gregorygarver.com

ywait · Joined: 12 Jul 2007 Posts: 5

I'm in my mid 20s with business and finance degrees. I eventually want to work in Europe, probably by working for a multinational corporation in the U.S. first. I'm trying to decide where to live, and I'm wondering if it's better for my goals to live in a place on the east coast, such as Boston, instead of a city way out on the west coast, such as San Francisco?My rationale is that cities on the west coast might have more international dealings with Asian economies, whereas cities on the east coast might be more tied with European economies, due to the proximities to each other. Would this be true?

dappersmom · Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Posts: 3

Besides the streetnames, not much is different. I personally would rather live on the West Coast. The women are hotter, food and wine is better, the Pacific is better than the Atlantic, and people look better (but are richer and more arrogant). The winters are not as cold either.

rosettasellsrealestate702 · Joined: 05 Aug 2003 Posts: 2

You may have a point but if you really want to work in Europe you are going to have to go to Europe. You can't expect that a job in the US, even with a company with european ties, is going to land you in europe. So I don't think it matters so much where you start, just get the best work experience here that you can, and head to europe when ready. Still, if you do get lucky enough to find a job here that will send you to europe, the east coast probably is the best place to start.