Help Me Understand Cost of Living Forum

[Anonymous User]

Open Google Maps, Brooklyn.
Montgomery street near Utica is Ultra-Orthodox Jewish area as you proceed toward Kingston Street and keep going toward Western Beef Supermarket area.
Now go the other way back toward Utica into East NY. Where Montgomery blends into e92nd Street. Near Utica and NY Ave. This is a very safe area which I'm familiar with. A 2 bedroom $2200. Electric, gas, heat included. Note the location of the Sutter/Rutland 3 train which takes you right into the Manhattan tentacles of BiggestLaw.

Oh look it's sweedishblue take like five million. How long before you get banned again?

[Anonymous User]

OP here. How much does living in NJ change the outcome? Especially with 3 days in the office, I’m ok with a one-hour commute.

Living in NJ will save you a ton of money if you live in Newark. Hoboken is also pretty expensive these days.

Honestly, are you okay living with a roommate? All of the other posters are looking at/talking about living alone. If you're okay with living with a roommate, you can absolutely live in a great neighborhood in NYC and keep rent low.

If housing is extremely important to you (ie living alone in a nice big apartment) and the neighborhood perks/amenities is not important to you (ie willing to live in Newark, NJ), then you will not enjoy living in NYC and should think of secondary markets.

The first rule about NYC is that your first apartment will suck. Everybody knows and understands that, and it's fine. It's a lot better to have a shitty apartment in west village than in LES.

Also, lol @ transplants saying no one wants to live in Astoria/Harlem/110th. I'm sorry but you guys spending 2-3 years playing NYer and then moving to whatever secondary city that wishes it was NY and totally has that 1 street that reminds you of Williamsburg, doesn't mean no one wants to live in those neighborhoods. Most of us actually leave the 1 square mile of Manhattan that you won't step foot outside.

I’m married and we’re expecting a child soon, so I can’t really do a roommate. The only thing I want NYC for is the salary and the type of work. But I guess it just sounds like it is not worth it.

I would absolutely not do NYC if you are expecting a child unless you already have a family support structure there.

Strongly, strongly agree. One of the main motivators for otherwise happy New Yorkers to leave is because they’re planning to have kids and realize that the city is a horrible place to raise them - that’s why my spouse and I left . If your career required you to be there (ie Wall Street, advertising, etc) then you’d be stuck, but there are tons of other cities where you lose nothing career-wise, GAIN financially, and have a much easier environment for raising children.

I’m telling you, come to Houston or Dallas and raise your kid in a big house with a big yard while saving tons of cash.

[Anonymous User]

Hell yeah, baby! We haven't had a "is living in NYC worth it" thread in months.

You can build wealth just fine living in NYC. When you're a junior associate you can't buy a table at Marquee (I'm too old to know what clubs are hip nowadays -- I still miss Riff Raff) every weekend, and you can't live in a 3BR in a doorman building in Tribeca or a floor-through loft in SoHo, but you can live a really fun life and still save a shitload of money.

lol at the guy from Cleveland saying that there's no "tangible benefit" to living in NYC though. Compare Cleveland Hinge to Manhattan Hinge and get back to me my dude.

Out of curiosity, cost aside are Tribeca/SoHo actually good places to live? I've always felt that the West Village/Chelsea/UWS/UES are just slightly more liveable and less... idk manufactured feeling?

Also yeah re: secondary markets. Most secondary markets aren't that much cheaper either except for Houston/Dallas.

Would not live in Soho from experience, agree with your intuition.

[Anonymous User]

Also yeah re: secondary markets. Most secondary markets aren't that much cheaper either except for Houston/Dallas.

I feel like only NYers or people with very limited experience in the U.S. say this. COL in every U.S. city outside of maybe Seattle, LA, DC, San Diego, Honolulu, San Francisco, Miami, and Boston are significantly cheaper (and half of those aren't secondary markets). Milwaukee, Houston, Dallas, Cleveland, Detroit, Des Moines, Minneapolis, San Antonia, Austin, Charlotte, Atlanta, and many more cities are significantly cheaper. Chicago is also significantly cheaper and not a secondary market. Classic NY brain rot strikes again, but you can feel free to keep trying to convince us from your $3,300/mo. 550sq. ft. Park Slope studio.

