"We'll move next year" is the most expensive sentence in relocation planning, and almost nobody prices it. A good move pays you through extra savings that compound from the day you arrive — so each year of delay doesn't just postpone the benefit, it permanently deletes the most valuable year of it. Here is what waiting actually costs on real routes, computed by the same engine behind the simulator's "what if you wait?" strip.
The cost of waiting, route by route
Each figure is how much of the move-now advantage a delay surrenders, holding the horizon fixed so the comparison is honest. The pattern to notice: the cost of the first year is always disproportionately high relative to a naive "advantage ÷ 10" guess, because the deleted year is the one whose savings would have compounded longest.
| Route | Move-now advantage | Wait 1 year | Wait 2 years | Wait 3 years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York → Austin | +$76k | −$10.7K | −$20.7K | −$29.9K |
| San Francisco → Seattle | +$70k | −$8.8K | −$16.9K | −$24.6K |
| Los Angeles → Las Vegas | +$42k | −$6.1K | −$11.8K | −$17.0K |
| San Francisco → Austin | +$42k | −$6.7K | −$12.7K | −$18.0K |
| New York → Denver | +$32k | −$5.0K | −$9.7K | −$13.9K |
| New York → Miami | +$19k | −$3.2K | −$6.1K | −$8.7K |
| Boston → Raleigh | +$12k | −$3.1K | −$5.8K | −$8.0K |
Why the first year is the expensive one
The mechanics are worth internalizing because they cut against intuition. When you move to a city where you save more, that extra surplus starts earning investment returns immediately. Delay the move a year and the entire stream of extra savings shifts one year later — which means the year you lose is effectively the finalcompounding year, the one where early contributions have had a decade to grow. That's why a route with, say, a $76k advantage doesn't lose a tenth of it per year of delay — it loses more, and the losses accelerate.
When waiting helps: losing moves
The same math runs in reverse on a route that doesn't clear the benchmark. London to Berlin is $22k underwater over ten years at the benchmark offer — and delaying it one year recovers $1.4K of that shortfall, three years recovers $5.2K. Every year you don't make a losing move, you keep the difference. If your route is underwater, the useful question isn't when to go — it's what offer would change the verdict.
The caveat that matters
This analysis makes one deliberately generous assumption: that an equivalent offer still exists after your delay, grown at your normal raise rate. Reality is less polite — offers expire, hiring windows close, and markets turn. So read the waiting costs above as the optimisticcase. If there's meaningful risk the opportunity disappears entirely, the true cost of waiting is the whole advantage, not the erosion shown here. The simulator runs this strip for your own numbers on any of 330 cities — worth thirty seconds before you tell a recruiter "maybe next year."
Common questions
Why does waiting cost money if I'd earn the same salary later?
Because the advantage of a good move is a stream of extra monthly savings, and every year of delay deletes a year of that stream — specifically the last, most-compounded year. Money you bank in year one earns returns for the entire horizon; money you bank in year ten earns almost nothing extra. Postponing the move shifts the whole stream one year later.
Is waiting ever the right financial call?
On a losing route, yes — every year you don't make a bad move, you keep the difference, and the numbers show delay shrinking the shortfall. Waiting can also beat moving when a concrete event will change the inputs: a vesting date, a promotion that re-anchors your salary, or a lease penalty. What rarely makes sense is waiting on a clearly winning move out of vague caution.
What does this analysis assume about the job offer?
That an equivalent offer is still available after the delay, grown at your raise rate. That's generous to waiting — real offers expire, and there's no guarantee next year's market matches this one. Treat the cost of waiting shown here as a floor, not the full risk.
Methodology & sources
Computed by the MoveWorth simulation engine: progressive income tax (US federal + state + FICA brackets; PolicyEngine-derived UK curves; OECD-anchored effective rates elsewhere), cost-of-living-scaled spending, compounding raises and invested savings. Salary benchmarks: BLS OEWS metro medians for US cities (official), calibrated World Bank-derived estimates elsewhere (labeled). Rent: Census ACS. FX: dated ECB snapshot. Benchmark assumptions unless stated: mid-senior software-engineer offer, 25% savings rate, 3% raises, 7% annual return, 10-year horizon. This is a benchmark, not financial advice.
Timing scenarios re-run the full simulation with the move delayed 1–3 years: you stay on the current-city path during the delay, then join the moved path at that year's salary level, with the same end-of-horizon comparison point for every scenario.