$100 worth state by state

[FerrumB5]

Just wanted to share this "what $100 is worth" in each state:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/58466/how-much-100-really-worth-each-state

My IL is very close to national average. Inflation seems to be higher than average tho - I still remember bananas $0.19/lb in 2004 and gas $1.49/gl :)

[rpr]

I'm in the lowest state but not complaining ;)

[redbird]

Yep. That's why when I FIREd I moved. In the past 10 years I've either lived in 2 of the very brightest blue states on that map (Hawaii and Maryland) or I lived in Tokyo, which if it was on the map, would be even brighter blue than anything in the US. I moved to Georgia, which is one of the lower cost of living states. Not THE lowest, but still quite low.

I am not exaggerating for Tokyo. I paid about $50 for electricity last month here in Atlanta. In Tokyo, it would be about $150. For the same kwh usage. And this is fall, where I don't run A/C or heat. It was worse in the summer/winter.

It's worth staying in HCOL areas if the pay you get from your job makes it worth it. But don't stay in that HCOL area once you retire, unless you plan to take longer to build up your $$ stash for the luxury of that.

[TheAnonOne]

Just wanted to share this "what $100 is worth" in each state:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/58466/how-much-100-really-worth-each-state

My IL is very close to national average. Inflation seems to be higher than average tho - I still remember bananas $0.19/lb in 2004 and gas $1.49/gl :)

MN here, which is just about average.

Though, the wages here are MUCH higher than average (in IT at least) so, your probably better off here than in most parts of the country.

[Gone Fishing]

Not as severe as I would have thought! I looked but didn't see the specific categories.  I image a good part of the differences are probably housing and food.  If you can control those two in a HCOL area, you can probably level the playing field quite a bit.

[JLee]

Not as severe as I would have thought! I looked but didn't see the specific categories.  I image a good part of the differences are probably housing and food.  If you can control those two in a HCOL area, you can probably level the playing field quite a bit.

I just moved from AZ to NJ and the biggest differences I have noticed are housing, car insurance, and taxes.  Taxes here are absolutely brutal.

[G-dog]

Hmm, better than I thought, greater than $110!  I probably live in the highest COL area for the state though. Not sure if they did that sort of break down.

[zephyr911]

..and yet the feds give me 16% locality pay in NORAL... why? Labor shortage. They moved a bunch of agencies from the capital area to here, and they're still trying to get the employees to come along.

[Bracken_Joy]

Hmm, better than I thought, greater than $110!  I probably live in the highest COL area for the state though. Not sure if they did that sort of break down.

I thought that was an interesting consideration too. I know for Oregon, for example, it is right around average, but there is a HUGE difference in COL between Portland and the rest of the state. The next biggest city, Salem (or second to next, Salem and Eugene always trade off on that title) is 42% less average housing cost, and 19% less expensive overall. And it is way more pronounced in the rural areas that make up a lot of the state. I imagine this holds true for other states with significant urban-rural divides as well.

[Jack]

Hmm, better than I thought, greater than $110!  I probably live in the highest COL area for the state though. Not sure if they did that sort of break down.

I thought that was an interesting consideration too. I know for Oregon, for example, it is right around average, but there is a HUGE difference in COL between Portland and the rest of the state. The next biggest city, Salem (or second to next, Salem and Eugene always trade off on that title) is 42% less average housing cost, and 19% less expensive overall. And it is way more pronounced in the rural areas that make up a lot of the state. I imagine this holds true for other states with significant urban-rural divides as well.

This. I find myself less and less convinced that there are meaningful differences on state-average basis, and more convinced that all we're really measuring in these sorts of maps is the state-average population density (or said another way, the percentage of each state's population that is urban vs. rural). Take a look at this map for comparison.

[rpr]

Hmm, better than I thought, greater than $110!  I probably live in the highest COL area for the state though. Not sure if they did that sort of break down.

