My Preliminary conclusions re London systemics and dynamics

After 11 days in London (17 in UK) here are my preliminary (working) conclusions (up for discussion):

a) London is best for young professionals (eg under 35) and for rich people (high net worth or high earners). b) Compare with NYC London is huge and somewhat chaotic (NYC is even more huge, 19 million).

The Tube is imo overrated as a mode of transport (too many staircases - compare and contrast with Paris). London buses may be an underrated factor in London mobility systemics. Maybe the no-stairs mobility alternative to the Tube. Other cities, eg Brussels, Manchester, Berlin, etc (Paris? Systemics like London's?) may provide better quality of life. But opportunities?

 Thus: Does London give to the Londoners or to the newcomer (from Europe and the rest of the world) the opportunities it seems to offer (via an everything is possible feel)? That is an expensive question, considering London's cost of living while searching for a good job, not any job (plenty of labour intensive service jobs in London, it seems, by the way).

 These are some preliminary conclusions, or rather, thoughts!

PS. In a relevant discussion on Twitter tonight, my fellow tweep Lars Pellinat ‏(@Lars9596) offered a bery insightful piece of info:
"@npthinking The big riddle: Average salary in greater London below 30K per year, but 2 bedroom flat IN London can cost 2.500 a month"
Analyse this!

PS2. Maybe London's biggest asset is what I have described as a "Babylon 5 feel" to London, in the sense that people who everywhere (on Earth) live and work in London. But is that asset, by itself, enough to sustain London? I don't know.