”Survey says” looks at various rankings and scorecards judging geographic locations, noting these grades are best seen as a mix of art and data.
Buzz: California might not be as expensive as you think, with nine of its metropolitan areas having a cost of living below the national average.
Source: My trusty spreadsheet retooled a version of the federal regional price parity indexes, which gauge local levels of consumption for goods and services, including rent.
Yes, it takes the Bureau of Economic Analysis significant time to do this math, so these are stats for 2020. But the numbers provide a solid comparison of relative living expenses in 384 metropolitan areas nationwide.
Details
This math wasn’t kind to California overall.
The cost of living in the Golden State in 2020 was 10.4% more than the U.S. average — the fourth-highest level among the states trailing only Hawaii, the District of Columbia and New Jersey. That means a cost of $1,000 for a U.S. consumer is actually $1,104 in California.
And to no surprise, those higher costs are largely tied to housing. These indexes show putting a roof over one’s head in California costs 60% more than the U.S. norm, second-worst in the nation behind Hawaii. So what’s $1,600 for California housing expenses would be just $1,000 by the national benchmark.
Yet there are “bargains” to be found. El Centro is California’s cheapest spot, based on this math.
The Mexican border community had a cost of living 6.6% below the national average. Still, there were 148 U.S. metropolitan areas in other states that were cheaper than El Centro.
Curiously, housing isn’t the problem in El Centro, says these indexes. Its shelter costs run 35% below the U.S. average — putting El Centro 81 spots from the bottom.
The other California metros with below-average costs of living are far from the costly coast and are decidedly not the state’s big cities …
Hanford (ranked 131st most expensive nationally): 3.9% cheaper than a typical U.S. metro. Housing: No. 242 nationally at 27% cheaper.
Madera (No. 126): 3.7% cheaper. Housing: No. 236 at 26% cheaper.
Visalia (No. 102): 2.4% cheaper. Housing: No. 186 at 19% cheaper.
Merced (No. 79): 0.8% cheaper. Housing: No. 146 at 13% cheaper.
Bakersfield (No. 78): 0.8% cheaper. Housing: No. 135 at 12% cheaper.
Yuba City (No. 75): 0.5% cheaper. Housing: No. 131 at 11% cheaper.
Fresno (No. 73): 0.2% cheaper. Housing: No. 121 at 9% cheaper.
Redding (No. 70): 0.1% cheaper. Housing: No. 119 at 8% cheaper.
Elsewhere
You cannot overlook the 17 California metro areas that are costlier than the national norm. They’re primarily more-populated locales near the ocean or the state’s tourist regions …
Chico (No. 56 nationally): 1.5% costlier than the U.S. average. Housing: No. 90 with costs equal to the national average.
Modesto (No. 41): 2.7% costlier. Housing: No. 62 at 7% costlier.
Inland Empire (No. 38): 3.7% costlier. Housing: No. 32 at 24% costlier.
Stockton (No. 37): 3.8% costlier. Housing: No. 49 at 15% costlier.
Sacramento (No. 23): 6.1% costlier. Housing: No. 26 at 32% costlier.
Vallejo (No. 20): 8.4% costlier. Housing: No. 17 at 50% costlier.
Santa Cruz (No. 18): 9.4% costlier. Housing: No. 9 at 68% costlier.
San Luis Obispo (No. 17): 9.5% costlier. Housing: No. 16 at 52% costlier vs. No. 15 in 2010.
Santa Rosa (No. 16): 9.8% costlier. Housing: No. 8 at 69% costlier.
Santa Barbara (No. 14): 10% costlier. Housing: No. 12 at 63% costlier.
Salinas (No. 12): 10.7% costlier. Housing: No. 10 at 67% costlier.
Ventura County (No. 11): 11.4% costlier. Housing: No. 3 at 85% costlier.
Napa (No. 10): 11.4% costlier. Housing: No. 6 at 78% costlier.
Los Angeles-Orange County (No. 7): 11.9% costlier. Housing: No. 5 at 79% costlier.
San Jose (No. 5): 12.1% costlier. Housing: No. 1 at 131% costlier.
San Diego (No. 4): 13.4% costlier. Housing: No. 4 at 81% costlier.
San Francisco was the most expensive spot in the nation. Its cost of living ran 17.4% above average. Its housing ranked second priciest, 107% more than what a typical American pays.
Caveat
The price parity’s entire database was retooled this year. Among other changes, the new calculations are slightly less dependent on housing costs.
The impact? Looking at 2019, for example, relative costs for San Francisco were found to be 8% lower from old stats to revised numbers. L.A.-O.C. costs fell by 12% and the state overall by 5%.
Despite seemingly more favorable treatment, this math showed California was home to seven of the 12 priciest places to live in America.
Bottom line
Here’s an odd factoid about California life’s long-running headache of high expenses: Over a decade, only five of the state’s 26 metro areas moved down the rankings of priciest places to live.
The Inland Empire improved, cost-wise, ranking 38th highest in 2020 vs. 32nd in 2010. Vallejo was No. 20 from 13th, Santa Cruz was No. 18 from seventh-highest, Santa Rosa was No. 16 from eighth-highest, and Napa was No. 10 from sixth-highest.
Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com
Source: Orange County Register
Be First to Comment