West Virginia and Kansas had the lowest cost of living across all U.S. states, with composite costs being half of those found in Hawaii. This was according to a composite index that compares prices for various goods and services on a state-by-state basis. In West Virginia, the cost of living index amounted to **** — well below the national benchmark of 100. Virginia— which had an index value of ***** — was only slightly above that benchmark. Expensive places to live included Hawaii, Massachusetts, and California. Housing costs in the U.S. Housing is usually the highest expense in a household’s budget. In 2023, the average house sold for approximately ******* U.S. dollars, but house prices in the Northeast and West regions were significantly higher. Conversely, the South had some of the least expensive housing. In West Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the median price of the typical single-family home was less than ******* U.S. dollars. That makes living expenses in these states significantly lower than in states such as Hawaii and California, where housing is much pricier. What other expenses affect the cost of living? Utility costs such as electricity, natural gas, water, and internet also influence the cost of living. In Alaska, Hawaii, and Connecticut, the average monthly utility cost exceeded *** U.S. dollars. That was because of the significantly higher prices for electricity and natural gas in these states.

Thumbnail Image by macrovector_official on Freepik

Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC) derives the cost of living index for each state by averaging the indices of participating cities and metropolitan areas in that state.

In general, the most expensive areas to live were Hawaii, Alaska, the Northeast, and the West Coast. The least expensive areas were the Midwest and Southern states.

Cities across the nation participate in the Council for Community & Economic Research (C2ER) survey on a volunteer basis. Price information in the survey is governed by C2ER collection guidelines which strive for uniformity.

The entries for Ontario, British Columbia, and Remote were added manually for my use case.

This statistic shows the best states to make living in the United States in 2019. In 2019, Wyoming was ranked as the best state to make a living in the United States, with the cost of living index at **** value and the median income of ****** U.S. dollars.

The US Family Budget Dataset provides insights into the cost of living in different US counties based on the Family Budget Calculator by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

This dataset offers community-specific estimates for ten family types, including one or two adults with zero to four children, in all 1877 counties and metro areas across the United States.

Interesting Task Ideas:

1. See how family budgets compare to the federal poverty line and the Supplemental Poverty Measure in different counties.
2. Look into the money challenges faced by different types of families using the budgets provided.
3. Find out which counties have the most affordable places to live, food, transportation, healthcare, childcare, and other things people need.
4. Explore how the average income of families relates to the overall cost of living in different counties.
5. Investigate how family size affects the estimated budget and find counties where bigger families have higher costs.
6. Create visuals showing how the cost of living varies across different states and big cities.
7. Check whether specific counties are affordable for families of different sizes and types.
8. Use the dataset to compare living standards and economic security in different US counties.

If you find this dataset valuable, don't forget to hit the upvote button! 😊💝

Checkout my other datasets

Employment-to-Population Ratio for USA

Productivity and Hourly Compensation

130K Kindle Books

900K TMDb Movies

USA Unemployment Rates by Demographics & Race

Photo by Alev Takil on Unsplash

The Consumer Sentiment Index in the United States stood at 51 in November 2025. This reflected a drop of 2.6 point from the previous survey. Furthermore, this was its lowest level measured since June 2022. The index is normalized to a value of 100 in December 1964 and based on a monthly survey of consumers, conducted in the continental United States. It consists of about 50 core questions which cover consumers' assessments of their personal financial situation, their buying attitudes and overall economic conditions.

This statistic shows the most affordable metro areas in the Unites States in 2017, by share of income spent on living expenses. In 2017, Omaha was the second most affordable metro area because ***** percent of the median blending annual household income was spent on the average cost of owning or renting a home as well the average cost of utilities and taxes.

In 2024, the annual cost for a private room in an assisted living facility in the U.S. amounted to ****** U.S. dollars - the national median price. However, cost varied greatly from one state to another. The least expensive states for a private room in assisted living were South Dakota, and Mississippi. While the most expensive states for assisted living were Hawaii and Alaska.

"Cost of living and purchasing power related to average income

We adjusted the average cost of living inside the USA (based on 2021 and 2022) to an index of 100. All other countries are related to this index. Therefore with an index of e.g. 80, the usual expenses in another country are 20% less then in the United States.

The monthly income (please do not confuse this with a wage or salary) is calculated from the gross national income per capita.

