Deciding between Chicago and the East Bay

[Tokolosh]

Given the economy and the dire news I hear about so many being unable to find work I have found myself in the very fortunate position of having two job offers. Money and advancement opportunities are similar so I am looking at deciding between the two areas more than anything.

Option 1 is Chicago. Office would be on the loop overlooking the river. We'd live in the west or northwest 'burbs and I'd commute in or take a train.

Option 2 is the East Bay. Woking in Livermore at one of the big national labs but likely living in Mountain House, Brentwood, or Tracy just based on income and housing costs.

Both have plenty of positives, both have some negatives. A commute either way. One is a consulting position and I'd have 9-15 clients. The other is an in-house project management type position.

So CUF... what are some of the tips and advice you can offer. What experiences have some of you had in either place. Thanks for your input.

[Clark Addison]

Depends how you feel about winter.

I am biased, but I love Chicago. Working in the Loop is great. I lived in the west suburbs for a while (Naperville). The commute from there is really not bad at all. The train is an express with no stops between Naperville and the Loop. It takes right about 30 minutes. It was probably the most pleasurable commute of my life.

The wards in Naperville are also very good, if that is important.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I don't have any advice, but it is good to see you over on this site.

[falafel]

Just make sure you've been released as a missionary by your Stake President before you go off to another city. You don't want to be hanging out in your suit and tags for another 2 years.

[venkman]

I lived in the East Bay; Dublin to be exact, just 5 miles west of Livermore. The whole Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore area is great, I'd move back in a heartbeat. Housing prices are down, but still very high.

Seriously, I wouldn't live in Tracy just for the sake of being able to own a home. That area is a hole. Plus, it's so far away from SF/Oakland. I'd rent and live in Dublin or Pleasanton and wait for home prices to (hopefully) come down some more. You can rent a decent home for less than half of what a comparable mortgage would cost.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Chicago. My in laws moved from Naperville to San Ramon two years ago and have not enjoyed San Ramon much at all in comparison. Venkman is right about Tracy, it is a hole. I also lived with them there.

Of all the places I have ever lived the East Bay was my least favorite. But then again each person is very different and you may like the East Bay. I think Chicago is a pretty interesting place and as long as you can stand horrible winters is pretty excellent.

[Surfah]

Winter.

I go to California.

[FMCoug]

I don't know what field you're in but I'd consider the economy and the consulting vs. in-house status of the two opportunities. If the in-house is a solid postion with a stable company it might be more secure. A lot of consulting companies are hurting out there right now.

[Surfah]

I don't know what field you're in but I'd consider the economy and the consulting vs. in-house status of the two opportunities. If the in-house is a solid postion with a stable company it might be more secure. A lot of consulting companies are hurting out there right now.

On the other hand, consulting could lead to other leads in the event he is ever laid off.

[FMCoug]

On the other hand, consulting could lead to other leads in the event he is ever laid off.

Good point. Like I said, without knowing the field it's hard to say.

[Commando]

yeah. Chicago is lovely and the superior city, but they have harsh winters without the benefit of any slopes nearby.

[Tokolosh]

Yeah, I guess that is helpful info...

Good point. Like I said, without knowing the field it's hard to say.

I do Human Resources consulting for Fortune 100 companies. Mostly I have focused on benefits strategies and procurement issues.

East Bay - I'd be in-house helping manage a transition from fairly rich HMO type benefits to more of a high deductible health plan with a flexible spending account. The position itself may only last a few years until the transition is through and everything is running smoothly but they almost always keep employees on and transition them to other areas of need. Basically very little threat of downsizing there.

Chicago - I'd continue consulting but would take on more clients that are smaller and continue with the large companies as well. There is also a team that works with the big Private Equity firms when they do takeovers and buyouts and if I take this position I'd make efforts to join that team (not a stretch to be a part of it with my banking background). As FMCoug mentioned there is probably less stability however, Mercer has already done most of its fat cutting and I don't anticipate too much more happening. If it does they would probably cut the real impact salaries and not mine. (The raise I will be getting makes a great impact to me but is still just a drop in the bucket relative to the principles and partners in the firm)

So both opportunities have some good points and potential for growth. Chicago would probably be more hours but not so many that it is going to weigh heavily. Thanks for the tips so far. I appreciate input and opinions from those who have been with or raised families in the areas we are examining.

[Surfah]

I do Human Resources consulting for Fortune 100 companies. Mostly I have focused on benefits strategies and procurement issues.

East Bay - I'd be in-house helping manage a transition from fairly rich HMO type benefits to more of a high deductible health plan with a flexible spending account. The position itself may only last a few years until the transition is through and everything is running smoothly but they almost always keep employees on and transition them to other areas of need. Basically very little threat of downsizing there.

Chicago - I'd continue consulting but would take on more clients that are smaller and continue with the large companies as well. There is also a team that works with the big Private Equity firms when they do takeovers and buyouts and if I take this position I'd make efforts to join that team (not a stretch to be a part of it with my banking background). As FMCoug mentioned there is probably less stability however, Mercer has already done most of its fat cutting and I don't anticipate too much more happening. If it does they would probably cut the real impact salaries and not mine. (The raise I will be getting makes a great impact to me but is still just a drop in the bucket relative to the principles and partners in the firm)

So both opportunities have some good points and potential for growth. Chicago would probably be more hours but not so many that it is going to weigh heavily. Thanks for the tips so far. I appreciate input and opinions from those who have been with or raised families in the areas we are examining.

I stand by my intial vote for East Bay.

[CJF]

I don't have any advice, but it is good to see you over on this site.

I agree. Glad you're here Tokolosh. I hope you stick around.

Also, Chicago is the second best big city in the US. I like No. Cal, but you can't go wrong with Chicago.

[CJF]

I do Human Resources consulting for Fortune 100 companies. Mostly I have focused on benefits strategies and procurement issues.

East Bay - I'd be in-house helping manage a transition from fairly rich HMO type benefits to more of a high deductible health plan with a flexible spending account. The position itself may only last a few years until the transition is through and everything is running smoothly but they almost always keep employees on and transition them to other areas of need. Basically very little threat of downsizing there.

Chicago - I'd continue consulting but would take on more clients that are smaller and continue with the large companies as well. There is also a team that works with the big Private Equity firms when they do takeovers and buyouts and if I take this position I'd make efforts to join that team (not a stretch to be a part of it with my banking background). As FMCoug mentioned there is probably less stability however, Mercer has already done most of its fat cutting and I don't anticipate too much more happening. If it does they would probably cut the real impact salaries and not mine. (The raise I will be getting makes a great impact to me but is still just a drop in the bucket relative to the principles and partners in the firm)

So both opportunities have some good points and potential for growth. Chicago would probably be more hours but not so many that it is going to weigh heavily. Thanks for the tips so far. I appreciate input and opinions from those who have been with or raised families in the areas we are examining.

My company is working with Mercer right now as we go through a merger. I've been impressed. They're very good.