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 84.8 - well below the national benchmark of 100. Nevada - which had an index value of 100.1 - 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 427,000 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 200,000 U.S. dollars. That makes living costs in these states significantly lower than in states such as Hawaii and California, where housing is much more expensive. 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 500 U.S. dollars. That was because of the significantly higher prices for electricity and natural gas in these states.

Graph and download economic data for Estimated Mean Real Household Wages Adjusted by Cost of Living for Lake County, IL (MWACL17097) from 2009 to 2023 about Lake County, IL; Chicago; adjusted; IL; average; wages; real; and USA.

Ireland: Cost of living index, world average = 100: The latest value from 2021 is 175.68 index points, an increase from 157.19 index points in 2017. In comparison, the world average is 79.81 index points, based on data from 165 countries. Historically, the average for Ireland from 2017 to 2021 is 166.44 index points. The minimum value, 157.19 index points, was reached in 2017 while the maximum of 175.68 index points was recorded in 2021.

YouTube and TikTok are the most popular social networks among Generation X for finding helpful content on the cost of living crisis in the United States in 2023. While 56 percent of YouTube users state they find helpful content there, it's 47 percent among TikTok users respectively.

Living Cost: Average per Month: VR: Samara Region data was reported at 10,962.000 RUB in Dec 2020. This records a decrease from the previous number of 11,163.000 RUB for Sep 2020. Living Cost: Average per Month: VR: Samara Region data is updated quarterly, averaging 6,476.000 RUB from Dec 2001 (Median) to Dec 2020, with 77 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 11,163.000 RUB in Sep 2020 and a record low of 1,661.000 RUB in Dec 2001. Living Cost: Average per Month: VR: Samara Region data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal State Statistics Service. The data is categorized under Russia Premium Database’s Household Survey – Table RU.HF001: Living Cost.

Graph and download economic data for Estimated Mean Real Household Wages Adjusted by Cost of Living for Marion County, OH (MWACL39101) from 2016 to 2023 about Marion County, OH; adjusted; OH; average; wages; real; and USA.

People in Great Britain's experiences of and actions following increases in their costs of living, and how these differed by a range of personal characteristics.

The cost of living is spiraling. Prices are going up, household expenses are rising, and the U.S. inflation rate reached a 40-year record high in 2023. Many consumers are looking for new ways to deal with this situation and refer to social media for support. So, which social media platforms have the most helpful content to deal with the current cost of living crisis in the U.S.? According to an exclusive survey by We Are Social and Statista Q, around 61 percent of TikTok users in the United States find helpful content there. Coming on number second is YouTube, as 56 percent of YouTube users find life hacks, tricks, money saving tips and other suitable advice to deal with inflation in 2023.

There is more to housing affordability than the rent or mortgage you pay. Transportation costs are the second-biggest budget item for most families, but it can be difficult for people to fully factor transportation costs into decisions about where to live and work. The Location Affordability Index (LAI) is a user-friendly source of standardized data at the neighborhood (census tract) level on combined housing and transportation costs to help consumers, policymakers, and developers make more informed decisions about where to live, work, and invest. Compare eight household profiles (see table below) —which vary by household income, size, and number of commuters—and see the impact of the built environment on affordability in a given location while holding household demographics constant.*$11,880 for a single person household in 2016 according to US Dept. of Health and Human Services: https://aspe.hhs.gov/computations-2016-poverty-guidelinesThis layer is symbolized by the percentage of housing and transportation costs as a percentage of income for the Median-Income Family profile, but the costs as a percentage of income for all household profiles are listed in the pop-up:Also available is a gallery of 8 web maps (one for each household profile) all symbolized the same way for easy comparison: Median-Income Family, Very Low-Income Individual, Working Individual, Single Professional, Retired Couple, Single-Parent Family, Moderate-Income Family, and Dual-Professional Family.An accompanying story map provides side-by-side comparisons and additional context.--Variables used in HUD's calculations include 24 measures such as people per household, average number of rooms per housing unit, monthly housing costs (mortgage/rent as well as utility and maintenance expenses), average number of cars per household, median commute distance, vehicle miles traveled per year, percent of trips taken on transit, street connectivity and walkability (measured by block density), and many more.To learn more about the Location Affordability Index (v.3) visit: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/location-affordability-index/. There you will find some background and an FAQ page, which includes the question:"Manhattan, San Francisco, and downtown Boston are some of the most expensive places to live in the country, yet the LAI shows them as affordable for the typical regional household. Why?" These areas have some of the lowest transportation costs in the country, which helps offset the high cost of housing. The area median income (AMI) in these regions is also high, so when costs are shown as a percent of income for the typical regional household these neighborhoods appear affordable; however, they are generally unaffordable to households earning less than the AMI.Date of Coverage: 2012-2016 Date Released: March 2019Date Downloaded from HUD Open Data: 4/18/19Further Documentation:LAI Version 3 Data and MethodologyLAI Version 3 Technical Documentation_**The documentation below is in reference to this items placement in the NM Supply Chain Data Hub. The documentation is of use to understanding the source of this item, and how to reproduce it for updates**

Title: Location Affordability Index - NMCDC Copy

Summary: This layer contains the Location Affordability Index from U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - standardized household, housing, and transportation cost estimates by census tract for 8 household profiles.

Notes: This map is copied from source map: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de341c1338c5447da400c4e8c51ae1f6, created by dianaclavery_uo, and identified in Living Atlas.

