California
I moved from Germany to the US for my career. The high cost of living in California shocked me, but it’s worth it to live here.
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Christiane Schroeter, a 49-year-old professor of innovation and entrepreneurship and leadership strategist in San Luis Obispo, California. The following has been edited for length and clarity.
I moved from Limburg, Germany, to the US in 1999 as an exchange student for my M.S. degree before returning to Germany to complete additional graduate work. I returned to the US in 2001 as a Fulbright Scholar to pursue my Ph.D. at Purdue University.
After I earned my Ph.D. in 2005, I decided to build my career and my life in the US rather than return to Germany. I had met my husband during my graduate school years, and together we chose to put down roots on the West Coast.
I joined the faculty at Cal Poly in September 2007 and gave birth to my daughter in December of that year. I started a new job, pregnant, while moving across the country. Building a career and a family at the same time, far from my home country, shaped everything I came to understand about the real cost of relocating.
Today, I’m a leadership strategist, professor of innovation and entrepreneurship at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, author of several books about leadership, and a podcaster.
The new country feels last longer than you expect
I was 23 years old when I first moved to the US. I expected the obvious expenses, such as flights, paperwork, and the starter purchases you don’t think about until you need them.
What surprised me was how long the newness stayed expensive. Even when your income is objectively higher, fixed costs rise so quickly that it takes very little to feel financially stretched.
I spent hours learning basics I had taken for granted in Germany, like opening bank accounts, building credit from zero, and figuring out what to do when you’re asked for a Social Security number before you have one.
I also had to learn how rental contracts, deposits, phone plans, and transportation work in places where you need a car, including registration, insurance, and DMV requirements. Time becomes money fast when you’re studying, working, and trying to build a future at the same time.
In Germany, I knew how life worked. In the US, I had to rebuild that knowledge piece by piece.
Housing in California made me realize how quickly additional money gets absorbed
Many people underestimate how dramatically living in California can affect their budget.
For me, one of the highest unexpected monthly costs was the mortgage. Housing was not slightly more expensive. It became the financial anchor that shaped everything else. My husband and I had to make monthly decisions around that number.
Living in California was a genuine upgrade with bigger houses and bigger yards. California’s abundance of fresh produce, gorgeous weather, and proximity to the ocean fit my lifestyle better than Germany ever did. The cold, rainy days and a culture I never fully connected with were not the life I wanted.
I would honestly say I live in a “Goldilocks place.”
The cost of childcare changed how I thought about security
The hardest trade-off was realizing how expensive support can be when you live far from friends and family. After I delivered my first child, I faced the childcare scramble almost immediately. I remember touring childcare centers and wondering how families afford monthly costs for multiple children. I spoke with mothers who realized that their earnings would nearly match what they were paying for childcare.
At the same time, I was adjusting physically and emotionally to becoming a mother, and when you’re far from family, there’s no built-in safety net for the unpredictable moment, such as a sick day, a last-minute meeting, or an emergency.
I learned that many US families create a fragile patchwork of childcare and babysitting. If you have children, distance from family is not only emotional but also logistical. It can become one of your highest monthly costs, and one of your biggest mental loads.
On a lesser note, one bill shocked me: our cellphone bill. Our family plan with four phones, two watches, and two iPads is about $300. That may sound routine, but over a year, it feels like a luxury purchase hiding in plain sight.
Healthcare and benefits reshaped my definition of stability
Healthcare in the US introduced another layer of financial awareness. Even with insurance, you still have to pay premiums, deductibles, co-pays, navigate provider networks, and prepare for potential surprise costs.
I remember debating whether to schedule a specialist appointment because I wasn’t sure how much it would count toward our deductible. In Germany, that decision would have been straightforward. In the US, it required reviewing the provider network, estimating out-of-pocket costs, and preparing for an unexpected bill.
The upside is real, but so is the pressure
I built the life for which I came here. I built a stable academic career. I built a business. California became home.
