Two scenarios 1. 300k TC, $1M NW 2. $2M TC, $10M NW For each income and wealth level, which is the better place to live in your opinion? Assume you can pick any neighborhood (within reasonably affordable cost of living).
Have only visited London but have lived for many years in both the Bay Area and NYC. I think at $300k TC (middle class in these two locations, assuming a family of four), you will live significantly better in the suburban Bay Area. At $2M TC, it becomes more of a live-where-you-want deal - which depends on where you are in your life. Personally, I would go for New York, all else being equal, if you can live in a $3M apartment, have a $2M vacation home and travel as you like, but kids complicate the story - living in the suburbs outside of NYC is kind of depressing even if you are rich, and living in the city proper with young kids is very challenging, while in the Bay Area, the weather and outdoors make the suburban sprawl much more pleasant. For a single person in their 20s or 30s, I would probably vote for NYC either way - $300k will yield you a great lifestyle there if you don't have kids, nannies and private school to pay for.
nothing wrong with raising kids in NYC if you can afford to live in a good school district
Sure, but if you are living in a nice area with good public schools (or paying for private schools) with $300k family TC in NYC, you are left with enough to get by fine but definitely not save much, take vacations, eat out frequently or do the other things that make living in NYC great. Been there, done that.
It’s much harder to get 300k or 2M total comp in the UK than in the US. Just look at the FAANG entry level salaries for UK on Glassdoor (typically below 100k). In fact, I believe reading somewhere that you are in the top 10% of the income distribution in the UK with a salary above 55k. As such, you will obviously have a better life with that money in London just by the mere fact that you are much better off in comparison to the rest of the country.