Not sure I really follow the "cost of beer" thing. One of the merits of high income high expenses is that "luxury" spending is relatively affordable in the long run, because your discretionary income is a larger absolute number.

On the other hand your time becomes more expensive. But since most medium income medium expenses locations means less opportunities to do other things with other people that isn't always a good trade-off. Unless those other people are your family, in which case it tends to make sense.

But that was my point. Even with the London loading of salaries, which is miles away from the SV salary differentials you see bandied around on here sometimes, the London absolute number is usually smaller for most jobs. Banking is the one exception for some roles.

To invent some undoubtedly wrong numbers out of thin air: Earning £35k in Leeds or Manchester leaves a few hundred more to spend on luxuries and nights out than £50k working in a similar role in London. By the time you accounted for the huge extra expense on mortgage, season tickets to get to work, services and even ignore the price of a pint, you have less in absolute terms to spend than your "poor" Northern friend. I simply couldn't get it to add up the few times I tried. Now had the opportunity been to be a quant, I might have taken the opposite view... :)

I could have saved for deposit in the North, taken mortgage the day I moved there, accepted a markedly worse quality of life and lower money left after expenses for twenty years, to move elsewhere at the end with a nice nest egg. That's just a contributory pension with no tax relief.

That could certainly be the case as some housing markets now seem to require initial capital to make sense. But I wonder if part of it isn't accepting a specific deal (or life)? Which is probably a good idea, but not something everyone can do. At least my impression is that most people who move to big cities do so because they want to establish themselves in life.

The question is whether average person trying to do so is going to have better success in Leeds than London. Or if it is going to be mostly the same thing but with less opportunities. Once you know roughly what you want to do, or what position you are in, medium size cities tend to make more sense. But I don't think that is controversial.

I think many young people argue if they are going to have to change jobs every few years, commute some distance, have high rent or whatever else that affects their quality of life they might as well do that somewhere where they at least think it might count for something. Whether in the future or right then.

As an anecdotal example the cost of a pint of beer in London can be 3 to 4 times as expensive as what I'm used to in the South West. For other basic necessities I agree with you however.

The South West feels so old now. We were in Dorset a couple of weeks ago and I'm convinced I didn't see anybody younger than myself and I'm 55.

That’s why you need to move to places with better income to cost of living ratios.