London is a special kind of hell. Of course, you can have a meaningful and fulfilled life outside of London, but maybe unsurprisingly for a city built on finance (in the modern area?), it attracts people who can only think of money, not cost. Or, for those less driven, maybe moving to London is the equivalent of going to uni, you do it because everybody else is and you don't have a better plan. IDK, I didn't get it and still don't.
For Americans, I imagine NYC or LA is similar. The traffic alone would keep me out of LA.
It's a bit different in the U.S. in the sense that, whereas in Britain and France most mid-sized cities have decent public transit and municipal services, in the U.S. only a handful large urban centers have these kinds of things.
For example, in Clermont-Ferrand, which is roughly to Paris what Albany is in NYC, there is a well-established tram system that can get you to many places you'd want to go to without a car. This is especially essential if you're low income. Albany in contrast, just has buses (the CDTA), and pretty crap buses at that. The only other city in New York State with anything even remotely approaching the utility of the subway system is the light rail system in Buffalo, which is mostly useless since it only comprises one marginally useful line.
Believe me, as someone not involved in finance in NYC, if I could get the same services I get here in a mid-sized city like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati or Buffalo, I'd strongly consider relocation.
> in Britain [...] most mid-sized cities have decent public transit
Strongly disagree with this. It might be better than the US, but to call it "decent" I think is a bit of a stretch.
Most journeys, in most cities, will be 3x faster by car or more. The exception is usually rush hour commuting into the city centre.
In my hometown for example the buses used to run on a 20 minute timetable in the middle of the day. I could cycle or drive into the city before the bus even arrived.
Inner city London is the exception. In the suburbs public transport is mostly useful for going in to Central London.
Is public transport really a driving factor for your decision on where to live? If it is, I just can't see it being a common factor for others. Most Americans I know are happy to drive if they can, and begrudgingly take public transport only when they have to (or when the cost and/or time savings is overwhelmingly in support of public transport, as it is in much of NYC). I would have to agree with the post above yours, that there is a drive among young people to live in large urban centers, if only to be nearer to culture, despite only being consumers of that culture. I can understand that drive, but it is far from the most financially responsible choice of residence for a large majority of people.
We're missing any kind of definition for "a decent life" (or indeed "grinding" for that matter).
I live in an region where the population density is at least 50 times less than that of greater London. We have few Michelin-starred restaurants, a distinct lack of opera houses, and no top-ranked universities. I'm not bothered in the slightest.
Living in London (or NYC, or the Bay Area) is, just like so many other things in life, a choice.
Well UK advertising and publishing have relied on being able to recruit cheaply the best Oxbridge firsts for decades.
Of course now the industry is digital there are a lot of people out of water and don't really get the internet an di am talking about people decades younger than me.
It's pretty similar in London (UK), for example.
Here, it's about the fact that most people are hilariously, almost comically underpaid.
The cheapest 1 bedroom flat I can find within an hour of the centre is going to be in the ballpark of 200K.
So if you don't have established wealth, or earn at least 50K (4x mortgage), you're a prole.
Unsurprisingly, people don't want to be proles, so they work their bollocks off to get out of that category.