However, rent is through the roof, on par with San Francisco. And a city with its own set of challenges.
From what I hear and read, Seattle seems like one of the best bangs for the buck. As for myself, the lack of sunlight would make me want to live in London (at least I can fly two hours and see the Sun).
London is a global city though and you'll always feel somewhat poor in this town unless you can compete with various foreign kleptocrats using it as a land bank, and that takes 8+ digits wealth.
But for others -- dont be too jealous, because a lot of that high salary is just a rent premium and ends up with landowners. Great if you are a landowner, but otherwise, you're mostly breaking even after taxes and rent unless the markets riso to make your stock grant in the money. (and well, if all the math is on stock anyway, you can work anywhere and just buy some options on FAANG and be done with it, which is what I do.)
There are cases where you can do well (e.g., live with 2+ roommates in a tiny apt like some friends do.) -- but then, it isn't a sustainable thing.
And London has cheaper rent?
I found pay-salary ratio worked best in Toronto provided you don't expect to own a home in the city.
Some cities are not rational. The best game to play when you have irrational rules is to not play. That is why the post was directed "To others: "
London and NYC are not rational cities. To some extent, also Vancouver. Some of these cities are places where foreign cash comes to be parked in, often empty, apartments. They raise prices for everyone and ruin market dynamics. SF/Bay Area is irrational in a sense because you are competing on a time spectrum -- a rational job for someone who purchased a house in 2004 is an irrational job for someone who needs to rent at 2019 rates.