As an Iowa native, homerism has me cheering this list, but we’re just a bit out of place haha. Though DSM does seem to be in a sweet spot—lawyers make a ton for the COL, but it’s too small for real biglaw so lifestyle and partnership prospects are still good and you can just keep making money forever if that’s your thing. Of course you can make tons of money in like Minneapolis or Columbus too but you also get the downsides of something closer to a traditional BL market.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. How much does living in NJ change the outcome? Especially with 3 days in the office, I’m ok with a one-hour commute.

Living in NJ will save you a ton of money if you live in Newark. Hoboken is also pretty expensive these days.

Honestly, are you okay living with a roommate? All of the other posters are looking at/talking about living alone. If you're okay with living with a roommate, you can absolutely live in a great neighborhood in NYC and keep rent low.

If housing is extremely important to you (ie living alone in a nice big apartment) and the neighborhood perks/amenities is not important to you (ie willing to live in Newark, NJ), then you will not enjoy living in NYC and should think of secondary markets.

The first rule about NYC is that your first apartment will suck. Everybody knows and understands that, and it's fine. It's a lot better to have a shitty apartment in west village than in LES.

Also, lol @ transplants saying no one wants to live in Astoria/Harlem/110th. I'm sorry but you guys spending 2-3 years playing NYer and then moving to whatever secondary city that wishes it was NY and totally has that 1 street that reminds you of Williamsburg, doesn't mean no one wants to live in those neighborhoods. Most of us actually leave the 1 square mile of Manhattan that you won't step foot outside.

I’m married and we’re expecting a child soon, so I can’t really do a roommate. The only thing I want NYC for is the salary and the type of work. But I guess it just sounds like it is not worth it.

If you had led off with that you’re expecting, absolutely nobody would have recd NY. Move close to family if you can, NY with kids is hard, let alone biglaw with kids.

[nealric]

Also yeah re: secondary markets. Most secondary markets aren't that much cheaper either except for Houston/Dallas.

I feel like only NYers or people with very limited experience in the U.S. say this. COL in every U.S. city outside of maybe Seattle, LA, DC, San Diego, Honolulu, San Francisco, Miami, and Boston are significantly cheaper (and half of those aren't secondary markets). Milwaukee, Houston, Dallas, Cleveland, Detroit, Des Moines, Minneapolis, San Antonia, Austin, Charlotte, Atlanta, and many more cities are significantly cheaper. Chicago is also significantly cheaper and not a secondary market. Classic NY brain rot strikes again, but you can feel free to keep trying to convince us from your $3,300/mo. 550sq. ft. Park Slope studio.

As an Iowa native, homerism has me cheering this list, but we’re just a bit out of place haha. Though DSM does seem to be in a sweet spot—lawyers make a ton for the COL, but it’s too small for real biglaw so lifestyle and partnership prospects are still good and you can just keep making money forever if that’s your thing. Of course you can make tons of money in like Minneapolis or Columbus too but you also get the downsides of something closer to a traditional BL market.

I think we need to clarify what we mean by "secondary market." In Biglaw, I'd say that every city that is not NYC/DC/Chi/LA/Bay Area is a "secondary market." That doesn't imply it's a podunk town, it's just not a biglaw primary market. Secondary markets would be major cities like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta/Seattle/Denver (still have market paying firms and Texas may eventually become a primary market over Chicago based on trajectory). Cities like Minneapolis or Columbus would be tertiary markets (no market paying firms except maybe a tiny outpost).

[Sackboy]

I think we need to clarify what we mean by "secondary market." In Biglaw, I'd say that every city that is not NYC/DC/Chi/LA/Bay Area is a "secondary market." That doesn't imply it's a podunk town, it's just not a biglaw primary market. Secondary markets would be major cities like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta/Seattle/Denver (still have market paying firms and Texas may eventually become a primary market over Chicago based on trajectory). Cities like Minneapolis or Columbus would be tertiary markets (no market paying firms except maybe a tiny outpost).

Through this view, which I think is more nuanced and accurate than my broad description of secondary markets, NY looks even worse, because you can have a better QoL in not just secondary markets but tertiary markets.

Separately, not sure why TX would replace Chicago as a primary market. Two very different geographic areas. No reason why they can't both be primary markets.

