Where you look for work changes your prospects more than most people realise, and the obvious comparison - which city has more jobs - is the wrong one.
The ratio that actually matters
A city with 400 vacancies in your field and 8,000 competing candidates is a worse market than a town with 40 vacancies and 200 candidates. Vacancy density relative to the candidate pool determines your odds, not the absolute number of vacancies.
Large cities have more of both. Whether they are better for you depends on which side of the ratio your skills sit on. Specialists usually benefit from large markets - the roles only exist there. Generalists frequently do better in smaller ones, where they are competing against far fewer similar profiles.
What varies across UK regions
Sector concentration. Finance in London and Edinburgh; advanced manufacturing across the Midlands and North West; energy in Aberdeen and the North East; life sciences around Cambridge and Manchester; public administration proportionally larger in some regions. Your sector's geography usually matters more than general regional prosperity.
Salary levels, with a substantial London premium that is largely absorbed by housing costs.
Competition intensity, which does not simply track city size - it depends on the local supply of your particular skill set.
Progression opportunities. Large markets offer more employers to move between, which matters over a career rather than for one job.
How to compare two locations honestly
- Count vacancies in your field in each location, using an identical search on the same job board, and repeat it weekly for a month so you have a trend rather than a snapshot.
- Estimate the candidate pool using Nomis (nomisweb.co.uk), the ONS tool that gives employment by occupation down to local authority level. How many people in each area already do your job?
- Get median earnings for your occupation in each region from ONS ASHE.
- Adjust for housing costs, using median rent or house price to earnings ratios.
- Compare the ratio, not the raw counts.
That process takes an evening and gives you a defensible comparison rather than an impression.
The comparison people get wrong
Comparing headline salaries without adjusting for costs. A £7,000 premium against £16,000 of additional annual housing cost is a substantial pay cut. Always compare on a cost-adjusted basis - and be aware that cost-of-living indices are themselves approximate, so treat small differences as noise.
What remote and hybrid working changed
Less than the discourse suggested. Fully remote roles decoupled some professional work from geography, but they are also the most competitive segment of the market precisely because everyone can apply. Hybrid, now the dominant model for office work, quietly restored the geographic constraint for most people.
And the majority of jobs - healthcare, trades, retail, logistics, education, manufacturing - were never location-flexible at all.
The practical strategy
If you can be geographically flexible, treat it as a genuine competitive advantage and target regions where your skills are scarce relative to demand. If you cannot, focus on being clearly the best local match rather than competing nationally for remote roles.
Either way, decide with data rather than reputation - see finding job market data for your city.
Doing this kind of comparative analysis well is a transferable skill, and it is what the Statistics for Business course at London School of Business UK teaches. Enquire today.