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.
If I'm reading it right Phnom Penh was, for August 2011, the cheapest in terms of local income. This isn't just because they're Third World though as the UN source has Bangui, Central Africa and Port Moresby, New Guinea as above average in adjusted cost-of-living. Then there's a city in Africa I'll mention later.
In the more developed world the island of St. Lucia and Kermit, Texas look to have a low cost-of-living compared to income. For a larger city San Jose, Costa Rica and Brownsville, Texas come out fairly cheap. (For US cities I'm using a mix of this site and Kiplinger)
Tokyo and NYC, specifically Manhattan, are traditionally some of the most expensive places in the world. However several sources indicate Luanda, Angola has been the most expensive for awhile now. I think it might be that it's most expensive for foreigners, but the UN also lists it as a fairly expensive city. Although the UN source, above, places Luanda more as equal to Sydney, Australia and just slightly below London. Not in the Tokyo or Geneva range.
In some cities in 3rd world/poor countries, COL for the average person is much, much cheaper than in the U.S.
Not really, cause the average person in the 3rd world/poor countries also earns much less than any american. So, it is more expensive for them to live in their cities with such low income.
Not really, cause the average person in the 3rd world/poor countries also earns much less than any american. So, it is more expensive for them to live in their cities with such low income.
Yes, exactly. Interesting that it takes a native speaker of Spanish to understand what I was trying to say.
You have your average income on one hand...
And your cost of living on the other...
Where's the biggest discrepancy between average income and cost of living? (which would be dispensable income) Where's the biggest multiplier between the two?
I'm not sure I 100% understand the original question. But I think it's essentially where is cheap to live relative to wages?
If that's the case, I'd strike out all of the U.S. Mostly because as cheap as some things are, everyone in the 'cheap' parts of the U.S. are required to have a car, maintain a car, and continously pump it up with gas. If you don't have enough money, you'll really struggle constantly trying to pay gas over food. (Of course that is somewhat negated, as the u.s. gov't gives a lot in food stamps, welfare, etc. - so the food is free, and you can continue running your car all the time - giving an illusion of having something).
I find it much easier to live, if you were a local, in countries that are not 100% car dependent. Than when you have a $1, you can buy $1 worth a food. However, they need to keep providing food for themselves more often, as no larger gov't will help them out when food isn't on the table.
I'd guess somewhere like provincial Texas too, but that's not based on any first-hand experience, and 'average' income means less somewhere like that with such massive differences in income.
Have the lowest (and highest) cost of living IN LOCAL INCOME.
That is to say: in what city is life CHEAPEST for an AVERAGE resident of that city?
My guess is certain provincial cities in the Southern and Midwestern United States.
Rethinking this question again. I'd probably say South Korea.
Mostly because the wages are quite decent, but everything else is incredibly cheap.
The entire country has incredible public transportation. So, you definitely don't need a car. You can almost anywhere in the country quite easy by bus or train. So, you NEVER have to fill up a gas tank, never have to maintain a car. On top of that, buses, trains, and taxis are cheap.
On top of that, tons of cheap eating. You can find lots of food well under $5. You can even buy some stuff for $2 like noodles or kimbab (rice & veggies wrapped in seaweed paper) for $1.
Your money just stretches forever as you don't need a car, food is cheap, and salaries/wages are fairly high.
Rethinking this question again. I'd probably say South Korea.
Mostly because the wages are quite decent, but everything else is incredibly cheap.
The entire country has incredible public transportation. So, you definitely don't need a car. You can almost anywhere in the country quite easy by bus or train. So, you NEVER have to fill up a gas tank, never have to maintain a car. On top of that, buses, trains, and taxis are cheap.
On top of that, tons of cheap eating. You can find lots of food well under $5. You can even buy some stuff for $2 like noodles or kimbab (rice & veggies wrapped in seaweed paper) for $1.
Your money just stretches forever as you don't need a car, food is cheap, and salaries/wages are fairly high.
How are food/taxis so cheap, is it just lower wages for people working in those industries?
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.