[nealric]

I think we need to clarify what we mean by "secondary market." In Biglaw, I'd say that every city that is not NYC/DC/Chi/LA/Bay Area is a "secondary market." That doesn't imply it's a podunk town, it's just not a biglaw primary market. Secondary markets would be major cities like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta/Seattle/Denver (still have market paying firms and Texas may eventually become a primary market over Chicago based on trajectory). Cities like Minneapolis or Columbus would be tertiary markets (no market paying firms except maybe a tiny outpost).

Through this view, which I think is more nuanced and accurate than my broad description of secondary markets, NY looks even worse, because you can have a better QoL in not just secondary markets but tertiary markets.

Separately, not sure why TX would replace Chicago as a primary market. Two very different geographic areas. No reason why they can't both be primary markets.

Replacement wasn't the best word. You are right that Texas becoming primary doesn't imply that Chicago declines.

I think the main benefit to larger markets is simply an increase in options. If you move to Minneapolis, there just aren't a lot of biglaw offices to work at. If you want to leave biglaw altogether, there are fewer alternative employers. It raises the chance you'd have to relocate to find employment. There is also more upside potential in large markets. A first year associate in Minneapolis may make a healthy fraction of what an NYC first year does, but there are probably no Minneapolis M&A partners making 8 figures.

[Anonymous User]

How’s Boston for raising a family?

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

How’s Boston for raising a family?

I don’t understand why this guy moved to Boston when Astoria or Jersey City would have been cheaper

[Anonymous User]

How’s Boston for raising a family?

So the good thing about Boston is that there are lots of suburbs in the metro area that are commutable with excellent public schools. The bad thing is that buying in those towns is going to cost a ton. (But the alternative is probably paying a ton to live in Boston proper AND paying a ton for one of the excellent private schools in the area.)

[Anonymous User]

I think we need to clarify what we mean by "secondary market." In Biglaw, I'd say that every city that is not NYC/DC/Chi/LA/Bay Area is a "secondary market." That doesn't imply it's a podunk town, it's just not a biglaw primary market. Secondary markets would be major cities like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta/Seattle/Denver (still have market paying firms and Texas may eventually become a primary market over Chicago based on trajectory). Cities like Minneapolis or Columbus would be tertiary markets (no market paying firms except maybe a tiny outpost).

Through this view, which I think is more nuanced and accurate than my broad description of secondary markets, NY looks even worse, because you can have a better QoL in not just secondary markets but tertiary markets.

YMMV on QoL being better in tertiary markets. Sure you might save more, but is it really worth it to live in a sprawl like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta? I grew up in a city like them and I stg everything about it is a major turn off compared to NYC/Chi/SF (LA/DC are more in the middle IMO). It's not impossible to have a high QoL in glorified suburbia but you're sacrificing a lot of "soft" qol factors for the "hard" income benefits--it's basically the biglaw version of going out to work the oil patch up in North Dakota.

[Anonymous User]

I think we need to clarify what we mean by "secondary market." In Biglaw, I'd say that every city that is not NYC/DC/Chi/LA/Bay Area is a "secondary market." That doesn't imply it's a podunk town, it's just not a biglaw primary market. Secondary markets would be major cities like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta/Seattle/Denver (still have market paying firms and Texas may eventually become a primary market over Chicago based on trajectory). Cities like Minneapolis or Columbus would be tertiary markets (no market paying firms except maybe a tiny outpost).

Through this view, which I think is more nuanced and accurate than my broad description of secondary markets, NY looks even worse, because you can have a better QoL in not just secondary markets but tertiary markets.

YMMV on QoL being better in tertiary markets. Sure you might save more, but is it really worth it to live in a sprawl like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta? I grew up in a city like them and I stg everything about it is a major turn off compared to NYC/Chi/SF (LA/DC are more in the middle IMO). It's not impossible to have a high QoL in glorified suburbia but you're sacrificing a lot of "soft" qol factors for the "hard" income benefits--it's basically the biglaw version of going out to work the oil patch up in North Dakota.