In Germany, Sundays were true rest days. Life paused by design. In California, Sundays easily became catch-up days. I realized I had to intentionally create what I now call “Serenity Sunday.” It is my way of honoring the German philosophy of working to live while living in an American culture that often feels like living to work.
I don’t think I’d move back to Germany now. When I visit, I enjoy it more like a tourist looking in than a native who feels at home. For me, the cost of living in California is worth it, because what I’ve gained is hard to put on a spreadsheet: independence, a career I couldn’t have built anywhere else, and a family rooted in a place I chose.
The price is real, but so is the payoff.
OAKLAND, Calif. – With Tuesday’s primary election approaching, the race for California governor is coming into focus — and one candidate’s rise has surprised nearly everyone watching.
That’s according to Joe Garofoli, senior political writer and columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle, who broke down the latest polling and key races to watch with KTVU.
Who’s in the lead?
By the numbers:
The latest Berkeley IGS poll of 5,000 likely voters from May 19-24, shows former Attorney General Xavier Becerra leading the field at 25%, with Republican Steve Hilton at 21% and billionaire activist Tom Steyer at 19%.
Just two months ago, Becerra was polling at 5% and Democratic Party leaders were quietly urging lower-performing candidates to reconsider their campaigns. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is now polling at 1%, was among those who suggested Becerra consider dropping out.
“This would be the greatest comeback since Lazarus,” Garofoli said.
He attributed Becerra’s turnaround primarily to the exit of Congressman Eric Swalwell from the race, saying Swalwell’s voters and Becerra share many of the same moderate positions.
Becerra, Garofoli said, has leaned into a steady, reassuring image on the campaign trail.
“He’s sort of portraying himself as Tío Becerra — Uncle Becerra, the kindly uncle,” Garofoli said. “This is not a guy who’s going to go to Sacramento and turn over the tables.”
The other side:
Steyer, meanwhile, has climbed from 15% earlier this month to 19% in the latest poll, powered by $213 million of his own money and a string of endorsements from major progressive organizations in California.
His support for single-payer health care and his pledge to not take corporate PAC money have resonated with the left, even as some progressives have historically been skeptical of billionaire candidates.
“Steyer’s a different type of billionaire than the tech billionaires who they traditionally oppose,” Garofoli said, noting that Steyer’s platform focuses on protecting and creating working-class jobs rather than advancing technologies that could eliminate them.
Ballots are slow coming in
Dig deeper:
Despite the competitive field, Democrats have been slow to return their mail-in ballots, with return rates sitting around 12%.
Garofoli said the hesitation reflects a broader dissatisfaction with the candidate pool.
“I can’t tell you how many people told me, ‘I don’t know who to vote for, none of these people appeal to me,’” he said. “Nobody in this field really has that outsized big personality, or at least has demonstrated it at this point.”
Local perspective:
In San Francisco, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added a new variable to the congressional race to fill her seat, endorsing Supervisor Connie Chan over front-runner State Senator Scott Wiener. Garofoli said the endorsement was expected, though its timing surprised him.
Pelosi’s recent endorsement record in San Francisco has been uneven — she backed Dean Preston, who lost, and Joel Engardio, who was recalled — but Garofoli said this one may carry more weight.
“It is for her seat. She has tapped Chan on the shoulder and said, this is the person I want,” he said.
Chan is currently in a tight race with Saikat Chakrabarti, a former tech engineer and one-time aide to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, according to Chronicle polling.
The Pelosi endorsement, Garofoli said, could be enough to push Chan into the top two alongside Wiener.
The Source: Interview with Joe Garofoli, senior political writer and columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle, Berkeley IGS poll
It’s been quite the unexpected slog through a field of candidates so numerous that all of their names don’t even fit on a single page of the ballot. Democrats in California have held the governor’s mansion, state House, and state Senate for almost two decades and unrest about that trifecta out West is real. The traditional political alliances are frayed, at best, with socialists backing a billionaire and Trump supporting an immigrant. A sex scandal tanked the hopes of a leading candidate, Rep. Eric Swalwell, and Trump’s endorsement of Hilton all but sidelined tough-on-crime Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco. It’s why Hilton, who moved to California in 2012, is in the mix in a race that is set to test assumptions about party loyalty, candidate partisanship, and money’s power. And it carries massive consequences about who will be the de facto CEO of the fourth-largest economy on the planet, between Germany and Japan, and a major player on the national political stage. This is not some backwater local election.
