The biggest expenses to consider in SF besides the obvious housing costs:
- Food + drink + groceries are way, way, way more expensive. There is no Walmart in the city. Get used to corner stores that charge a hefty premium. I miss Walmart and strip shopping malls.
- Income taxes. Tennessee for example has 0% income state tax, excluding dividends. The 0% state income tax in Tennessee also includes capital gains (stocks, company selling) which is huge.
- Health insurance. San Francisco according to my quick research using Blue Shield retail prices are some of the most expensive in the entire United States. I pay $500 a month for a middle of the road plan (single). That's a car payment for a nice BMW or Mercedes. Absolutely absurd.
Agreed with your other points though. Not having staate income tax is a huge bonus.
Because they don't want to spend 6 hours a day commuting?
44mi x $.535/mi[1] + $5 bridge toll = $28.54 per day to commute to work.
That's $~628/mo all-in to commute via car. My additional housing costs in the peninsula would easily be more than that for equivalent housing (2br SFH).
Commute is typically 40m-1:10 to work and 28m-1:10 back, depending on when I leave (and time of year). I normally head to the gym after work which means I skip the heaviest traffic on my way home.
Averaged, commutes are 40m each, which was my door-to-door time when I used to commute to the city via Bart (admittedly, not as pleasant).
[1] Based on IRS mileage rate.
Its a reasonable rate to reimburse employees for driving their own vehicles for work by (I'd estimate its about 95%ile of expenses), but a poor rate to estimate general car ownership costs by.
What's the breakdown for your actual all-in commute costs on a per-mile basis, and how have you arrived at those numbers?
I lived (edit: in SF) for about six months a few years ago. One thing I did find is that liquor at SafeWay is way cheaper than it is back home, lol.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15082982
Also have you lived in SV before? I did years ago and didn't care for it even as a 20-something. At least WA has no state tax, mountains right next door, and eh, I like the culture better. More real, less flashy, and still has some blue-collar too. I think better for families. If your offer is from a big name, then they've certainly got a Seattle office. I'd inquire about that possibility. And salaries are very close, especially considering the state tax.
But like I suggested, even Seattle is hard to call a slam dunk. If there was more than one crappy company to work for in Kalamazoo I'd have loved to stay. It's cheap, it's a college town so there's stuff to do, has an amazing arts scene for its size, great outdoor activities, good public schools and park/trail system, and a good mix of political views that still talk to each other. I've lived in IN and OH too, and had less affection for those. So I guess a lot of it depends on your current situation too.
But if you've got a decent job with benefits and are living in a place you don't mind, 140K won't get you far in SV. One other quick note: before moving out here I looked at housing prices but didn't realize that the places that were showing up in my budget were all horrible school districts, so if you think you're seeing some nearly-affordable options, cross-reference the school guides.
However, it was a one company town, that's why I left.
That said, perhaps that's one upshot of SV over Seattle. If you don't like your job in the big 5, there are lots more options from startups and mid-range companies to choose from. Seattle isn't quite as deep, especially east side. Granted, I haven't tested those waters, so maybe it's deeper than I realize.