not all that outgoing, either.

JobAdvice1 wrote:

Got two job offers - what would you go with?

Leaning towards Bay Area since Seattle weather sux, but I can't deny that its a nice city

$135K in bay area doesn't go very far.. but still think quality of life there is superior for runners. endless amounts of trails and basically perfect weather

It kind of sounds like you’ve made up your mind (if you hate rain and cold, it might be a no brainer for you).

I’d say it depends on how much time you’re planning on spending at home. If it’s just a place to crash, or if you don’t mind a roommate, then SF is doable. If you want a decent place to live, though, $160K in Seattle will get you twice what you’d get in SF with $135K.

Google rentcafe and average rentals for both cities. The site does a nice job of breaking prices down by apt size by neighborhood.

Wow, first time I've ever heard anyone say they loved living in Mnt View. You from Kansas or Nebraska?

Born and bred and balling in the South Bay wrote:

JobAdvice1 wrote:

Valid point - so the job in the bay area would be in Mountain View. I am honestly not a huge fan of downtown SF and wouldnt want to live there.. honestly its kind of a dump (lol, pun intended).

I spent the summer living near Mountain View and absolutely loved it, so I could see myself being happy there. The housing situation honestly sucks out there, but I could live with it given the access to great parks like Rancho, etc & awesome weather.. I run every day so that is huge

Seattle job would be in downtown.

Wow, first time I've ever heard anyone say they loved living in Mnt View. You from Kansas or Nebraska?

I said near Mountain View - actual place was in Woodside. Incredible area

A lot of good running trails in Woodside ... but how do you afford to live there?

You'll be poor in Woodside. But the Bay Area is a much, much better place to live than Seattle. A young single guy will do ok on $135k in the Bay Area.

Imagine if you took 135 and lived in Ethiopia. That would be amazing. Your money would go way more further there. Bekele is Ethiophian.

Don't see why you can't just take both, and tele-commute to whatever area you aren't currently in.

If running outdoors year round is your thing, go with SF and lower your chances of respiratory illness. SF has always had superior air flow patterns to Seattle, even down closer to Palo Alto.

Seattle has had very nasty air quality the past two summers, AQIs in excess of 180-190 and 150+ for weeks on end. A friend in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences at UW believes this is just the start in terms of smoke pollution during the summers here... this afternoon we hit 94, which is not the kind of air you want to be sucking when out for a run.

My 2 cents fwiw

Bay area has a record number of degenerates, but it's still MF San Fransisco. Amazing food, good weather, always something to do.

I mean I would go to SF based on the food alone, and the fact that you are in California.