The Most Affordable Places to Live (And Still Have a Great Lifestyle)
December 29, 2007 By Matthew Paulson
Depending on where you live in the country, a one bedroom apartment might cost you $300 a month to live in, or $1,100 a month to live in. Movie tickets might cost you $4.50 in rural America, or easily twice that in some of the larger theaters on the west coast. A $100,000 home out in the country might easily be worth ten times that if it were located in Manhattan. Where we decide to live often affects our economic status whether we realize it or not. Forbes recently published a list of their top ten cities that will let you live affordably and live well at the same time.
Forbes used three different metrics to determine what they believe are the best cities in the nation to live in. They used the National Association of Home Builder’s “Housing Opportunity Index” which determines how affordable homes are to a typical income earner. They also factored in a cost of living index which was developed by the Council on Community and Economic Resaerch and finally factored in “Sperling’s Best Places” that identifies arts and entertainment options. Sperling’s list looked at music venues, museums, sports teams and the like.
The city that came out on top was Minneapolis, MN. Forbes stated that one of the main reasons was that 61% of the homes sold were affordable to a median incom earner. They also highlighted the cities cultural institutions such as the Guthrie theater. After Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, St. Lious, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Columbus, House, Dallas, and Atlanta made the list. Interestingly enough, 7 out of the 10 cities on the list wre located in the Midwest. The one thing common amongst all these cities was that housing was relatively affordable to a typical income earner.
In the end, this data probably won’t do much for us in an individual level unless we are considering moving in the near future, but it’s still interesting to look at. If you’re considering moving to new area of the country, it’s always a good idea to ensure that the location will be affordable to live in and has a relatively decent entertainment scene to make use of.
You can view the full results of the study at Forbes.com
Posted in 1
content rss
December 29th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I recently moved to California and increased my wage income by more than 50%. After taxes and increased cost of living, it comes out even though. Another thing to consider for retirees is the cost of income tax.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:27 am
On another blog the author took a survey of the 10 MOST HATED personal finance “tips” and not suprisingly number 1 was “move to another city”. The reason for this is obvious, we live where we live for a reason. It is not news to anyone that the cost of living in the midwest is cheaper than it is in places like New York but instead of seeing people move from NYC to the midwest we see the opposite happening. Why? Because “cost of living” is not as important to most people as lifestyle and secondly the “cost of living” numbers are in many ways inaccurate.
For instance, I’m in my late 20s here in NYC and most of my friends are around the same age. Virtually everyone earns six-figures and many earn mid/high six-figures, a couple people I know even make 7-figures at a young age. Our receptionist is 22 years old (I don’t even think she went to college) and we pay her close to six-figures. Does the higher compensation get completely eaten up by the higher cost of living? Not at all. For instance, housing prices in Manhattan are relatively high (relative to US but cheap to other big cities globally) — but you can live NEAR Manhattan for fairly cheap. I live in Manhattan now but a few years ago I was living in Brooklyn (just about 15 mins away by subway) and was paying only $800/month for a great place in a vibrant neighborhood full of young people, restaurants, bars, parks, and cultural events. I was also making six-figures which is common. I was able to save what the average person makes in a year. Also, people who buy in Manhattan are building equity just as if they were buying anywhere. Someone who only makes $60k per year wouldn’t be buying in Manhattan. In Manhattan $250k is considered middle-class. So it is all relative. More importantly if the typical person I know in NYC decided (or had to) move to the Midwest they could go there and live like a king because of all the money they’ve saved and/or equity they’ve built up in their homes. If the typical person from the Midwest were moving to NYC, they would have a very tough time with money for a while.
The Midwest has been “cheap” compared to the coasts since time immemorial. Career opportunities and wages on the coasts have also always been much better and higher than those in the Midwest. The “brain-drain” has been moving smart people from all over the country to the coasts ever since the Industrial Revolution. There is a reason for it.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:10 am
Best !!!)