Moving to California from the East Coast nearly doubled my salary. Cost of living went up, but by around a factor of 15-20%.

Of course, since lots of people are really fucking rich in the Bay Area, it's easy to get caught in the conspicuous consumption game (the biggest part of which is probably housing and location). But if you can avoid that, moving to California can easily mean a whole lot more money, even with taxes + cost of living.

I'm an infrastructure guy. I interviewed with a fairly well known startup in Mountain View. I was making $120K in Chicago, and was offered $110K to move to Mountain View/San Jose.

In what world is that an intelligent choice, when you can make $ITMONIES somewhere where the cost of living isn't going to eat you alive.

$110k plus equity, right? If you got an offer from an established public company, the salary portion of the compensation package would likely be much higher.

Very little equity. Not worth the salary differential.

You should assume that any equity you are offerred by a startup has a value of $0 because the odds are that's what you are going to see from it.

> cost of living is easily several times higher than in many other thriving parts of the country.

Citation required. I doubt its even up to 2X, let alone several times higher.

It's 2X:

http://www.bestplaces.net/cost_of_living/city/california/san...

That website isn't worth the electrons it's made of. I've used it in three moves now, and its indices have never been anywhere close to reality.

I just looked up their latest indices for Seattle, San Francisco, and NYC (143, 199, 169, respectively) - all cities I've lived in before, and these numbers bear no semblance to reality.

According to this, living in NYC is ~18% more expensive than Seattle - which is an absolutely laughable statement if you've ever lived in both places - 80-100% would be more like it. Similarly, it claims that SF is ~18% more expensive than New York, which a pretty absurd claim itself. There are places in SF more expensive than NYC, but overall it's still substantially cheaper.

Measuring a bunch of medians that sound like they relate to cost of living, and then throwing them in a blender for a weighted average... turns out the number that pops out the other end is more or less meaningless.

If you're being paid California-level salaries in, say, Chicago or Austin - stay put, the money is better where you are. If you're being paid the standard Chicago-area salary, moving to California may be an overall gain even accounting for cost of living adjustment.

Not to mention that some cities have more scalable living costs than others. There are more than a few software folks here in NYC who are cutting their costs to the bone and exploiting the salary gap to put a lot of money in the bank (for eventual startups, or moving to a cheaper part of the country, whatever). The problem with a median measure in a world with irregular distributions is that it ends up describing no one individual in the set very well.

I was living in SF until less than a year ago - the housing market is insane, no doubt, and it will probably hit NYC-levels at some point in the near future.

But that isn't right now, I do not believe. There are corners (particularly SOMA) where cost of living far outstrips even the glitziest corners of Manhattan, but those are few and far between. In general, living in SF is still cheaper than living in Manhattan or the "near" neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens (i.e., not a 45-minute train ride from everything).

And therein lies the problem with these cost of living calculators - they have no awareness of equivalencies and idiosyncracies of these places. Why are we rolling Staten Island into this calculation when comparing SI to anywhere in SF is plain lunacy?

Similarly, the lifestyle between the Outer Richmond and North Beach are very different - as are rent prices. But yet these websites essentially add them up and divide by two, as if that number represents something meaningful.

If you want to evaluate cost of living differences between two cities, indices are probably the worst way to do it.

$1850 (or even $2K) is a pretty tough task in Chelsea nowadays, and Chelsea is still one of the cheaper neighborhoods. The UES is also fairly inexpensive by Manhattan standards, but a studio under $2K is still pretty unrealistic.

They exist, but they are few and far between. If you offered me a $1850 studio in Chelsea my first thought would be "what's under the floorboards". If you told me it's a $1850 1BR I'd check your temperature. The only places you'd reliably find studios < $2K would be Chinatown and the LES in general - and there are many reasons why those places are inexpensive.

I'm not sure if Manhattan is as cheap as you remember...

Hell, even Brooklyn is ridiculous now. Williamsburg is more expensive than most of Manhattan, Park Slope slightly cheaper but not by much. DUMBO, get outta here, DUMBO is giving TriBeCa a run for its money. $1850 for a studio is unrealistic in all of the above places, though if you're looking in the winter and have luck on your side, possibly doable in not-Park-Slope-but-lets-pretend areas.

Funny. The chart shows an overall rating of 199, but the break down is at parity or less than 100. They don't break out housing, which is the only real killer in San Francisco, yet not everyone really needs to be buy a house there to be happy (many can and do with less housing to economize).

Also, the parent post compared SF to other thriving cities in the US, not the US in general. Would love to see how SF is twice as expensive as some place like Atlanta or Dallas (assuming they are thriving, of course).

Real estate—whether renting or buying—is the killer. I moved from the Bay Area to Texas (Houston then San Antonio) and it's dirt cheap here. I pay $500/month for a great apartment in a nice part of town with hardwood floors, air conditioning and a covered parking space. Around 700 sq.ft.

Fuel is cheaper, taxes are lower (when I left CA car registration was over $400/year I recall, mine is $50 here) and housing is much cheaper.

Not sure if this link will still work for you:

http://bestplaces.net/col/?salary=80000&city1=54865000&#...

According to their stats I would need 2.3x the salary I make here for a comparable lifestyle in SF. Now, I'll grant you that could be mitigated by not living in SF but one of the cheaper suburbs. Mess with the numbers and see what it looks like.

I would say SF costs are higher but, not very much, on everything than Texas until housing is considered. I don't think that is a very controversial assumption; even gas might be $4 in SF and only about a $1 cheaper in Texas.

Equivlalent lifestyle is always fuzzy: do I need a car if I live in SF? Maybe but many do well without. If you are into urban living...you wouldn't be very happy in San Antonio. In NYC, this is magnified obviously. You can also move out of SF, and unfortunately, many jobs are in the bay area and not the city anyways (so live in Mountain View vs. SF and work at Google).

For the record, I still think SF is too expensive and would prefer Seattle or Portland for quality of life reasons (but I'm a native PNW). I wouldn't dream of moving to Texas, I didn't even find Austin to be very nice; I don't like driving and haven't owned a car in over 7 years (when I lived in the Bay Area ironically).

That's how I felt. I'm a California native and I thought I'd hate Texas but after living here for seven years I very much doubt I'll ever go back.

I've been out of the states for 7 years. Sometimes I wonder if I'll ever bother going back.