I mean saying this just shows that you’ve never been to North Dakota. And *you* might be giving up too many of your favored “soft QoL” factors to move out of NYC etc for more money, but plenty of biglaw people wouldn’t be (Houston is one of the most diverse cities in the country with the great food that goes along with it, Atlanta has an incredibly vibrant Black community, the Twin Cities are beautiful with a lot going on, Denver and Seattle are amazing cities with great access to amazing outdoor activities; not sure what Dallas has for it but some people like guns and Republicans [jk!]). The super obvious factor for a lot of these cities (not all) is being able to buy a big house to put your family in. Totally fine if that’s not your thing, but it is a big “soft QOL factor” for lots of people in biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

I think we need to clarify what we mean by "secondary market." In Biglaw, I'd say that every city that is not NYC/DC/Chi/LA/Bay Area is a "secondary market." That doesn't imply it's a podunk town, it's just not a biglaw primary market. Secondary markets would be major cities like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta/Seattle/Denver (still have market paying firms and Texas may eventually become a primary market over Chicago based on trajectory). Cities like Minneapolis or Columbus would be tertiary markets (no market paying firms except maybe a tiny outpost).

Through this view, which I think is more nuanced and accurate than my broad description of secondary markets, NY looks even worse, because you can have a better QoL in not just secondary markets but tertiary markets.

YMMV on QoL being better in tertiary markets. Sure you might save more, but is it really worth it to live in a sprawl like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta? I grew up in a city like them and I stg everything about it is a major turn off compared to NYC/Chi/SF (LA/DC are more in the middle IMO). It's not impossible to have a high QoL in glorified suburbia but you're sacrificing a lot of "soft" qol factors for the "hard" income benefits--it's basically the biglaw version of going out to work the oil patch up in North Dakota.

I mean saying this just shows that you’ve never been to North Dakota. And *you* might be giving up too many of your favored “soft QoL” factors to move out of NYC etc for more money, but plenty of biglaw people wouldn’t be (Houston is one of the most diverse cities in the country with the great food that goes along with it, Atlanta has an incredibly vibrant Black community, the Twin Cities are beautiful with a lot going on, Denver and Seattle are amazing cities with great access to amazing outdoor activities; not sure what Dallas has for it but some people like guns and Republicans [jk!]). The super obvious factor for a lot of these cities (not all) is being able to buy a big house to put your family in. Totally fine if that’s not your thing, but it is a big “soft QOL factor” for lots of people in biglaw.

Lived in NoDak for two years bub, find another target. As for the rest:

Houston's certainly vibrant and diverse, but their food scene is lack at the high end compared to NYC/Chi/SF and it doesn't have as strong of a museum or other high culture scene as those cities at all.

Atlanta has a vibrant black community, but your average biglaw grunt is a balding white male--I sincerely doubt there's going to be much overlap (especially since they'll probably live in the north suburbs, commute into the city solely for work, and immediately leave--unless they live in Buckhead, which is just that but closer in).

The Twin Cities? Are you kidding me? Truly tertiary market, arguably worse weather than Chicago, and substantially less cultural centers and activity. Minnesota's a great place for a summer lake cabin but I noped out of the one interview I ever considered there and haven't looked back.

Denver's a good call, but a bit far from the mountains proper (we really need Aspen/Vail biglaw offices). Kirkland SLC is definitely one of the more interesting deals in biglaw but how often will you be able to take a full day to get out to the slopes? Seattle's fair, but given the insularity of their biglaw world I don't think of it as being accessible in the way that SF/Chicago are, let alone NYC.

I lived in Dallas for a bit, and as far as I can tell the selling point is just that it's cheap and you can get a mcmansion in Plano. Austin has real culture but doesn't stack up on CoL. Political persuasion might be there but the only people I know making location decisions on politics are my hard-right cousins trying to book it outta Portland for Utah because "liberals ruined Oregon."

As for the house point... I guess? I grew up in a very wealthy southern suburb and frankly the qol for children is far worse than my compatriots who grew up in the city proper (let alone a place like NYC with actual public transit for kids to learn real independence in). I've never understood the desire for generic suburbia and don't think I ever will.

[Anonymous User]

By revealed preference people with the resources to live in a house generally do, even at the expense of a commute and boring surroundings, especially if they have families, including in the New York area. It's fine to have an idiosyncratic preference for central-city living, I enjoy it too, but for most people housing dominates all other quality-of-life concerns.

[Anonymous User]

I think we need to clarify what we mean by "secondary market." In Biglaw, I'd say that every city that is not NYC/DC/Chi/LA/Bay Area is a "secondary market." That doesn't imply it's a podunk town, it's just not a biglaw primary market. Secondary markets would be major cities like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta/Seattle/Denver (still have market paying firms and Texas may eventually become a primary market over Chicago based on trajectory). Cities like Minneapolis or Columbus would be tertiary markets (no market paying firms except maybe a tiny outpost).

