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

Seajasari wrote:

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

SLC is experiencing the same thing. The smoke from the CA wildfires is adding to our already unsustainable air quality problem. Now we have inversions in the winter and smoke in the summer. Don't underestimate how detrimental poor air quality can have on not only your running, but your mood on a day-to-day basis.

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

Easy

Outdoorsy-type- Bay Area

Indoorsy-type - Seattle, unless you LOVE rain

False, winter in the south bay is basically a summer in SF.

With those two options, I’d choose Seattle. If you’re single, you can rent a nice 1 bedroom or studio in one of the high risers and have a great nightlife and short commute to your work. Also, there will be plenty of places to run here as well.

Rain is not so bad here unless you’re already accustomed to California weather. I think Seattle’s weather is better than anywhere else in he country except for parts of California.

I am though worried with two summers in a row eith terrible smoke. Hopefully it won’t occur every year, but it really sucks as its been smoky at a time when it should be beautiful to be living in Seattle.

A quick look at zillow for one bedroom apartments shows plenty of apartments on either side of $2k, a fair number under that, a fair number a bit over, in Seattle, between $2-3k in Woodside area, Redwood City ish, and $3-5k in SF.

No question I'd choose the Bay Area if we're talking about SF or Woodside, because the area is spectacular, temperate, has months of dry weather, is fantastic for running, has some of the best food in the country, and has unending other opportunities. What would you think had more potential for growth in salary, near Silicon Valley, the center of investment capital outside NYC, or Seattle?

Seattle ftw wrote:

With those two options, I’d choose Seattle. If you’re single, you can rent a nice 1 bedroom or studio in one of the high risers and have a great nightlife and short commute to your work. Also, there will be plenty of places to run here as well.

Night life? Is this a joke? One of the major stereotypes about Seattle is that its night life sucks. There are like 2 non-trivial night clubs and they're extremely trashy. And with an overall male-female ratio of 13-10 in the city, you can imagine that at bars and clubs it's more like 3-1.

Also, a pint of beer is at least $6 and tipping expectation is at least 25%. Some bars actually kick you out if you show up for happy hour and order 1 drink. That's how "friendly" the city is.

Oh, and the locals HATE transplants unless you're homeless. They have a huge list of people they hate including Republicans and Jeff Bezos. All they ever do is hate, hate, hate. They hate police who enforce anti-vagrancy laws.

Jamin, get off my lawn. Stay the F*** away from my city you're destroying Alt culture.

"Traffic is worse than any other city in the U.S."

Can't comment on the rest of your list, but the traffic in the Bay Area is far worse than anything I've experience in Seattle. Yea, the 5 sucks in Seattle, but Bay Area Silicon Valley is horrible. What should be a 10-15 minute commute can take over an hour.

You live in a very different Seattle than I do. You seem very unhappy here. I hope you're able to move elsewhere soon.

To the OP, Seattle and SF are both great areas. You can't go wrong either way. Focus on which job situation is best for you and choose accordingly. Good luck!

Why not get a 80k job in Phoenix or even Flagstaff and live much more comfortably? Great running to be found around there..

solution wrote:

Why not get a 80k job in Phoenix or even Flagstaff and live much more comfortably? Great running to be found around there..

Yeah, I'm sure 80k jobs in Flagstaff are a dime a dozen.

seamless wrote:

solution wrote:

Why not get a 80k job in Phoenix or even Flagstaff and live much more comfortably? Great running to be found around there..

Yeah, I'm sure 80k jobs in Flagstaff are a dime a dozen.

And I'm sure Phoenix is a blast to run in from July through September...

Ocean Club wrote:

seamless wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure 80k jobs in Flagstaff are a dime a dozen.

And I'm sure Phoenix is a blast to run in from July through September...

Even on the hottest days in Phoenix, say 105, its 80 at 7am, with a 50 degree dew point. A crap load more comfortable than running in the Washington DC to Boston corridor wit its 70-75 dew points!! The rest of the year is amazing! And no rain!

solution wrote:

Ocean Club wrote:

And I'm sure Phoenix is a blast to run in from July through September...

Even on the hottest days in Phoenix, say 105, its 80 at 7am, with a 50 degree dew point. A crap load more comfortable than running in the Washington DC to Boston corridor wit its 70-75 dew points!! The rest of the year is amazing! And no rain!

The hottest days in Phoenix are 105? There were 19 days in July alone with temps over 105. There were 10 days of 110 and hotter and 4 days of 115 or hotter.

hobblejogger wrote:

Stop. Don't listen to anyone else. If I had to do my 20's over again and I were about to be pulling down 135k I'd choose SF. I'd hole up in a 1200/month studio downtown with no car and have between 3-4k in total expenses. I'd take that extra 50k net put most into savings and max out an IRA, possibly invest beyond that. In 5 years my salary will have increased along with my disposable income and I will have experienced SF. I'd take that 200k and relocate to a city with lower cost of living and buy a starter home nearly outright and have a brilliant start on life before 30.

You have to find a way to take advantage of that big income (compared to other cities). Live frugally, who gives a sht you'd be in downtown SF.

aren't 'living frugally' and 'experiencing SF living downtown' mutually exclusive? what's the point in living in an expensive city with great nightlife and dining if you do partake?

*don't partake

Honest question, where in the Bay Area can you access endless trails without getting in a car? Seattle has some good trails but requires driving in most places.

Having lived in both places, I would absolutely choose Seattle. I prefer Bay Area weather, but not just about everything else. To name a few, I hated simple things like going grocery shopping in the Bay. It was so busy and prices were high. The DMV there was a nightmare. The trail running in Seattle is way more awesome. When you're in places like Tiger mountain you can't even tell it's raining because there are more trees. Trees!! The Bay Area is so brown and the architecture is so boring compared to Seattle. The trails and mountains in Seattle are so much more interesting for running or hiking.

Neither.

Move to the Midwest. Your family will thank you.