What should a company pay me to move to Burbank, CA?

January 9, 2007 7:01 PM

It's possible I'll be receiving a job offer in Burbank, CA. Help me figure out what a good offer would be that would take into account the much higher cost of living than where I live now.

Currently I live in a medium-sized town (aprox. 100,000) in the mid-west. I am employed in the post production audio/video field. There is a good possibility that a company from Burbank, CA is going to be making me a job offer. In this new capacity, I would basically be the supervisor or people that hold the same position as I do currently. This same position would definitely be a promotion at my current company. I would be interested in renting an apartment or house initially, and then maybe in 3-5 years purchasing a home. According to the Prudential website, Burbank's cost of living is 115% higher than where I currently live (i.e., if I make $50,000 now, they would need to offer me over $100,000 to keep my living status the same). Taking into account the higher cost of living and that this would be considered a promotion, what would be a realistic increase over my current salary that I should expect? Also, is it realistic to expect the new company to cover the costs of moving my family and to assist with finding housing?

Also, if anyone could offer some good areas in or around Burbank to look for rentals I would appreciate it.

posted by drgonzo2k2 to work & money (15 comments total)

It is realistic to expect the new company to cover the moving costs, however, you must pay income taxes on this. This can be a major shock at year end!

As far as moving to burbank goes, my sister worked there for a while and she didn't think it was such a great place to live. However, compared to the midwest, its probably awesome.

If Iwere you, I'd angle for a nutty high salary. In California, crazy is the norm.
posted by Osmanthus at 7:09 PM on January 9, 2007

not that I'm questioning your math but...

are you sure the cost of living isn't 115% of where you are now, ie 15% higher?

It seems absurd to me that the cost of living would be that much higher in Burbank than anywhere else in America. L.A. is not Manhattan, rental costs are pretty reasonable, although buying a house can get pricey.

As far as where to rent, it all depends on what you want. Studio City and Burbank itself are both fairly nice by Valley standards. Silver Lake is hip and just over the hill (which means cooler in the summer)

Glendale isn't too far away and might be cheaper than Burbank proper.
posted by drjimmy11 at 7:13 PM on January 9, 2007

(just to give you an idea, I rent a 2BR apt. in West LA for around $1450 a month. Burbank would probably be the same or a little cheaper, depending on how nice a place you want)
posted by drjimmy11 at 7:15 PM on January 9, 2007

It is realistic to expect the new company to cover the moving costs, however, you must pay income taxes on this.

Weeelll, yeah, you have to pay income tax on money you receive to reimburse moving costs, but moving costs (for purposes of employment) are tax-deductible, so it's a wash.
posted by kindall at 7:18 PM on January 9, 2007

Re: 115% - I questioned those figures too, but the website had me put in my current salary, and the figure it told me I'd need to make in Burbank was 115% higher than what I make now ($50,000 became $107,500).
posted by drgonzo2k2 at 7:21 PM on January 9, 2007

Cost of living calculators seemingly factor in the cost of real estate. If you're going to rent, it's usually not as bad as all that.
posted by kindall at 7:27 PM on January 9, 2007

Unless I'm misunderstanding what it is you're going to be doing (very possible, of course), I question the idea that your company is going to be willing to pay you 100k+, especially in post-production, which is more like a regular business than many other aspects of the industry, and not really prone to outrageous salary inflation to land a star exec or producer.

...of course, rereading, I realize that you may or may not be using 100k as a placeholder. Er. NEVERMIND, in that case.

Burbank itself - depending on what you're looking for - wouldn't be the worst place to live. Traffic in LA is never, ever good, and for most people, it's worth it to live reasonably close to work.

A lot of people buy in Eagle Rock, which is (by LA standards) still relatively affordable. It might be something to look into.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 7:38 PM on January 9, 2007

You may not be able, initially, to maintain your current standard of living...it may be the price you pay to break into the business in the L.A. area...