Through this view, which I think is more nuanced and accurate than my broad description of secondary markets, NY looks even worse, because you can have a better QoL in not just secondary markets but tertiary markets.

YMMV on QoL being better in tertiary markets. Sure you might save more, but is it really worth it to live in a sprawl like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta? I grew up in a city like them and I stg everything about it is a major turn off compared to NYC/Chi/SF (LA/DC are more in the middle IMO). It's not impossible to have a high QoL in glorified suburbia but you're sacrificing a lot of "soft" qol factors for the "hard" income benefits--it's basically the biglaw version of going out to work the oil patch up in North Dakota.

I mean saying this just shows that you’ve never been to North Dakota. And *you* might be giving up too many of your favored “soft QoL” factors to move out of NYC etc for more money, but plenty of biglaw people wouldn’t be (Houston is one of the most diverse cities in the country with the great food that goes along with it, Atlanta has an incredibly vibrant Black community, the Twin Cities are beautiful with a lot going on, Denver and Seattle are amazing cities with great access to amazing outdoor activities; not sure what Dallas has for it but some people like guns and Republicans [jk!]). The super obvious factor for a lot of these cities (not all) is being able to buy a big house to put your family in. Totally fine if that’s not your thing, but it is a big “soft QOL factor” for lots of people in biglaw.

Lived in NoDak for two years bub, find another target. As for the rest:

Houston's certainly vibrant and diverse, but their food scene is lack at the high end compared to NYC/Chi/SF and it doesn't have as strong of a museum or other high culture scene as those cities at all.

Atlanta has a vibrant black community, but your average biglaw grunt is a balding white male--I sincerely doubt there's going to be much overlap (especially since they'll probably live in the north suburbs, commute into the city solely for work, and immediately leave--unless they live in Buckhead, which is just that but closer in).

The Twin Cities? Are you kidding me? Truly tertiary market, arguably worse weather than Chicago, and substantially less cultural centers and activity. Minnesota's a great place for a summer lake cabin but I noped out of the one interview I ever considered there and haven't looked back.

Denver's a good call, but a bit far from the mountains proper (we really need Aspen/Vail biglaw offices). Kirkland SLC is definitely one of the more interesting deals in biglaw but how often will you be able to take a full day to get out to the slopes? Seattle's fair, but given the insularity of their biglaw world I don't think of it as being accessible in the way that SF/Chicago are, let alone NYC.

I lived in Dallas for a bit, and as far as I can tell the selling point is just that it's cheap and you can get a mcmansion in Plano. Austin has real culture but doesn't stack up on CoL. Political persuasion might be there but the only people I know making location decisions on politics are my hard-right cousins trying to book it outta Portland for Utah because "liberals ruined Oregon."

As for the house point... I guess? I grew up in a very wealthy southern suburb and frankly the qol for children is far worse than my compatriots who grew up in the city proper (let alone a place like NYC with actual public transit for kids to learn real independence in). I've never understood the desire for generic suburbia and don't think I ever will.

These are all totally valid opinions to hold for yourself, and I'll even assume you actually avail yourself of the high cultural scene/cultural centers - I think more people value being able to say their city has these things than actually attend said cultural events, but I'm sure you're the exception. But you get that you don't have to understand the desire to be in "generic suburbia," which doesn't actually describe almost any of these cities unless you affirmatively choose to live in generic suburbs, right? You just have to acknowledge it's a perfectly valid desire for other people who value different things than you do.

(I lived in the Twin Cities for a number of years and I loved it. Different strokes etc. Also, I think it's kind of shitty to use the "average balding white male" as the default here, as if there aren't any Black associates or law students aiming for biglaw. I actually agree with you that growing up somewhere like NYC can be a great experience for a kid, even if you're not rolling in megamillions, but obviously lots of people feel differently.)

[Anonymous User]

I think we need to clarify what we mean by "secondary market." In Biglaw, I'd say that every city that is not NYC/DC/Chi/LA/Bay Area is a "secondary market." That doesn't imply it's a podunk town, it's just not a biglaw primary market. Secondary markets would be major cities like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta/Seattle/Denver (still have market paying firms and Texas may eventually become a primary market over Chicago based on trajectory). Cities like Minneapolis or Columbus would be tertiary markets (no market paying firms except maybe a tiny outpost).

