Your client receives two job offers with different salaries. Which city job, based solely on salary and adjusted for cost of living, would be better?

The choice of Seattle as the better job offer based solely on salary and adjusted for cost of living reflects an understanding of how geographical cost variations can impact real earnings. When evaluating job offers, it is crucial to consider not only the salary figure but also how it translates into purchasing power in different locations.

Seattle, despite potentially having a higher cost of living, may also offer a significantly higher salary compared to Portland. This means that even if living expenses are elevated in Seattle, the increased salary could compensate for those costs, resulting in a better overall financial situation for the individual.

Factors like housing, transportation, and general expenses differ between cities, and Seattle's job market may be more lucrative, offering salaries that can better support a lifestyle or savings goals when adjusted for these costs. In contrast, Portland typically offers a lower salary range that, even after adjustment, may not provide the same value or purchasing power.

Thus, selecting Seattle suggests that the potential earnings, after taking cost of living into account, are more advantageous than those in Portland, making it the preferable option for the client.