The calculated purchasing power index is again based on a value of 100 for the United States. If it is higher, people can afford more based on the cost of living in relation to income. If it is lower, the population is less wealthy.

The example of Switzerland: With a cost of living index of 142 all goods are on average about 42% more expensive than in the USA. But the average income in Switzerland of 7,550 USD is also 28% higher, which means that citizens can also afford more goods. Now you calculate the 42% higher costs against the 28% higher income. In the result, people in Switzerland can afford about 10 percent less than a US citizen."

Source: https://www.worlddata.info/cost-of-living.php

In 2025, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for medical professional services in the United States was at 432.46, compared to the period from 1982 to 1984 (=100). The CPI for hospital services was at 1,102.12.

The housing affordability measure illustrates the relationship between income and housing costs. A household that spends 30% or more of its collective monthly income to cover housing costs is considered to be “housing cost-burden[ed].”[1] Those spending between 30% and 49.9% of their monthly income are categorized as “moderately housing cost-burden[ed],” while those spending more than 50% are categorized as “severely housing cost-burden[ed].”[2]

How much a household spends on housing costs affects the household’s overall financial situation. More money spent on housing leaves less in the household budget for other needs, such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care, as well as for incidental purchases and saving for the future.

The estimated housing costs as a percentage of household income are categorized by tenure: all households, those that own their housing unit, and those that rent their housing unit.

Throughout the period of analysis, the percentage of housing cost-burdened renter households in Champaign County was higher than the percentage of housing cost-burdened homeowner households in Champaign County. All three categories saw year-to-year fluctuations between 2005 and 2023, and none of the three show a consistent trend. However, all three categories were estimated to have a lower percentage of housing cost-burdened households in 2023 than in 2005.

Data on estimated housing costs as a percentage of monthly income was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Housing Tenure.

[1] Schwarz, M. and E. Watson. (2008). Who can afford to live in a home?: A look at data from the 2006 American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau.

[2] Ibid.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (17 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (22 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (30 September 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 June 2021).;U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; 16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

This table contains data on the percent of households paying more than 30% (or 50%) of monthly household income towards housing costs for California, its regions, counties, cities/towns, and census tracts. Data is from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Consolidated Planning Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS). The table is part of a series of indicators in the [Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity] Affordable, quality housing is central to health, conferring protection from the environment and supporting family life. Housing costs—typically the largest, single expense in a family's budget—also impact decisions that affect health. As housing consumes larger proportions of household income, families have less income for nutrition, health care, transportation, education, etc. Severe cost burdens may induce poverty—which is associated with developmental and behavioral problems in children and accelerated cognitive and physical decline in adults. Low-income families and minority communities are disproportionately affected by the lack of affordable, quality housing. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the Attachments.

Quality of Life by State 2024

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F1937611%2F82267b1a15f8669ec2a072972bebccb5%2Fquality-of-life-by-us-state.png?generation=1717697280376438&alt=media" alt="">

This dataset provides insights into the quality of life across different states in the United States for the year 2024. Quality of life, encompassing aspects like comfort, health, and happiness, is evaluated through various metrics including affordability, economy, education, and safety. Dive into this dataset to understand how different states fare in terms of overall quality of life and its individual components.

Columns Description

• State: The name of the U.S. state.
• QualityOfLifeTotalScore: The total score representing the overall quality of life for the respective state. This score is calculated based on various quality of life metrics.
• QualityOfLifeQualityOfLife: The score representing the quality of life aspect for the respective state. This aspect may include subjective factors related to happiness, satisfaction, and overall well-being. Higher scores may indicate a higher level of subjective well-being, happiness, or overall satisfaction among residents. Lower scores could suggest lower levels of subjective well-being.
• QualityOfLifeAffordability: The score representing the affordability aspect of the quality of life for the respective state. This aspect evaluates factors such as cost of living, housing affordability, and income levels. Higher scores typically indicate greater affordability of housing, cost of living, and basic necessities. Lower scores may suggest that these essentials are less accessible or more expensive for residents.
• QualityOfLifeEconomy: The score representing the economic aspect of the quality of life for the respective state. This aspect assesses factors such as employment opportunities, economic growth, and income distribution. Higher scores may reflect a stronger economy with more job opportunities, higher incomes, and lower levels of poverty. Lower scores might indicate economic challenges such as unemployment or income inequality.
• QualityOfLifeEducationAndHealth: The score representing the education and health aspect of the quality of life for the respective state. This aspect considers factors such as access to quality education, healthcare facilities, and overall public health indicators. Higher scores generally signify better access to quality education, healthcare services, and overall public health. Lower scores may indicate deficiencies in these areas, such as limited access to healthcare or lower educational attainment levels.
• QualityOfLifeSafety: The score representing the safety aspect of the quality of life for the respective state. This aspect evaluates factors such as crime rates, public safety measures, and community well-being initiatives. Higher scores suggest lower crime rates, better community safety, and a higher sense of security among residents. Lower scores may indicate higher crime rates or concerns about safety.

