... and to SJ.com I mistakenly look for advice

The flip side is that you only get to be in your 20s, and live them to their fullest, once. I agree that it's not a good choice if the original poster would just be existing, and not really able to do anything. However, I don't make that much, live in a very expensive city, and yet I'm still able to put away some money (nothing close to 15%, but a little each month) and there is so much to do, and much of it is cheap or even free.

Also, I was lucky in that I was able to move to a big city but also be near a large group of friends and in the same apartment building as my sister.

 

Oh, yes, the most important thing in your 20s is to start putting away 15% of your income so you can live comfortably 35 years from now. :

 

It is. It really is.

You don't really deny yourself anything important . . . and the rewards are enormous.

You can save from age 22-32, and even if you do not save another dime, that money will almost always earn more than somebody who starts saving at 32 and continues until retirement. There are few no-brainer choices in life, but "save in your 20s" is just about the most obvious one out there.

 

A possible factor in the money part of the equation: If you take D.C., you can live there without a car because the Metro is awesome. No car payment, no gas, no insurance. You'll pay for rides on the Metro, but it'll be cheaper than a car. All of which will offset some of the increased housing expense.

If the money is close to a zero-sum game, then take D.C., if for no other reason than to sample a different pace of life and see if it's for you. Plus, there's about to be a bunch of new-in-town people there, just like you.

 

Go to DC.

Be sure to live very close to a Metro Stop. You might be able to leave the car in Okla.

I'm sure others know more about DC than I, but isn't Okla City a fun place?

 

Barely saved a nickel -- let alone 15% of my income -- in my 20s or most of my 30s for that matter. I enjoyed life, spent what I wanted (and the ex-wife could spend!) and at age 61 live comfortabkly within my means, still spend what I want, save more, have enough to think about retiring at 62 if I could bridge the health insurance gap.

Remember, BTE, you might not be alive to enjoy all that money you socked away. I'd rather enjoy it while I'm alive and young.

 

Go to D.C. It's a great place too be young & stupid. It's a recession free city, and with all of the political websites and such, it's the one place in the country where journalism jobs are on the increase.

 

Go East, young man.

Everyone should leave home at some point, if only to learn to appreciate it more. Your family, friends and hometown will always be there. You never know if the opportunity to try a new city with a job in hand and nothing to tie you down will present itself again.

 

Co-sign.

 

Go to DC. It may be the only chance you get. You can always go back.

Had a friend who was offered a job at Scholastic in NYC (he worked for them in Toronto) and could think of all sorts of reasons NOT to go. Finally, after several of us told him "You're nuts if you don't take this job" took the job, worked there for six or seven years, made some good coin and moved back to Toronto after he had had enough of NYC and get a great job in publishing up here.

Best of both worlds.

 

Run the numbers.
If you can afford it, which does not mean living hand-to-mouth, which means having money to live, cover emergency expense and save for the future, then do it.
I am a big proponent of leaving the womb.
As someone pointed out, you can always move back later in life.

 

Your mother was also a big proponent of you leaving the womb, Buck.

Anyhoo, I lived in DC for a while at around your age; definitely do it; it's a blast. Not just the nightlife, but a lot of great cultural stuff, too. And it's a better place in which to have a heart attack.[/crossthread]