I thought that was an interesting consideration too. I know for Oregon, for example, it is right around average, but there is a HUGE difference in COL between Portland and the rest of the state. The next biggest city, Salem (or second to next, Salem and Eugene always trade off on that title) is 42% less average housing cost, and 19% less expensive overall. And it is way more pronounced in the rural areas that make up a lot of the state. I imagine this holds true for other states with significant urban-rural divides as well.

This. I find myself less and less convinced that there are meaningful differences on state-average basis, and more convinced that all we're really measuring in these sorts of maps is the state-average population density (or said another way, the percentage of each state's population that is urban vs. rural). Take a look at this map for comparison.

Jack: Interesting observation. It would be instructive to compare like for like, i.e.  urban areas in different states.

[JLee]

Hmm, better than I thought, greater than $110!  I probably live in the highest COL area for the state though. Not sure if they did that sort of break down.

I thought that was an interesting consideration too. I know for Oregon, for example, it is right around average, but there is a HUGE difference in COL between Portland and the rest of the state. The next biggest city, Salem (or second to next, Salem and Eugene always trade off on that title) is 42% less average housing cost, and 19% less expensive overall. And it is way more pronounced in the rural areas that make up a lot of the state. I imagine this holds true for other states with significant urban-rural divides as well.

This. I find myself less and less convinced that there are meaningful differences on state-average basis, and more convinced that all we're really measuring in these sorts of maps is the state-average population density (or said another way, the percentage of each state's population that is urban vs. rural). Take a look at this map for comparison.

Jack: Interesting observation. It would be instructive to compare like for like, i.e.  urban areas in different states.

That's an excellent point. Arizona is inexpensive unless you want to live in Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, or Sedona/Prescott.  Those places probably skew the overall average substantially.

[zephyr911]

This. I find myself less and less convinced that there are meaningful differences on state-average basis, and more convinced that all we're really measuring in these sorts of maps is the state-average population density (or said another way, the percentage of each state's population that is urban vs. rural). Take a look at this map for comparison.

Oh, absolutely. Even in AL ($113) there are HCOL pockets (esp Birmingham and the east side of Mobile Bay); conversely, WA is only a few percent above average COL ($100->$96) but Seattle is doubtless far higher, while the farming towns are probably well below average COL.

[teen persuasion]

Hmm, better than I thought, greater than $110!  I probably live in the highest COL area for the state though. Not sure if they did that sort of break down.

I thought that was an interesting consideration too. I know for Oregon, for example, it is right around average, but there is a HUGE difference in COL between Portland and the rest of the state. The next biggest city, Salem (or second to next, Salem and Eugene always trade off on that title) is 42% less average housing cost, and 19% less expensive overall. And it is way more pronounced in the rural areas that make up a lot of the state. I imagine this holds true for other states with significant urban-rural divides as well.

This. I find myself less and less convinced that there are meaningful differences on state-average basis, and more convinced that all we're really measuring in these sorts of maps is the state-average population density (or said another way, the percentage of each state's population that is urban vs. rural). Take a look at this map for comparison.

Jack: Interesting observation. It would be instructive to compare like for like, i.e.  urban areas in different states.

That's an excellent point. Arizona is inexpensive unless you want to live in Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, or Sedona/Prescott.  Those places probably skew the overall average substantially.

I'm sure NYC skews the average here, too.  Costs in WNY are nothing like in NYC.  Then again, neither are wages.

[Jack]

A county by county map across the US would be more illuminating.

edit: Here we are. An old county level map from city-data data: https://uniformlyuninformative.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/city-data-screen-scraper-and-maps/ It really does illustrate that some states have a clear urban/rural COL divide. And, comparing the OP link against this one (assuming the same methodology is used), you can see how dynamic COL is. For example, the booming times in the dakotas has changed dramatically.

Wow, those are pretty interesting. Things I learned:

• The Arctic coast of Alaska appears to have an extremely good household income vs. cost of living ratio (but not enough women).
• The proverbial "bible belt" is really more like the "bible suspenders," running North/South from west Texas to North Dakota, and Utah to Idaho. (But the Mormon side has higher cost-of-living than the other side.)

[MrsPete]

What an interesting graph!