Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's a recent analysis showing cost of rent vs wages. As usual California is in the lead as the highest % of wages toward rent. It's interesting how many formerly "low cost" Southern cities are on the list, and are more expensive than larger established metros such as Chicago and Philly.
Lost credibility as soon as I saw they used city populations to get the top 25 list, instead of metros. If they are that mindless about something like that I can't trust anything else they publish either. But it's great to know about El Paso's rent stats
Lost credibility as soon as I saw they used city populations to get the top 25 list, instead of metros. If they are that mindless about something like that I can't trust anything else they publish either.
Here's a recent analysis showing cost of rent vs wages. As usual California is in the lead as the highest % of wages toward rent. It's interesting how many formerly "low cost" Southern cities are on the list, and are more expensive than larger established metros such as Chicago and Philly.
Lost credibility as soon as I saw they used city populations to get the top 25 list, instead of metros. If they are that mindless about something like that I can't trust anything else they publish either. But it's great to know about El Paso's rent stats
Eh, it matters. I only live in cities, so cost of living comparisons that include suburbs and exurbs aren’t beneficial at all. I agree with the general notion that city proper is not a good metric when comparing the SIZE of cities, but it’s foolish to outright dismiss any comparison of cities proper.
Eh, it matters. I only live in cities, so cost of living comparisons that include suburbs and exurbs aren’t beneficial at all. I agree with the general notion that city proper is not a good metric when comparing the SIZE of cities, but it’s foolish to outright dismiss any comparison of cities proper.
I mean this respectfully, but what does a city’s civic population figure actually tell you when comparing COL metrics? I get that you’re not interested in living in suburbs, but don’t you agree that the overall size and history of the market have a direct and immediate impact on the amenities in the core? I feel by that logic a person could compare Pittsburgh and El Paso, and walking away thinking that El Paso is a bigger city with a lower COL. Therefore it must be a more exciting place to live for a cheaper price.
Eh, it matters. I only live in cities, so cost of living comparisons that include suburbs and exurbs aren’t beneficial at all. I agree with the general notion that city proper is not a good metric when comparing the SIZE of cities, but it’s foolish to outright dismiss any comparison of cities proper.
Deciding where to live based on whether a municipality is a suburbot core city is meaningless for multiple reasons. Maybe if this work was based on rent and incomes for "urban" and "walkable" regions, however said regions/neighbirhoods would be defined, it'd make sense, but its based completely on city propers, which hold no guarantee of being more urban, sophisticated, diverse, or walkable than suburbs right across arbitary lines we draw on maps. Most jobs in DFW are likely not in Dallas or Fort Worth (which I believe was the fourth or fifth most affordable in the OP's source), so even if you live in Dallas, why limit wages to that of jobs only in Dallas? There is no barrier forcint you to workwhere you live-considering how large Dallas is, living in Dallas and working in a suburb has a good chance at being just as convenient, if not more so, than working in another part of Dallas.
I mean this respectfully, but what does a city’s civic population figure actually tell you when comparing COL metrics? I get that you’re not interested in living in suburbs, but don’t you agree that the overall size and history of the market have a direct and immediate impact on the amenities in the core? I feel by that logic a person could compare Pittsburgh and El Paso, and walking away thinking that El Paso is a bigger city with a lower COL. Therefore it must be a more exciting place to live for a cheaper price.
How would you use it to your favor?
I literally don’t care about size. Metro is only a more relevant metric when gauging population.
I literally don’t care about size. Metro is only a more relevant metric when gauging population.
I disagree with that. Detroit and El Paso have very similar city populations but are almost incomparable in terms of the amenities they offer. Detroit has far more in common with other 4million+ person metros, where El Paso will compare more equally with another city in a metro one quarter that size.
If someone is looking to make a move and they don't take these things into consideration they could be in for a pretty big surprise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
