Who cares? you know what's in NYC that trumps that consideration? The opposite sex in balanced ratios. Finding your life partner far outweighs salary or living expenses any day of the week.

Ehh...I think that can go both ways. I know folks who live a pretty isolated existence in NYC and others who have an active dating life in SF. The problem is that if you get stuck in a tech bubble of friends, you are going to find yourself short changed when it comes to meeting women.

(Of course, this all applies to meeting women through friends. I don't do the bar scene so can't really comment on it.)

I dated a few (attractive/high status) women in NYC whom I met at meetups about things like rationality and graph theory, the last of whom is now my wife. You really have to actively seclude yourself to have a quiet dating life in NYC (as a straight guy).

> Ehh...I think that can go both ways.

But the numbers clearly suggest that NYC is the way to go. The ratio of men in their 20s to women in their 20s is one of the highest of large US cities in SF and one of the lowest in NYC. If you're a guy, NYC is the place to be.

Agree with last comment -- Salary is roughly equivalent, but cost of living in NYC is much higher. While you can rent for cheap in NY due to transit, you can do that in SF too (see: Dogpatch). Cost of food, entertainment, etc. is way higher in NY. (Reference: I lived in NY for 5 yrs, and SF for about 6 months now)

The Dogpatch is cheap? When was this? Last I checked you're likely looking at $2500+/mo for a 1BR. Maybe if you keep heading down towards Bayview, Portola, and Sunnydale (never mind the deterioration of the neighborhood) you can get closer to "rent for cheap". I think I'd actually favor the Sunset, but you'll have to head out a ways because inner-Sunset and Cole Valley are heating up.

I would say both are lower in NYC. Salary is definitely lower, and rent is as well because the infinitely better public transit in NYC gives you more living options that have a short commute.

I'm making comparable salary in NYC, and rent is pretty much in line with San Francisco area standards: $2300/mo studios in desirable areas... the difference in the housing market are these. First, there are more medium-awesome areas to choose from close to town (head to Astoria or East Williamsburg and you might shave $500-1000 off that studio, but you can still catch the N train to get to work and the neighborhood's reasonably cool). And second, if you want the apartment, there's a good chance you can get the apartment (whereas last time I went apartment-shopping in San Francisco, there would be 20+ people in line for the open house, including many couples who were new-hires at technology companies. it was insane.)

> there are more medium-awesome areas to choose from close to town (head to Astoria or East Williamsburg and you might shave $500-1000 off that studio, but you can still catch the N train to get to work and the neighborhood's reasonably cool).

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

> First, there are more medium-awesome areas to choose from close to town (head to Astoria or East Williamsburg and you might shave $500-1000 off that studio, but you can still catch the N train to get to work and the neighborhood's reasonably cool).

Would this be like living across the bay in Oakland or something? The flipside of such a situation would be that you get back home from SF at midnight before the last BART or you would have to be stuck when BART decides to strike.

This would be like living across the bay in Oakland, but much better. Compared to NYC's subway as a general-purpose transport system, BART's more like a commuter rail line that happens to be underground in downtown San Francisco.

Heck, when the MTA decides to strike (which is occasionally, but less frequently than BART) you can walk to Manhattan from Astoria. Try that from Oakland-to-SOMA.

They're both just across the river from Manhattan, so it would be a relatively short trip. I believe the trains run all night.

I am surprised that the rent is lower if you are living in NYC proper. I have one sample point for a friend who lives I think in the East Village. He pays $2300 for a studio. That seems about SF standard. (Well, not in the nicer parts of SF anyway.)

What exactly do you think the boundaries of NYC proper are? The East Village is one of the most expensive neighborhoods, not a typical one.

So I don't know enough about NYC to define what a expensive neighborhood is. However, $2300 is about mid range SF neighborhoods. Not highly desirable ones like the better of the mission, Pac Heights etc but something on the intersection of less desirable (deep inner sunset) and actually livable.

NYC incorporated its inner suburbs around 1900. So it is physically much much larger than San Fransico. It also means that there is a great variety of neigborhoods of all economic types -- from extremely wealthy (Upper East Side) to quite poor (Melrose section of the Bronx) -- inside city limits.

All of which is to say that limiting your statement to "NYC proper" doesn't mean much because that covers a lot of ground. If you had made your orginal statement about "Manhattan south of 96th street", it would have meant what I think you were going for. Within in those parameters the East Village is middle of the pack.

Also in reference to your comment above the subways run 24/7 in NYC (albeit on a reduced schedule).

Ah, gotcha. Apologies for using that phrase then. I merely meant living in NYC vs say living in New Jersey and making the commute (I knew a lot of people who did that.).

There are plenty of places in Brooklyn where you can live (with 3 or 4 roommates) for less than $1k/month.

it depends what is meant by "tech."

They tend to have the same pay (amongst the big companies that have offices in both areas, anyway) but NYC is more expensive, especially Manhattan.