Consulting Was a “Get Rich Slow” Career. Is It Still?

Quick answer

For a long time, top-tier consulting could be described as a “get rich slow” scheme. You were unlikely to become a billionaire, but a strong firm offered high starting pay, relatively legible promotions, rising compensation, and valuable exit options. Tier II strategy firms offered a similar ladder at somewhat lower expected pay.

That proposition still exists, but it may be less dependable than it once looked. Consulting demand has become more cyclical, promotion bottlenecks are visible, and AI-native companies are competing for work and talent that previously flowed naturally to advisory firms. This article examines that career thesis. For the actual compensation figures and methodology, use the consulting salary and bonus tracker.

Why consulting looked like “get rich slow”

Consulting did not promise the spectacular upside of founding a successful company, joining the perfect hedge fund, or receiving startup equity that became genuinely valuable. Its appeal was different: the distribution of outcomes looked unusually attractive.

A strong performer could enter on a six-figure package, receive fairly predictable increases with promotion, and build a recognizable professional brand. Even without making partner, the consultant accumulated client exposure, analytical skills, and a network that could support a well-paid corporate exit.

The important word is slow. Most wealth came from earning more each year, avoiding a career-ending mistake, and investing the difference—not from one extraordinary bonus or liquidity event.

A salary ladder rather than a single salary

At both MBB and strong Tier II firms, compensation has historically been tied to a visible career ladder:

This structure made consulting feel safer than careers in which annual compensation depended heavily on one deal, one portfolio, or one company's valuation. It was never guaranteed: promotion decisions, office economics, and recessions still mattered. But the path was comparatively easy to understand.

The hidden requirement: an expensive city

Consulting does not literally require everyone to live in New York, London, Chicago, or another major commercial center. Firms have offices in smaller markets, hybrid work has changed staffing, and travel patterns vary. But many of the most attractive roles still pull consultants toward expensive metropolitan areas where clients, partners, and exit opportunities concentrate.

That changes the meaning of a high salary. In May 2026, StreetEasy reported a citywide median asking rent of $4,199, while Manhattan's median reached $4,927. Apartments suitable for a family cost more: the citywide median for homes with at least three bedrooms reached approximately $4,995 in February 2026.

Childcare is the second shock. The New York City Comptroller's analysis found that a family would need to earn about $334,000 for care for a two-year-old to meet the federal affordability benchmark. A consultant can therefore earn an objectively high income and still feel cash-constrained after housing, childcare, tax, travel, dining, and the conveniences that make an intense job sustainable.

An illustrative New York net-worth model

There is no public dataset showing the “average McKinsey consultant's net worth.” Any precise claim would be invented. The estimates below are scenarios designed to answer a narrower question:

What might one consultant accumulate over 20 years if they begin with no wealth, live well in New York, have a family, and invest consistently?

Assumptions

• 20-year horizon, approximately age 25 to 45;
• zero starting net worth, with student debt, inheritance, home equity, and spouse assets excluded;
• current compensation ranges from the salary tracker, converted into a plausible promotion path;
• simplified combined federal, New York State, New York City, and payroll effective tax rates of 31% to 42%;
• after-tax spending of $95,000 annually for years 1–5, $145,000 for years 6–10, and $165,000 for years 11–20;
• the later spending phases assume a market-rate two- or three-bedroom home, two children, paid childcare when needed, public school, regular restaurants and travel, and a comfortable but non-luxury lifestyle;
• 4% annual real investment return after inflation; and
• savings never go below zero: the model does not assume borrowing to maintain the lifestyle.

Results in 2026 dollars

The exit scenarios are closer to how many people actually experience consulting: several high-learning years followed by a corporate role. The long-tenure scenarios are not “average” outcomes; they require continued promotion and eventually include modeled partner-level earnings.

The result is intentionally humbling. A high New York salary can fund an excellent life without creating enormous liquid wealth. A working spouse, lower housing costs, public pre-K, home appreciation, or stronger investment returns could lift the outcome substantially. Private school, two simultaneous childcare bills, student debt, career breaks, or supporting extended family could reduce it.

This is a scenario, not financial advice or an alumni wealth study. The reproducible model is kept with the article code so that its assumptions can be revised rather than allowing the headline numbers to become folklore.

Why consulting looked unusually good on a risk-adjusted basis

The historical attraction was not that consulting always paid the most. It was that few other careers combined its compensation, scale, training, and relatively broad distribution of good outcomes.

Investment banking

Banking can pay more, especially in strong deal years. But bonuses and job security are tied to transaction cycles, team performance, and market conditions. The outcome can be excellent, but annual compensation may be more variable and working hours can be even less controllable.

Hedge funds and other investment roles

The top outcomes can dwarf consulting compensation. They are also concentrated among a relatively small number of seats, funds, strategies, and individual performers. A candidate should not compare the median consulting path with the most visible hedge-fund winner.

Startups and entrepreneurship

These offer the largest theoretical upside and the least predictable distribution. Equity may become transformative, modestly valuable, or worthless. Entrepreneurship also concentrates risk in one company and often delays cash compensation.

Consulting's traditional advantage was therefore not maximum upside. It was a high probability of good earnings plus the option to leave for another credible career.

What has changed in consulting

The post-pandemic period exposed more cyclicality than many candidates expected. Firms hired heavily during the boom, client demand slowed, and several consultancies subsequently reduced headcount. Reporting summarized by Axios described pressure from weaker government work, slower demand, and AI-driven productivity.

Hiring evidence is mixed rather than uniformly negative. Bloomberg's 2025–26 business-school analysis described consulting recruiting as more selective amid an industry slump. But Columbia's 2025 results showed a rebound from a weak 2024, including higher hiring by McKinsey, BCG, and Bain, according to Poets&Quants' analysis. MIT Sloan still reported consulting as the largest destination for its 2025 MBA class at 32.3% of accepted jobs.

