<p>For all those, “well its a high cost of living” discussions. Not assuming this is 2 flawless source, but check out how many are in California. And… Vallejo? Wow!</p>
<p>The problem is the methodology - it includes PITI and utilities. I was wondering how Manchester-Nashua got on the list. Manchester is a very inexpensive place to live and homes and rents are cheap. I have a friend that is a landlord and he has a few places vacant right now. Nashua is more expensive due to more industry in the city.</p>
<p>NH runs on property taxes so there are no general in come or sales taxes so property taxes are higher. It gets cold in NH so you’re going to pay more for heat than you would in warmer areas of the country.</p>
<p>So their methodology is somewhat simplistic.</p>
<p>If the point is to highlight that some people pay a lot of money <em>overall</em> to live in places that are hardly dream-locales, then it is interesting.</p>
<p>I paid a WHOLE LOT more to live in a little bitty bedroom community with zero services in western Massachusetts than I pay to live in a very nice college town in the midwest. My house here is three times as large, to boot. Let’s not even get into the fact that this town provides an extensive network of bike paths, jogging trails and lovely parks complete with lakes, and the one in MA had busy highways right through the middle of the town square. I couldn’t ride my bike anywhere.</p>
<p>When one is considering the cost of living, there is more to consider than the cost of the house alone. I can’t believe people pay a lot to live in some of the places on that list.</p>
<p>Methodology used always poses problems- such as defining a metro area and what is/isn’t thought of in the cost of living. At least this isn’t as bad as the “best places to live/retire…” according to Money Magazine, for example. “Best” is so subjective. Cost of living is so dependent on lifestyle as well, it depends on which goods and services you want to purchase.</p>
Exactly. You can live cheaply in New York City, but not anywhere that most of us who talk about the “high cost of living” would want to live. In New York, you can be poor or you can be wealthy; you cannot be what we laughingly call “middle class.” And the “average” rental rates in NY include apartments that are still rent controlled, or Section 8, or public housing.</p>
<p>NY less expensive than Manchester? Please. And people I work with move to Manchester to avoid the high cost of living in Boston and its suburbs.</p>
<p>I wonder if the results would change if they did the exact same survey today. Some of those areas - especially in California - were in the midst of housing price plunges when the survey was taken, 2008?</p>
<p>It’s easy to crunch numbers but a more valuable survey would involve talking to a bunch of people living in those places to get a feel of a city. That would be much more work than pushing a few buttons.</p>
<p>"The list uses awfully strange methodology. San Jose is one of the least expensive cities in the Bay Area. Bridgeport but not Greenwich? "</p>
<p>greenwich is in the Bridgeport - Stamford - Norwalk metropolitan area so it is included. The list is metro areas and San Jose is silicon valley.</p>