4 ms·

You have no business being in #1 cities if you don't have monetary capital to go along your skills. In London home prices (average) increases every year by mor

You have no business being in #1 cities if you don't have monetary capital to go along your skills. In London home prices (average) increases every year by more than average salary. If you've not bought in, you're being better off somewhere else. No point in earning $200k (gross) if $50k (net) is hoovered up by someone in rent.

pjc50 9y ago
Land of opportunity, eh? I bet there are plenty of people arguing that if you ever want to make decent money you have to be in the #1 cities.
- sbuttgereit 9y ago
  Yeah, doesn't mean they're correct in taking that position. I hear a lot of people talking in raw dollars about what they make, or what someone else makes, or what differences are in what people make etc. and the arguments miss a lot of important context and the important motivators. Most important is not what you make, but are you producing enough to be happy? And more important to that question is what purchasing power do you have on any given salary/location. If you make 6 figures, which I'm pretty sure still today is, on a U.S. national level, still making decent money... but can't afford even to rent your own apartment... then so what? If your low six figure income gives you a lesser standard of living in a #1 city than a mediocre five figure income in a lower tier city... to me the lower income city is more appealing. What a #1 city can do for you is give you a much higher chance of a very, very good income: those #1 cities are where the movers and shakers and related money are.... but the number of people that will ultimately reap those benefits are small and the competition is very stiff because of the point you've made. I'd also wager that if you aren't already very clearly/obviously on the path to a mover and shaker role by the time you're getting out of college (because of who is in your sphere of solid relationships or what you've already accomplished, or both) you're very unlikely to ever get there even if you go to a #1 city. Or as they taught me in music school... if you ain't made it by thirty, you ain't gonna. Me, I'd take the lesser city and work towards being the big fish in a little pond. I've done this with choice of companies to work for over my career and probably have done well because of it; more varied and interesting work for me individually, as well as more influence over what actually gets done... and not bad pay by any means. Just not prestigious. You still have to have something to offer even then, though, but the competition is much less stiff and so the odds for achieving happiness, the real goal vs. money, can be much better.

pjc50 9y ago

Land of opportunity, eh? I bet there are plenty of people arguing that if you ever want to make decent money you have to be in the #1 cities.

sbuttgereit 9y ago
Yeah, doesn't mean they're correct in taking that position. I hear a lot of people talking in raw dollars about what they make, or what someone else makes, or what differences are in what people make etc. and the arguments miss a lot of important context and the important motivators. Most important is not what you make, but are you producing enough to be happy? And more important to that question is what purchasing power do you have on any given salary/location. If you make 6 figures, which I'm pretty sure still today is, on a U.S. national level, still making decent money... but can't afford even to rent your own apartment... then so what? If your low six figure income gives you a lesser standard of living in a #1 city than a mediocre five figure income in a lower tier city... to me the lower income city is more appealing. What a #1 city can do for you is give you a much higher chance of a very, very good income: those #1 cities are where the movers and shakers and related money are.... but the number of people that will ultimately reap those benefits are small and the competition is very stiff because of the point you've made. I'd also wager that if you aren't already very clearly/obviously on the path to a mover and shaker role by the time you're getting out of college (because of who is in your sphere of solid relationships or what you've already accomplished, or both) you're very unlikely to ever get there even if you go to a #1 city. Or as they taught me in music school... if you ain't made it by thirty, you ain't gonna. Me, I'd take the lesser city and work towards being the big fish in a little pond. I've done this with choice of companies to work for over my career and probably have done well because of it; more varied and interesting work for me individually, as well as more influence over what actually gets done... and not bad pay by any means. Just not prestigious. You still have to have something to offer even then, though, but the competition is much less stiff and so the odds for achieving happiness, the real goal vs. money, can be much better.