The partnership funnel provides a clearer warning. McKinsey publicly announced 248 new partners in its 2024 class. The Wall Street Journal subsequently reported that the next class fell to about 200, roughly 20% fewer than the prior year. One year does not establish a permanent trend, but it shows that the final rungs of the ladder can narrow.

We should be precise about what is not proven. Public evidence does not establish that every strategy project is now sold for less or that consultants broadly receive lower nominal salaries. Fee pressure is more credible for standardized analysis and labor-heavy implementation. The near-term risk may appear first through fewer hires, slower promotions, smaller bonuses, higher performance thresholds, or a different mix of technical roles—not necessarily a visible cut to base salary.

AI is creating a new class of competitor

Traditional strategy consulting sells judgment, executive access, analysis, and organizational change. Enterprise AI companies increasingly combine software with people who work directly inside a client's operations. That model can compete with consulting budgets because it promises both an answer and a deployed system.

Palantir

Palantir is the clearest example. Its forward-deployed teams combine technical implementation with client problem solving. Axios reported that companies were turning to Palantir and other technology firms for AI adoption work that might previously have involved a consultancy. Unlike a slide-based recommendation, the vendor leaves behind a software platform embedded in operating workflows.

Sierra and enterprise-agent companies

Sierra is not a direct substitute for all McKinsey work; its initial focus is enterprise customer-service agents. But it illustrates where budgets can move. Sierra announced a $350 million financing at a $10 billion valuation in 2025, then expanded its agent platform beyond answering questions toward sales and customer engagement. A growing field of enterprise-agent, data, and deployment startups is making similar claims in narrower functions.

The threat is not that one chatbot suddenly becomes a McKinsey partner. It is that dozens of technical companies productize pieces of diagnosis, analysis, implementation, and monitoring. Software can be reused at low marginal cost; a consulting pyramid traditionally adds revenue by adding people.

The bear case for a 20-year consulting career

The pessimistic argument is straightforward:

1. AI reduces the analyst hours required for research, modeling, synthesis, and presentation production.
2. Clients become less willing to pay premium fees for work that appears reproducible with software.
3. Enterprise-software vendors capture implementation budgets and recurring revenue.
4. Consulting firms need fewer junior generalists and more engineers, domain experts, sales leaders, and change specialists.
5. A smaller pyramid means fewer promotion slots and a less reliable “get rich slow” path.

If that happens, McKinsey will almost certainly still exist in 20 years. Brand, trust, relationships, and organizational judgment do not disappear. But continued existence is different from remaining the dominant winner or offering the same economic bargain to each incoming consultant.

The counter-case: AI may strengthen the leading firms

The opposite argument is also credible. AI systems are technically powerful but organizationally difficult. Companies need to redesign workflows, govern data, manage risk, retrain people, and decide where automation creates real value. Those are consulting problems.

BCG's CEO has argued that AI is driving demand and changing commercial models rather than eliminating the firm. BCG reports that three quarters of its largest AI cases now include variable-fee arrangements, giving the consultancy more upside when a transformation succeeds. McKinsey has also built technical capabilities, software assets, and specialist teams rather than remaining a purely nontechnical advisory partnership.

The leading firms may use AI to deliver more work with smaller teams, preserve premium pricing through outcomes, and absorb the best methods developed by startups. If so, partner economics could remain strong even while the number and composition of junior roles change.

Our honest conclusion: this is mostly speculation

The historical salary ladder is observable. Current hiring, partner elections, rents, and childcare costs are observable. The claim that AI will permanently reduce the risk-adjusted return of a consulting career is a forecast.

We may be directionally right but far too early. We may be wrong because clients value independent judgment, executive confidence, and organizational change more than automated analysis. We may also be 100% wrong because AI creates a larger transformation market that the established firms capture.

Candidates should therefore avoid two extremes: assuming consulting is a guaranteed 20-year wealth machine, or assuming AI makes the career obsolete next year.

What this means for a candidate today

• Use the salary tracker to understand the current package, but do not extrapolate it automatically for 20 years.
• Prefer roles that build technical fluency, domain expertise, client trust, and implementation experience—not only presentation production.
• Treat partnership as an upside scenario rather than the base case.
• Compare the offer with realistic housing, childcare, tax, and lifestyle costs in the city where you will live.
• Maintain exit options and invest early; the strongest version of “get rich slow” depends more on savings discipline than the firm's headline salary.
• Reassess the industry every few years. The best career decision in 2026 does not need to remain the best decision in 2046.

FAQ

Is consulting still a good way to build wealth?

Yes, particularly for candidates who control lifestyle inflation, invest consistently, and use the experience to reach senior consulting or strong corporate roles. It is not a guaranteed route to multi-million-dollar liquid wealth, especially for a family paying market-rate New York housing and childcare costs.

Is the McKinsey path safer than Tier II?

McKinsey generally offers higher modeled compensation and a stronger global brand, but neither path is low risk. Promotion outcomes, staffing, office demand, individual performance, and exit quality matter. Tier II firms may also offer faster responsibility or stronger expertise in a valuable sector.

Will AI replace management consultants?

It will probably replace or compress some tasks. Whether it reduces total consulting employment is less certain because implementation, governance, and organizational change may create new demand. The mix of roles is more likely to change than the entire industry is to disappear.

Are the net-worth estimates averages?

No. They are transparent scenarios, not observed alumni averages. They deliberately exclude spouse assets, inheritance, home equity, and student debt and should be adjusted to the reader's circumstances.

Recommended next steps

• Compensation data: Open the consulting salary and bonus tracker.
• Applications: Prepare your consulting resume.
• Interview preparation: Understand the case interview.
• High-touch support: Compare coaching options.