These descriptions provide an overview of what each column represents and the specific aspects of quality of life they assess for each U.S. state.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Poverty (EQ5)

FULL MEASURE NAME The share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Poverty refers to the share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit, which varies based on the number of individuals in a given household. It reflects the number of individuals who are economically struggling due to low household income levels.

DATA SOURCE U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census http://www.nhgis.org (1980-1990) http://factfinder2.census.gov (2000)

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey Form C17002 (2006-2017) http://api.census.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) The U.S. Census Bureau defines a national poverty level (or household income) that varies by household size, number of children in a household, and age of householder. The national poverty level does not vary geographically even though cost of living is different across the United States. For the Bay Area, where cost of living is high and incomes are correspondingly high, an appropriate poverty level is 200% of poverty or twice the national poverty level, consistent with what was used for past equity work at MTC and ABAG. For comparison, however, both the national and 200% poverty levels are presented.

For Vital Signs, the poverty rate is defined as the number of people (including children) living below twice the poverty level divided by the number of people for whom poverty status is determined. Poverty rates do not include unrelated individuals below 15 years old or people who live in the following: institutionalized group quarters, college dormitories, military barracks, and situations without conventional housing. The household income definitions for poverty change each year to reflect inflation. The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). For the national poverty level definitions by year, see: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html For an explanation on how the Census Bureau measures poverty, see: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html

For the American Community Survey datasets, 1-year data was used for region, county, and metro areas whereas 5-year rolling average data was used for city and census tract.

To be consistent across metropolitan areas, the poverty definition for non-Bay Area metros is twice the national poverty level. Data were not adjusted for varying income and cost of living levels across the metropolitan areas.

In 2024, the annual cost for a private room in an assisted living facility in the U.S. amounted to ****** U.S. dollars. However, costs varied greatly from one state to another. The most expensive states for a private room in assisted living was found in Hawaii, followed by Alaska and DC.

Alabama cost of living for the counties with the lowest and highest MHI in Alabama (2022 U.S. Dollars).

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR
Poverty (EQ5)

FULL MEASURE NAME
The share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit

LAST UPDATED
January 2023

DESCRIPTION
Poverty refers to the share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit, which varies based on the number of individuals in a given household. It reflects the number of individuals who are economically struggling due to low household income levels.

DATA SOURCE
U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census - http://www.nhgis.org
1980-2000

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey - https://data.census.gov/
2007-2021
Form C17002

CONTACT INFORMATION
vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator)
The U.S. Census Bureau defines a national poverty level (or household income) that varies by household size, number of children in a household, and age of householder. The national poverty level does not vary geographically even though cost of living is different across the United States. For the Bay Area, where cost of living is high and incomes are correspondingly high, an appropriate poverty level is 200% of poverty or twice the national poverty level, consistent with what was used for past equity work at MTC and ABAG. For comparison, however, both the national and 200% poverty levels are presented.

For Vital Signs, the poverty rate is defined as the number of people (including children) living below twice the poverty level divided by the number of people for whom poverty status is determined. The household income definitions for poverty change each year to reflect inflation. The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or non-cash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid and food stamps).

For the national poverty level definitions by year, see: US Census Bureau Poverty Thresholds - https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html.

For an explanation on how the Census Bureau measures poverty, see: How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty - https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html.

American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year data is used for larger geographies – Bay counties and most metropolitan area counties – while smaller geographies rely upon 5-year rolling average data due to their smaller sample sizes. Note that 2020 data uses the 5-year estimates because the ACS did not collect 1-year data for 2020.