Through this view, which I think is more nuanced and accurate than my broad description of secondary markets, NY looks even worse, because you can have a better QoL in not just secondary markets but tertiary markets.

YMMV on QoL being better in tertiary markets. Sure you might save more, but is it really worth it to live in a sprawl like Houston/Dallas/Atlanta? I grew up in a city like them and I stg everything about it is a major turn off compared to NYC/Chi/SF (LA/DC are more in the middle IMO). It's not impossible to have a high QoL in glorified suburbia but you're sacrificing a lot of "soft" qol factors for the "hard" income benefits--it's basically the biglaw version of going out to work the oil patch up in North Dakota.

I mean saying this just shows that you’ve never been to North Dakota. And *you* might be giving up too many of your favored “soft QoL” factors to move out of NYC etc for more money, but plenty of biglaw people wouldn’t be (Houston is one of the most diverse cities in the country with the great food that goes along with it, Atlanta has an incredibly vibrant Black community, the Twin Cities are beautiful with a lot going on, Denver and Seattle are amazing cities with great access to amazing outdoor activities; not sure what Dallas has for it but some people like guns and Republicans [jk!]). The super obvious factor for a lot of these cities (not all) is being able to buy a big house to put your family in. Totally fine if that’s not your thing, but it is a big “soft QOL factor” for lots of people in biglaw.

Lived in NoDak for two years bub, find another target. As for the rest:

Houston's certainly vibrant and diverse, but their food scene is lack at the high end compared to NYC/Chi/SF and it doesn't have as strong of a museum or other high culture scene as those cities at all.

Atlanta has a vibrant black community, but your average biglaw grunt is a balding white male--I sincerely doubt there's going to be much overlap (especially since they'll probably live in the north suburbs, commute into the city solely for work, and immediately leave--unless they live in Buckhead, which is just that but closer in).

The Twin Cities? Are you kidding me? Truly tertiary market, arguably worse weather than Chicago, and substantially less cultural centers and activity. Minnesota's a great place for a summer lake cabin but I noped out of the one interview I ever considered there and haven't looked back.

Denver's a good call, but a bit far from the mountains proper (we really need Aspen/Vail biglaw offices). Kirkland SLC is definitely one of the more interesting deals in biglaw but how often will you be able to take a full day to get out to the slopes? Seattle's fair, but given the insularity of their biglaw world I don't think of it as being accessible in the way that SF/Chicago are, let alone NYC.

I lived in Dallas for a bit, and as far as I can tell the selling point is just that it's cheap and you can get a mcmansion in Plano. Austin has real culture but doesn't stack up on CoL. Political persuasion might be there but the only people I know making location decisions on politics are my hard-right cousins trying to book it outta Portland for Utah because "liberals ruined Oregon."

As for the house point... I guess? I grew up in a very wealthy southern suburb and frankly the qol for children is far worse than my compatriots who grew up in the city proper (let alone a place like NYC with actual public transit for kids to learn real independence in). I've never understood the desire for generic suburbia and don't think I ever will.

These are all totally valid opinions to hold for yourself, and I'll even assume you actually avail yourself of the high cultural scene/cultural centers - I think more people value being able to say their city has these things than actually attend said cultural events, but I'm sure you're the exception. But you get that you don't have to understand the desire to be in "generic suburbia," which doesn't actually describe almost any of these cities unless you affirmatively choose to live in generic suburbs, right? You just have to acknowledge it's a perfectly valid desire for other people who value different things than you do.

(I lived in the Twin Cities for a number of years and I loved it. Different strokes etc. Also, I think it's kind of shitty to use the "average balding white male" as the default here, as if there aren't any Black associates or law students aiming for biglaw. I actually agree with you that growing up somewhere like NYC can be a great experience for a kid, even if you're not rolling in megamillions, but obviously lots of people feel differently.)

The issue is in a good number of these cities the rationale given is, as the person I responded to said, "being able to buy a big house to put your family in." That screams suburbia to me, especially at the price points a junior associate can afford in these places. Yes, there are places that have good SFH housing stock that aren't generic suburbs (see, e.g. Palo Alto, Berkeley, Park Slope etc.). But in any of the listed cities the option that the up-and-coming biglaw associate who wants a house will likely end up in a suburb with a long drive to get to the office. This not only (a) separates that associate from the cultural milieu of their city but also (b) reduces them to living in a place that's fundamentally fungible--a Houston suburb isn't meaningfully different from the East Bay, Long Island, or deep Chicagoland; just pick your weather risk and property tax rate of choice.

