What $100 is Worth in Different Metro Areas

[Ben]

Seems fairly accurate, at least for places I know. I saw some inaccuracy, for instance in what it included in my "metro area". The North part is pretty inexpensive. The South part is at least as expensive as LA or San Fran. What they show is about right if you average the two.

http://my.socialtoaster.com/splash/36pcC/

[roo_ster]

INteresting.

Lot of midwestern union states have decent costs of living.

[charby]

INteresting.

Lot of midwestern union states have decent costs of living.

Union as in Yankees or Union as in labor unions??

[roo_ster]

Union as in Yankees or Union as in labor unions??

Labor unions.  Though there is some serious correlation: labor unions/midwest/north.

Though it does look like union/midwest urban areas are more expensive than those in right to work/southern states.  Perhaps there is some evil cost of living synergy between closed shop states and urban politics.

[wmenorr67]

Superimpose this with a map of how the last Presidential election went and I would be willing to bet $100 that the least valuable your money is will correlate quite well with how blue an area is.  Exception being Alaska.

[charby]

Labor unions.  Though there is some serious correlation: labor unions/midwest/north.

Though it does look like union/midwest urban areas are more expensive than those in right to work/southern states.  Perhaps there is some evil cost of living synergy between closed shop states and urban politics.

Even though 4 of the 9 Midwest states are not Right to Work States (closed shop as you put it for the Union states), I think you are confused about the hold Unions have in those states. The public employee unions tries to bully, but they only get their way part of the time if there is a sympathetic governor in office, usually a Democrat. If you want to see a union stranglehold take a look at New England.

The cost of living us is usually lower because of cheaper food and cheaper insurance, also Midwestern's tend to be more self reliant and less of a drain on society via entitlements. We have floods, blizzards, tornados, etc, usually we have the mess cleaned up for FEMA even makes the first phone call.

Wages are also lower in many of the Midwestern states compared metro areas in other parts of the country.

[roo_ster]

Even though 4 of the 9 Midwest states are not Right to Work States (closed shop as you put it for the Union states), I think you are confused about the hold Unions have in those states. The public employee unions tries to bully, but they only get their way part of the time if there is a sympathetic governor in office, usually a Democrat. If you want to see a union stranglehold take a look at New England.

The cost of living us is usually lower because of cheaper food and cheaper insurance, also Midwestern's tend to be more self reliant and less of a drain on society via entitlements. We have floods, blizzards, tornados, etc, usually we have the mess cleaned up for FEMA even makes the first phone call.

Wages are also lower in many of the Midwestern states compared metro areas in other parts of the country.

People talk about how Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. do so well on all the education metrics and others of social capital & general societal health.  My response is usually something like, "That's because Iowa is full of Iowans."  If Texas, Mississippi, or New Mexico were full of Iowans, they would have metrics as good as Iowa.

[onions!]

Superimpose this with a map of how the last Presidential election went and I would be willing to bet $100 that the least valuable your money is will correlate quite well with how blue an area is.  Exception being Alaska.

I noticed that as well.

[Tallpine]

Superimpose this with a map of how the last Presidential election went and I would be willing to bet $100 that the least valuable your money is will correlate quite well with how blue an area is.  Exception being Alaska.

Alaska is a red state but it's so cold there that it turned blue 

[brimic]

People talk about how Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. do so well on all the education metrics and others of social capital & general societal health.  My response is usually something like, "That's because Iowa is full of Iowans."  If Texas, Mississippi, or New Mexico were full of Iowans, they would have metrics as good as Iowa.

WI is full of wisconsinites which aren't too far removed from northern european socialists.
Cost of living isn't too bad- until you get your property tax bill.

[Tallpine]

WI is full of wisconsinites which aren't too far removed from northern european socialists.
Cost of living isn't too bad- until you get your property tax bill.

My mom said that she looked up the 720 sq ft house in Austintatious where we used to live.  The annual tax bill on it now is $5K which is what she paid for it in the early 1950s 

[230RN]

I'm kinda wondering why they presented the data that way.

Figuring roughly, as an example, if in Denver your $100 buys only $95 worth of stuff compared to some "average," why didn't they just say it costs 5% more (roughly) to live in Denver than it does on that "average?"

