London vs San Francisco

Question

I currently work in London for a remote friendly company, and am earning around £130k per year, with £20k in stocks due to vest in 18 months. I go into the office once a week from a house in the suburbs.

There's an opportunity that's arisen for me in San Francisco for a role paying $330k, no stocks. At a surface level, this looks like a great deal as I effectively double my income. However, San Francisco has a reputation of being an expensive city. Has anyone here made a similar move? Does the increase in salary make up for the increased cost of living? Also, from a lifestyle perspective what was the most radical difference?

eightysixer · Accepted Answer

I don't live in SF, but my gut feel (having once considered a move enough to check housing costs) is that living comfortably starts to get reasonable at or above $200k. At $330k that is more than doable, and you'll probably live better than you do in a London suburb.

My perspective on non-housing costs in London (restaurants, transit, etc.) was that everything was crazy expensive. London is easily one of the most expensive cities to live in worldwide. I think you'll do fine in SF on that salary.

trzebra · Answer

Unless you like to live in a cold and rainy place, SF is the obvious choice against any place in UK. And it's cheaper compared to London.

London vs San Francisco

About

Data Scientist

Members