As for the Atlanta point, you may have an argument there, though mostly that the average biglaw drone also doesn't use NYC/SF/Chicago's unique cultural offerings either. I'm a member at a couple museums and as far as I can tell, the only lawyers I meet at events are older partners, even when there's a good contingent of younger people (btw, highly recommend the Neue Galerie--has a younger crowd than most UES museums). On that metric, if the lawyer is a cultural morass they very well might end up getting more out of an Atlanta (or really Houston) simply because they won't actually experience NYC. That said ATL does beat NYC on some fronts so if you particularly value those your mileage will vary, though if you're trying to maximize how far your dollar goes it's not a good choice compared to TX.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. How much does living in NJ change the outcome? Especially with 3 days in the office, I’m ok with a one-hour commute.

Living in NJ will save you a ton of money if you live in Newark. Hoboken is also pretty expensive these days.

Honestly, are you okay living with a roommate? All of the other posters are looking at/talking about living alone. If you're okay with living with a roommate, you can absolutely live in a great neighborhood in NYC and keep rent low.

If housing is extremely important to you (ie living alone in a nice big apartment) and the neighborhood perks/amenities is not important to you (ie willing to live in Newark, NJ), then you will not enjoy living in NYC and should think of secondary markets.

The first rule about NYC is that your first apartment will suck. Everybody knows and understands that, and it's fine. It's a lot better to have a shitty apartment in west village than in LES.

Also, lol @ transplants saying no one wants to live in Astoria/Harlem/110th. I'm sorry but you guys spending 2-3 years playing NYer and then moving to whatever secondary city that wishes it was NY and totally has that 1 street that reminds you of Williamsburg, doesn't mean no one wants to live in those neighborhoods. Most of us actually leave the 1 square mile of Manhattan that you won't step foot outside.

I’m married and we’re expecting a child soon, so I can’t really do a roommate. The only thing I want NYC for is the salary and the type of work. But I guess it just sounds like it is not worth it.

Little kids and a demanding job in NYC can be tricky, but it is doable. If both parents work, then the primary issue is that childcare is expensive and can be difficult to find (the really great daycares often have waiting lists and good nannies are extremely expensive). If your spouse is not working outside the home, then you won't have that expense, but that can put the "best" family-friendly neighborhoods (meaning those with good public schools) out of reach on a single-income budget. I lived in NYC with little kids and it is challenging (space, finding good playgrounds nearby), but there are also upsides (easy, cheap outings like the Met, the Museum of Natural History, Central Park, the Bronx Zoo, etc.). I will say that babyhood is probably the easiest time to have kids in the city (when kids get bigger, small apartments start feeling smaller quickly on rainy days when you can't go to the park, the public school system is confusing and private schools are unreasonably expensive) so if you wanted to be in NYC for a few years, this is your best window as far as family concerns go.

[Anonymous User]

I’m an associate in a satellite of a very low COL mountain town. Helps that I have ties here, but feel really fortunate that it unfolded this way. I’m also not making market - closer to $140k stub year. With that said, going through some COL comparison websites (nerd wallet, CNN, etc), it projects I’d have to make approx $380k in Manhattan to maintain the same standard of living. Obviously these websites aren’t perfect, but they’re pretty close in my experience. I’m trading off fine dining and all the other entertainment options found in major markets for an extremely low COL city ($500,000 will easily get you a nice 4 bedroom house ~3000+ sq ft) that is still fairly unique and diverse and provides a pretty cool fun outdoorsy type of lifestyle. Also helps that my family is here too, so I was never that attracted to living in a major market.

[thisismytlsuername]

lmao at "better QoL in not just secondary markets but tertiary markets"

[Anonymous User]

OP here. How much does living in NJ change the outcome? Especially with 3 days in the office, I’m ok with a one-hour commute.

Living in NJ will save you a ton of money if you live in Newark. Hoboken is also pretty expensive these days.

Honestly, are you okay living with a roommate? All of the other posters are looking at/talking about living alone. If you're okay with living with a roommate, you can absolutely live in a great neighborhood in NYC and keep rent low.

