Compare the metro median for your occupation against the national median, compute the local concentration of your occupation, and check the same two figures for anyone else whose career the move affects. Those three answers separate places that pay well for your work from places that merely pay well, and places with a market from places with one employer.
Three numbers before anything else
The local median for your occupation — not the metro’s average wage across all jobs, which describes the place rather than your work. A well-paid metro can be thin in your field, and the average will not tell you.
Concentration. Your occupation’s share of local employment against its national share. Above 1.0 means the place holds more of your work than its size implies; well above means a real market rather than a coincidence.
The same two for a second career. Where a household has two, the second one is usually the binding constraint, and it is the check most often skipped. A metro that is superb for you and thin for a partner is a worse move than one that is good for both.
Then adjust for costs, but do it properly
A higher nominal median in an expensive metro can be worth less in practice. Housing dominates that adjustment and varies far more than anything else, so use your actual housing cost rather than a general index — an index averages over a basket you do not buy, and it will mislead you in whichever direction your life differs from the average.
Then state income tax, which is a straightforward calculation and frequently worth more than people expect over a decade. Then commuting, in time as much as money.
What usually survives all of that is a smaller gap than the raw salaries suggested and a larger one than the cost-of-living skeptics claim. Both extremes are wrong and the arithmetic is not hard.
The question that separates a market from a job
If your employer there closed, how many others within commuting distance need what you do?
That single question decides how much risk you are taking, and concentration is the published answer to it. Three employers is a market. One is an employer, however good the salary, and the difference between them is the difference between a bad year and a forced move.
What the numbers cannot decide
Whether the industry behind the market is stable. Whether you would want to live there in February. Whether the schools work for your children. Whether being eight hours from family is survivable or corrosive.
None of that is in any dataset, and all of it matters more than a percentile. The point of doing the arithmetic first is that it eliminates options quickly and cheaply, which leaves the time for the questions that deserve it.
On relocation packages
Since 2026 all employer-paid relocation is taxable wages for civilian employees, so the decisive question about any package is whether it is grossed up. An unadjusted package is worth substantially less than its headline, and the difference is large enough to change whether a move makes sense.
Ask explicitly, in writing, and ask what happens if you leave within a year — clawback terms on relocation are common and are rarely mentioned unless you raise them.
The order that saves you the most
Numbers first, because they are cheap and they cut the list fast. Then the human questions, on a shortlist that already survives the arithmetic. Then a visit, in the worst month of the year rather than the best one.
People generally do this in reverse: fall for a place, then justify it. That works often enough to be dangerous, and the failures are expensive because they are hard to reverse. Selling a house in a cheap market to buy in an expensive one is close to a one-way door, and that is worth knowing before rather than after.
A worked comparison
Say you are a registered nurse weighing San Jose against Wichita. The medians are $216,740 and $76,540 — a gap of $140,200, which looks decisive until you touch it.
Housing does most of the work in the other direction, and California’s income tax takes a slice Kansas does not. Run your own numbers rather than an index, because the answer depends heavily on whether you are buying or renting and how many bedrooms you need. What generally survives is a real advantage to the high-paying metro for someone early and renting, and a much narrower one for someone buying a family home.
Then the part the salaries hide entirely: both are deep markets for nursing, so neither leaves you stranded if a job ends. That is not true of every pair of cities, and it is the factor that decides how much the pay gap is actually worth taking a risk for.
Common questions
What should I check first about a metro?
The local median for your occupation, its local concentration, and both figures again for any second career in the household.
Why not use the metro's average wage?
Because it describes the place rather than your work. A metro can be well paid overall and thin in your occupation.
How do I adjust for cost of living?
Using your actual costs, with housing dominating. A general index averages over a basket you do not buy.
What question separates a market from a job?
If your employer closed, how many others within commuting distance need what you do? Concentration is the published answer.
What about a relocation package?
Since 2026 employer-paid relocation is taxable wages for civilians, so whether the package is grossed up decides what it is worth.
What should I check first about a city?
The local median for your occupation, the local concentration of it, and both figures again for any second career in the household.
How should I adjust for cost of living?
With your actual housing cost and state tax, not a general index. An index averages over a basket you do not buy and misleads in whichever direction your life differs.