Would you live here for $200k?

Hell to the fucking nah.

I live in one of these states and I would definitely take that position. You would be in the top 1% in most of these states so you could live great.

Nashville wouldn't be bad for later on in the career. I'm not living in Oklahoma.

Jackson Hole, Wyoming are you kidding?! I'd pay you to earn that much and live there. 500+ inches of snow in the winter and Grand Tetons in the summer. Done deal. And buy...fuck renting.

Yes.

I think the game plan for that type of scenario would be to take the insanely good paying (relative to the region) job and try to scale quickly before lateraling to east / west coast.

The thought process is, you subjugate yourself to a really shitty 3-4 years, but due to extremely lost cost of living (rent a super cheap place) coupled with minimal spending, you could save like 80% of you comp. In 4 years you'd save the same amount that you would in 8 or 9 years in NYC or LA due to cost of living.

It's kind of like a mini prison sentence, but it gives your resume a differentiating factor and an interesting story to tell. This time could also be used to enjoy a slow pace of living for a while to allow for a mental breather, and you could also potential use down time to travel.

Really depends on your overall career goals and personality. I personally would never do that and given your comment, this sounds like a less than ideal situation. However, I will describe a real life successful career path involving this that could lead you back to the coasts.

I know someone who did do exactly this after 3 years in MM banking and 2 years at a middle market PE fund ($1 bn fund at the time). He then worked for a portco in the middle of no-where and actually loved the job and area. He ended up applying to b-school afterwards and got into HBS, which ended with him landing a PE job post-bschool.

Point is, if you are thinking b-school, this is a a great path as schools like HBS love the operating experience. Also, assuming you have some PE and/or i-banking experience prior, you will have a strong application for a PE job post-bschool.

To your second point, some interesting places in a flyover state that I would consider include:

Chicago - very fun city, with a cosmopolitan dynamic (restaurant and culturally-wise) Nashville - fun nightlife, attractive southern people

A lot of people like kansas city as an easy place to raise a family.

$200k in a low cost-of-living area is a lot (A LOT) of money.

I live in the South. You can do a lot on $200k of annual income. You could pretty quickly save up for a down payment on a 2500+ sf house, loaded to the tits. Plus a nice car. Plus a boat. Plus that junior country club membership. All while seeding that 401(k).

Most cost-of-living adjustments don't really take into account the apples-to-apples cost of living. A website may quote you a 150% COLA, but...is that for a similar commute? Similar neighborhood? Similar size of apartment/house? COLA gets wacky when you take a 15-minute traffic-free commute in a smaller city and compare that to a 45-minute subway ride in another and call them equivalent.

I compared my current offer to one in a large coastal city. My wife and I did an honest assessment of equivalent quality of life, and the difference in cost; we decided that an offer in my current city would only have to be 40% to be on par. Easy choice.

I would strongly consider Phoenix/Scottsdale, Denver and San Antonio/Dallas/Houstin/Austin. Great purchasing power in all of these.

I live in the Midwest. Girlfriend and I make around 110k or something like that pre bonus first year out of undergrad. We do whatever the fuck we want, whenever the fuck we want. We're probably going to start investing in riskier ventures early, and will most likely clear 500k by like 28. It's actually a pretty good living if you ask me. The people in the Midwest are fucking simpletons though so it can get boring.

This all depends on what you consider important at the age you're at. Value takes many forms, not just money. If you're an urban person that loves trying great new restaurants, immersed in great culture, meeting lots of great new people, access to lots of new career opportunities and networking nearby, etc then a flyover state probably isn't going to provide the required value to you. On the other hand, if your goal is to live a more traditional life, save money, raise a family, etc, then $200k in a flyover state could be a viable option. It all depends on what your interests and priorities are

Besides what people have mentioned about age/family, I think it also depends on the flyover state itself and the cities in the state.

States like Colorado (Denver, Tennessee (Nashville), and Georgia (Atlanta) are vastly better than states without a prosperous city like Alabma/Montana/etc. These cities they have jobs, entertainment, and universities that allow the state to prosper and you can commute to on a daily basis.

Hell yeah. Wyoming and some of the other fly over states are beautiful.

Only Midwest states I'd live in would be Minnesota (Minneapolis) and Illinois (Chicago). Unless you're counting Colorado, then I'd live there too. Otherwise states like the Dakotas blow.

New Mexico, yes. Arkansas, yes. Texas, yes.

The rest of those places fucking suck.

If the money sounds good enough to you, it does not matter where you live. You will be working most of the time anyway.

I met some Stifel bankers based on Alabama once. Those guys seem to be living the life. Huge house, a cottage, country club memberships, etc. Stuff you could never afford in NYC until you make it big.

jackson hole wyoming? nashville? fratanooga? would consider all of those, the rest? nah.

I have a friend who works as an chemical engineer for oil companies. He was offered a job to work on an oil rig in fairly dangerous part of the middle east. Basically you get off the plane, get into a tank and dont get out of the tank until to are at the rig. The comp package was about 400k all in. He turned it down saying that money is not worth risking your life for.

I, however, would have taken the risk and done it for a year or two.. but thats me. That being said, I would easily consider working in a flyover state if the package was lucrative enough, but I wouldn't stay there forever.

I think a lot of this depends on personal circumstances and where you are in life. For instance:

Career- If you are mid-career, it certainly is a tempting offer. As stated, $200K in a low cost of living area is quite a lot of money. At the same time, if you are just starting your career you may want to go to a big city. I know in my case, I started out at a large consulting firm in NYC. Doing so gave me a great network from the onset as I met many important partners, clients, and even peers who to this day would pick up the phone if I called. I don't think I would've gotten the same in a "fly-over" state.

Family - If you have a family, quality of life considerations play a big role in where you live. I would much rather raise a family in a Nashville or Kansas City than a downtown Chicago or NYC. However, if you are still young and single you probably would like a large city more. As someone who's lived in both types of settings, I can tell you that you are more likely to not only have more fun in bigger cities but your chances of meeting a great girl and getting into a meaningful potential long-term relationship are better too. Nothing really compares to the singles scene in such places.

Born and raised in a small town in the SE corner of Missouri. Living there is not all bad. My cousin still lives there and rents a very nice apartment in Springfield (mid-sized town) for $400/month. If you had several hundred grand a year to blow living in cities like this it would be a pretty good life.

I’m originally from Kansas City and would love to go back. It’s a nice laid back lifestyle, where you can get a sweet place for next to nothing compared to NYC.

Buford, Wyoming.