Maybe I need more coffee this AM, but the "5% more" seems more intuitive than they way they presented it.

Perhaps I'm just brainlocked on that and can't "see" the rationale behind saying your Denver dollar only buys 95¢ worth of stuff as elsewhere.

I'm prepared to give myself a dopeslap when someone enlightens me.

Terry

[zahc]

It's an odd way to present the data but I got over it.

It's important to remember that the data will apply to you only if you behave like the average person everywhere.  Their data says it's 5% cheaper in Raleigh than DFW. After migrating from DFW to nominally Raleigh, my experience does not agree. Everything I actually buy is slightly more expensive here, including real estate that fits my needs.

DFW probably looks more expensive on paper because the median and mean spending and prices are all higher, but many of those prices are for things that don't exist here, or for things I wouldn't buy anyway, or things that are just out of my budget. Sure the average restaurant meal is probably 20% more expensive in DFW, but I don't go to expensive restaurants;  I only care about what I can get for my family for about 25 to 30 dollars before tip that I can afford, and by that measure, and analogous measures across the board, the expensive place was cheaper. What the average family pays for transportation in Plano (the most affluent city in America) is probably quite high what with the beemers and brand new Texas Edition megatrucks everyone drives. But slightly-used minivans I actually care about are still cheaper there.

What figures like this tell you is what it will cost if you make the average and then spend yourself into the average. But you don't have to spend yourself into the average. With real estate in certain areas, you may be forced to spend more.  Maybe, but not in my case was that true at all.

My professors in rural Ohio used to encourage me to move back because "cost of living" is so low,  but really the standard of living is low,  so you can be pretty well-off there, by comparison to your neighbors,  on the 75k per year I made at the time. But I would actually get less for my 75k per year there than I would have in DFW. That's not lower cost of living unless keeping up with the Jones is a prime directive for you. Myself, I didn't mind living among the affluent and availing myself of the good prices, clean stores and healthy markets that cater to them while making a decent salary. Then again,  if whitetail hunting, being close to family, and being able to see the stars at night matter, then that changes everything too.

[birdman]

This also doesn't take into account state taxes...wouldn't that alone make a 10-20% deference between TX and CA?

[Tallpine]

One thing we noticed about moving from Colorado to Montana is that there is much less quality stuff available in bargain stores up here, presumably because there are fewer rich people cleaning out their closets and donating perfectly good clothes 

Still, there's no sales tax and vehicle insurance is a lot cheaper, and we don't have to beg permission just to build a shed on our land.

[wmenorr67]

I'm kinda wondering why they presented the data that way.

Figuring roughly, as an example, if in Denver your $100 buys only $95 worth of stuff compared to some "average," why didn't they just say it costs 5% more (roughly) to live in Denver than it does on that "average?"

Maybe I need more coffee this AM, but the "5% more" seems more intuitive than they way they presented it.

Perhaps I'm just brainlocked on that and can't "see" the rationale behind saying your Denver dollar only buys 95¢ worth of stuff as elsewhere.

I'm prepared to give myself a dopeslap when someone enlightens me.

Terry

The average person wouldn't understand percentage but will understand actually dollars.

[230RN]

OK, so $105 instead of 5% more.  

I didn't have a problem in understanding the way it was presented, just objected to why they did it that "inverted" way, when "$105 more" was simpler and more graphic than "only buys you $95 worth of stuff."

Ease of communication.  No big deal. 

[Tallpine]

Yeah, would make more sense to price a "shopping basket" of the same goods in different places.

[Monkeyleg]

The way Alabama is presented is probably accurate, at least as compared to Wisconsin. My property taxes are 12% to 14% of what they were in Wisconsin on a house of similar value. The house itself here is much, much nicer for $12,000 less than what I sold my box in Wisconsin for.

Food is slightly less expensive. Health insurance is about half or even less for the same coverage (I don't know how that can be, but it is). State income tax is about 20% less. Vehicle registration is based upon the value of the vehicle, so I pay $125 for my Mustang and my '91 Saturn, compared to $85 (or is it $95 now?) in WI for each vehicle. Car insurance is a bit higher, probably because of the way people here drive; the south isn't the birthplace of NASCAR for no reason.