Salary comparison
Human Resources Managers: San Francisco vs Boston
San Francisco, CA pays about 13.2% more for human resources managers on paper — $209,340 vs $184,990. But once you factor in what it costs to live there, San Francisco comes out ahead by $24,350 a year in real buying power.
San Francisco, CA
$209,340
$160,250
$282,700
$100.65
100
$209,340/yr
Median adjusted for local cost of living.
Boston, MA
$184,990
$139,310
$232,930
$88.94
100
$184,990/yr
Median adjusted for local cost of living.
What the numbers mean in practice
The headline gap is $24,350 a year (13.2%) in favor of San Francisco. That is the raw salary difference before any living costs.
San Francisco runs a cost index of 100 against the national baseline of 100; Boston sits at 100. After adjusting the median for those costs, San Francisco is the better deal by $24,350 a year — that is what each paycheck actually buys locally.
If you are weighing a move from Boston to San Francisco for this role, the raise needs to beat 13.2% to come out ahead after living costs. Anything below that and you are earning more on paper but keeping less.
Common questions
Where do human resources managers earn more, San Francisco or Boston?
San Francisco pays $209,340 on median — about 13.2% more than Boston ($184,990). Based on BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics.
Which city is the better deal after living costs?
San Francisco. Once you divide each median by the local cost index, San Francisco gives you roughly$209,340 of real buying power versus $184,990 in the other city.