I
posted by HuronBob at 7:39 PM on January 9, 2007

You could survive in Burbank just fine with $50k, if you had to. Silverlake and Los Feliz are not to far away, and are nicer places to live. Los Feliz and Atwater Village might be good choices, as they're conveniently located by the 5 freeway. My office is in Glendale, and while there's nothing wrong with the town per se, there's nothing in particular to recommend it. A little further east is Eagle Rock, a more anonymous area (fewer annoying hipsters). Next to Pasadena, and just a quick jaunt to Burbank on the 134.
posted by univac at 7:42 PM on January 9, 2007

I'm sure the 115% figure is correct. He is in the Midwest now. For example, that $1450 a month apartment in California would probably cost around $700-$850 in a medium sized Midwestern city. Taxes in California - through the roof, utilities - through the roof, Gasoline - through the roof. Insurance - through the roof. I liked California, but found the lifestyle didn't justify the expense (for me). Most in California would be shocked at how cheaply they can live in most any Midwestern city, and for many, be just as happy.

-
posted by Gerard Sorme at 8:00 PM on January 9, 2007

Try to get the company to include a moving package during your salary negotiations. I had one and it was fantastic: not only did they pack/move all my stuff (including car), paid for airfare (including pets), stored my stuff, and put me in an apartment for a month, when I found a place, the movers came over and unpacked/put away all the stuff and took the boxes away. It has spoiled me for all future moves. And, as kindall says, it is tax-deductible as well.

The best part of the move was the peace of mind: I began my job a couple days after I got to CA; not having to deal with (most of) the stress of moving allowed me to start my new position on a good foot.
posted by sfkiddo at 8:18 PM on January 9, 2007

Check out Los Angeles craigslist to get an idea of rental prices, and compare them to your current area. Search in the area suggested above, Burbank, Studio City, Los Feliz, Glendale. This should go a good way to helping you figure out what the salary bump would need to be. Remember that you pay state income tax (there's none in Texas, correct?), gasoline is more expensive etc. Try not to plan on renting somewhere with a significant commute, LA commuting really sucks beyond all reasonable expectations. However I love it here, and am willing to put up with all of the above, so don't read this as a negative post.
posted by Joh at 8:38 PM on January 9, 2007

Just a point: not everyone can deduct their moving expenses.
posted by Osmanthus at 10:28 PM on January 9, 2007

IRS guidelines for deducting moving expenses. To sum up, if your new job is more than 50 miles from your current home and you work full-time 39 weeks out of the year following the move, you can deduct reasonable moving expenses.
posted by kindall at 9:53 AM on January 10, 2007

I'm sure the 115% figure is correct. He is in the Midwest now. For example, that $1450 a month apartment in California would probably cost around $700-$850 in a medium sized Midwestern city. Taxes in California - through the roof, utilities - through the roof, Gasoline - through the roof. Insurance - through the roof. I liked California, but found the lifestyle didn't justify the expense (for me). Most in California would be shocked at how cheaply they can live in most any Midwestern city, and for many, be just as happy.

I live in a midwestern college town of about 100k people. (Texas, but Cost of Living is similar to most other midwestern towns.) $800 would get you a top of the line, 2 bedroom luxury apartment in a brand new building here. $900 would get you a three bedroom apartment of 1400 sq ft with all utilities paid. You could easily find a "nice" 2 bedroom apartment for $550-$600. You could rent a 3 bedroom trailer in a park or on land for $500/mo. Don't forget that the little things cost a lot more in SoCal -- $1 Beer Nights down at the sports bar? HA! More like $5. For bud lite. A mixed drink can run you $15 in a club.

The cost of living in southern california is only low to people who are living there, and only then because it's the only way they stay sane.

Summary? Ask for a stupid amount of money, see if they balk. If you ask for $moderate and you find out later you could've gotten $rediculous because that's what all your coworkers are making, you'll feel like a chump.
posted by SpecialK at 10:24 AM on January 10, 2007