To be consistent across metropolitan areas, the poverty definition for non-Bay Area metros is twice the national poverty level. Data were not adjusted for varying income and cost of living levels across the metropolitan areas.

Of the most populous cities in the U.S., San Jose, California had the highest annual income requirement at ******* U.S. dollars annually for homeowners to have an affordable and comfortable life in 2024. This can be compared to Houston, Texas, where homeowners needed an annual income of ****** U.S. dollars in 2024.

Consumer Price Index CPI in the United States increased to 324.80 points in September from 323.98 points in August of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Consumer Price Index (CPI) - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

The Washington State University (WSU) Energy Program's Building America (BA) team conducted a case study of a high-performance affordable housing community: The Woods (Figure 1). This BA effort is part of a larger-scale study of 30 homes funded from 2013-2016 by Tacoma Public Utilities (TPU) and the Bonneville Power Administration. The Woods is a Habitat for Humanity (HFH) community of homes certified by ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest (ESHNW); the community is in the marine climate of Tacoma/Pierce County, Washington. This research report builds on an earlier preliminary draft 2014 BA report and includes significant billing analysis and cost-effectiveness research from a collaborative and ongoing DHP research effort for TPU and the Bonneville Power Administration. This final BA report focuses on the results of field testing, modeling, and monitoring of ductless mini-split heat pump hybrid heating systems in seven homes built and first occupied at various times between September 2013 and October 2014. The report also provides WSU documentation of high-performance home observations, lessons learned, and stakeholder recommendations for builders of affordable high-performance housing. The research goal of the U.S. Department of Energy's BA research team Building America Partnership for Improved Residential Construction was to compare a ductless heat pump (DHP) hybrid system (DHP in common area/electric resistance [ER] in bedrooms) to an all-electric zonal ER system in high-performance single-family affordable housing. This effort included assessing the costs and benefits of a DHP/ER hybrid system located in the main living area to offset the primary heating demand of zonal ER heaters in the bedroom zones and comparing these findings to data from of new affordable single-family housing in Washington State. This report includes: (1) Measured indoor and outdoor temperatures and relative humidity (RH) in the homes. (2) Field testing results of heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equipment; ventilation system airflows; building envelope tightness; lighting, appliance, and other input data required for preliminary Building Energy Optimization (BEopt) modeling; and ENERGY STAR field verification (3) BEopt modeling results compared to measured energy use. (4) A comparison of the space heat energy consumption of a DHP/ER hybrid heating system and a traditional zonal ER heating system installed in the same home. This comparison is made by implementing a series of weekly "flip-flop tests" (referred to here as "switchback" tests per TPU) to compare space heating, temperature, and RH in zonal ER heating mode with a DHP/ER mode as discussed in the Building America Test Plan (Lubliner 2010a). (5) Cost data from HFH and other sources related to building efficiency measures focusing on the DHP/ER hybrid heating system. (6) An evaluation of the thermal performance and cost benefit of DHP/ER hybrid heating systems in these high-performance homes employing life cycle cost analysis for energy code policy and monthly cash flow analysis of HFH homeowners. (7) Post-monitoring occupant survey results. The report also provides the following stakeholder findings and recommendations: (1) DHP single-head systems at The Woods are cost-effective to new homebuyers of these high-performance all-electric homes. (2) Stakeholder education is needed on design, inspection, and commissioning; documentation is needed for heat recovery ventilation (HRV) and from ENERGY STAR builders, verifiers, and inspectors to help ensure that the houses meet the goal of "build tight, ventilate right." (3) A code gap in inspection and enforcement was identified that should be addressed by: (3a) Improving the fire marshal's approach to sprinkler attic piping freeze protection; (3b) Improving the maintenance of ceiling insulation continuity; and (3c) Educating the local building inspector on attic insulation inspection concerns that allow for maximizing design improvements and performance of HRV attic ducting while ensuring ceiling insulation continuity (with respect to the location of HRV) in compliance with the Washington State Energy Code. 1 - The Woods Jameson - Tacoma, WA 2 - The Woods El Jeffe - Tacoma, WA

View monthly updates and historical trends for US Inflation Rate. from United States. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Track economic data with YCharts…