By Alejandro Lazo, CalMatters
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
California air regulators on Friday approved a contentious overhaul of the state’s carbon market, creating a program that could steer billions of dollars in free pollution permits to oil refineries and other major polluters over the objections of environmental groups, key lawmakers and three of the board’s own members.
Ten members of the California Air Resources Board voted to adopt the changes to its cap-and-invest program after two days of lengthy hearings, including a full day dedicated to hundreds of public comments.
The overhaul followed intensive lobbying by the oil industry as well as pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration to help keep refineries operating in the state amid rising gas prices.
The approval sets up a potential budget fight in Sacramento. The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects that quarterly auction revenue for state climate programs will drop from roughly $4 billion a year to about $2 billion under the new overhaul.
Such a shortfall would effectively zero out programs lawmakers spent last year fighting to fund: affordable housing, public transit, drinking water in low-income communities and pollution monitoring in California’s most polluted neighborhoods.
The governor’s office praised the measure as a compromise that balanced economic uncertainty with the state’s climate goals. Refinery closures and the Iran-Israel war have driven average California gas prices above $6 a gallon.
Newsom, in a statement, used the moment to draw a contrast with President Donald Trump.
“While Trump sows ongoing chaos and uncertainty, California is staying focused by protecting our economy, safeguarding public health, and doubling down on the clean energy future all Californians deserve,” he said.
Environmentalists warned the changes to the program amount to a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry that weakens California’s only program setting a firm cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California senior director for the Environmental Defense Fund, called the decision “deeply misguided” for prioritizing polluters over communities.
“Newsom’s air regulators are handing billions to oil executives at the expense of our climate, health, and affordability for working families in a rushed process that has shortchanged meaningful public participation,” said Bahram Fazeli, policy director at Communities for a Better Environment.
How the program works — and what changes
California’s 13-year-old carbon market forces major polluters to buy permits while the state lowers the overall cap each year. Friday’s vote will reduce those permits – and creates a new subsidy program carved out of the market.
The program, which may still see changes, could make available a new pool of free pollution permits available to industry valued at as much as $4 billion. Companies that pledge to invest in clean energy and efficiency may qualify for the permits in exchange for investments in clean energy.
The pool will be capped at 118.3 million permits — the same number the air board has said must come off the market for California to hit its 2030 climate target. Environmentalists say the proposal risks wiping out those reductions.
Half are reserved for the fossil fuel sector. A recent Berkeley analysis, by the chair of an independent committee that oversees the carbon market, found refineries could end up with more free permits than they need to cover their emissions.
The air board has defended the design. Officials say the credits will go only to companies undertaking decarbonization projects, will be limited and temporary and can be clawed back if companies misuse them. The plan, they say, is meant to keep California refineries operating at a time of mounting closures and global market pressure. According to air regulators, the amended program will spur clean-energy investment as Trump cuts federal support.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
-
Indianapolis, IN6 minutes agoPleasant stretch continues with dry days into midweek | May 30, 2026
-
Pittsburg, PA8 minutes agoI Need a Pridefest Buddy – Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents
-
Augusta, GA14 minutes agoDocumentary premiere sheds light on Augusta homelessness, poverty
-
Washington, D.C21 minutes agoHow the Supreme Court is reshaping the US midterm elections
-
Cleveland, OH24 minutes ago1 dead, 1 in critical condition after Cleveland shooting: EMS
-
Austin, TX28 minutes agoTexas Baseball Proved It’s a Legit Contender In The Race To Omaha Against Tarleton State
-
Alabama36 minutes agoTennessee football will be chasing different teams for SEC supremacy | Adams
-
Alaska38 minutes agoReporting From Alaska- Elstun W. Lauesen II