If housing is extremely important to you (ie living alone in a nice big apartment) and the neighborhood perks/amenities is not important to you (ie willing to live in Newark, NJ), then you will not enjoy living in NYC and should think of secondary markets.

The first rule about NYC is that your first apartment will suck. Everybody knows and understands that, and it's fine. It's a lot better to have a shitty apartment in west village than in LES.

Also, lol @ transplants saying no one wants to live in Astoria/Harlem/110th. I'm sorry but you guys spending 2-3 years playing NYer and then moving to whatever secondary city that wishes it was NY and totally has that 1 street that reminds you of Williamsburg, doesn't mean no one wants to live in those neighborhoods. Most of us actually leave the 1 square mile of Manhattan that you won't step foot outside.

I’m married and we’re expecting a child soon, so I can’t really do a roommate. The only thing I want NYC for is the salary and the type of work. But I guess it just sounds like it is not worth it.

I would absolutely not do NYC if you are expecting a child unless you already have a family support structure there.

Strongly, strongly agree. One of the main motivators for otherwise happy New Yorkers to leave is because they’re planning to have kids and realize that the city is a horrible place to raise them - that’s why my spouse and I left . If your career required you to be there (ie Wall Street, advertising, etc) then you’d be stuck, but there are tons of other cities where you lose nothing career-wise, GAIN financially, and have a much easier environment for raising children.

I’m telling you, come to Houston or Dallas and raise your kid in a big house with a big yard while saving tons of cash.

Strong, strong agree as well. This is a huge detail OP!

My wife and I are also expecting here in NYC. The only way we can make it work is because my whole family is here, my parents are retired, and they're excited and willing to be full-time nannies.

The cost of a nanny in NYC will be around ~$100k, which is tough to swing on a first/second year salary.

If you plan on not using a nanny and having your spouse stay at home - consider the fact that they will be in a small apartment, probably won't have in-unit laundry (you need to do a shit ton of laundry all the time, babies make everything dirty, going into a rando basement with your kid in two 5x a week is not pleasant), no car to drive to groceries/daycare/routine hospital visits. It's just a miserable experience for all involved.

If you plan on going forward with this - I'd highly recommend living in one of Jersey City or Newark if your office is downtown, and Astoria or Long Island City if your office is in midtown. LIC is pretty expensive these days but at least it's very family friendly and the apartments are very modern so will have good amenities to make it easier.

[Anonymous User]

lmao at "better QoL in not just secondary markets but tertiary markets"

Yet the fuck again, some people do have better quality of life in tertiary markets. Some people hate big cities. Get over it.

[Anonymous User]

lmao at "better QoL in not just secondary markets but tertiary markets"

Yet the fuck again, some people do have better quality of life in tertiary markets. Some people hate big cities. Get over it.

I’m the OP above your quoted post. Not sure if that person was talking to me but seems likely. It’s cool. I understand people born to more fortunate and well off families, which may or may not be that person’s case, may prefer living well in a major market. I grew up in a trailer park, so low expectations and I appreciate nature more than metro areas. To each their own.

[Anonymous User]

lmao at "better QoL in not just secondary markets but tertiary markets"

Yet the fuck again, some people do have better quality of life in tertiary markets. Some people hate big cities. Get over it.

I’m the OP above your quoted post. Not sure if that person was talking to me but seems likely. It’s cool. I understand people born to more fortunate and well off families, which may or may not be that person’s case, may prefer living well in a major market. I grew up in a trailer park, so low expectations and I appreciate nature more than metro areas. To each their own.

And there are also well off/fortunate people who like nature and dislike major markets, and people who grew up poor who like NYC. There isn’t some magic formula to this.

[Anonymous User]

lmao at "better QoL in not just secondary markets but tertiary markets"

Yet the fuck again, some people do have better quality of life in tertiary markets. Some people hate big cities. Get over it.

I’m the OP above your quoted post. Not sure if that person was talking to me but seems likely. It’s cool. I understand people born to more fortunate and well off families, which may or may not be that person’s case, may prefer living well in a major market. I grew up in a trailer park, so low expectations and I appreciate nature more than metro areas. To each their own.

And there are also well off/fortunate people who like nature and dislike major markets, and people who grew up poor who like NYC. There isn’t some magic formula to this.

Of course.