Prepared by: dianaclavery_uo, copied by EMcRae_NMCDC

Source: This map is copied from source map: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de341c1338c5447da400c4e8c51ae1f6, created by dianaclavery_uo, and identified in Living Atlas. Check the source documentation or other details above for more information about data sources.

Feature Service: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=447a461f048845979f30a2478b9e65bb

UID: 73

Data Requested: Family income spent on basic need

Method of Acquisition: Search for Location Affordability Index in the Living Atlas. Make a copy of most recent map available. To update this map, copy the most recent map available. In a new tab, open the AGOL Assistant Portal tool and use the functions in the portal to copy the new maps JSON, and paste it over the old map (this map with item id

Date Acquired: Map copied on May 10, 2022

Priority rank as Identified in 2022 (scale of 1 being the highest priority, to 11 being the lowest priority): 6

Tags: PENDING

Graph and download economic data for Estimated Mean Real Household Wages Adjusted by Cost of Living for Mercer County, NJ (MWACL34021) from 2009 to 2023 about Mercer County, NJ; Trenton; adjusted; NJ; average; wages; real; and USA.

This statistic illustrates the most popular social networks among Millennials for finding the most relevant content on the cost of living crisis in the United States in 2023. According to a survey by We Are Social and Statista Q, 61 percent of Millennials who use TikTok find the most relevant content over there, followed by another 59 percent of the consumers who use YouTube.

This dataset contains Saudi Arabia Cost of living Indices by Main Expenditure Divisions. Data from General Authority for Statistics . Follow datasource.kapsarc.org for timely data to advance energy economics research.

-Base Year 2007

-Preliminary Data in 2017

In 2023, the spatial cost of living index (SCOLI) in the Mekong River Delta in Vietnam was estimated at 95.93 index points. In that year, the SCOLI for the central highlands and the southeast areas was 97.67 and 99.97 index points, respectively.

The average for 2021 based on 10 countries was 59.91 index points. The highest value was in Singapore: 118.34 index points and the lowest value was in India: 40.44 index points. The indicator is available from 2017 to 2021. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Graph and download economic data for Estimated Mean Real Household Wages Adjusted by Cost of Living for Johnson County, IA (MWACL19103) from 2009 to 2023 about Johnson County, IA; Iowa City; adjusted; IA; average; wages; real; and USA.

。Average Monthly Household Income and Receipt: Bekasi Municipality: Income and Receipt Group: IDR 700,000 - IDR 799,999数据按每年更新，2012至2012期间平均值为750,000.000 IDR，共1份观测结果。CEIC提供的Average Monthly Household Income and Receipt: Bekasi Municipality: Income and Receipt Group: IDR 700,000 - IDR 799,999数据处于定期更新的状态，数据来源于Central Bureau of Statistics，数据归类于Indonesia Premium Database的Domestic Trade and Household Survey – Table ID.HB003: Cost of Living Survey (SBH-2012): Average Monthly Household Income and Receipt: by Cities and by Income Group。

。Average Monthly Household Expenditure: Ambon Municipality: Income and Receipt Group: IDR 1,500,000 - IDR 1,999,999数据按每年更新，2012至2012期间平均值为2,373,239.000 IDR，共1份观测结果。CEIC提供的Average Monthly Household Expenditure: Ambon Municipality: Income and Receipt Group: IDR 1,500,000 - IDR 1,999,999数据处于定期更新的状态，数据来源于Central Bureau of Statistics，数据归类于Indonesia Premium Database的Domestic Trade and Household Survey – Table ID.HB004: Cost of Living Survey (SBH-2012): Average Monthly Household Expenditure: by Cities and by Income Group。

Around 64 percent of U.S. consumers spend less on non-essentials amidst the ongoing cost of living crisis in 2023. This is according to a survey conducted by We are Social and Statista Q, which shows that rising inflation rates have caused around a similar percentage of customers to pay more attention to bargains, good deals, or offers (when going shopping). Furthermore, around 39 percent of U.S. consumers do not go out for dinner/lunch anymore to deal with the situation.

Abstract

China Living Standards Survey (CLSS) consists of one household survey and one community (village) survey, conducted in Hebei and Liaoning Provinces (northern and northeast China) in July 1995 and July 1997 respectively. Five villages from each three sample counties of each province were selected (six were selected in Liaoyang County of Liaoning Province because of administrative area change). About 880 farm households were selected from total thirty-one sample villages for the household survey. The same thirty-one villages formed the samples of community survey. This document provides information on the content of different questionnaires, the survey design and implementation, data processing activities, and the different available data sets.

Geographic coverage

The China Living Standards Survey (CLSS) was conducted only in Hebei and Liaoning Provinces (northern and northeast China).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The CLSS sample is not a rigorous random sample drawn from a well-defined population. Instead it is only a rough approximation of the rural population in Hebei and Liaoning provinces in Northeastern China. The reason for this is that part of the motivation for the survey was to compare the current conditions with conditions that existed in Hebei and Liaoning in the 1930’s. Because of this, three counties in Hebei and three counties in Liaoning were selected as "primary sampling units" because data had been collected from those six counties by the Japanese occupation government in the 1930’s. Within each of these six counties (xian) five villages (cun) were selected, for an overall total of 30 villages (in fact, an administrative change in one village led to 31 villages being selected). In each county a "main village" was selected that was in fact a village that had been surveyed in the 1930s. Because of the interest in these villages 50 households were selected from each of these six villages (one for each of the six counties). In addition, four other villages were selected in each county. These other villages were not drawn randomly but were selected so as to "represent" variation within the county. Within each of these villages 20 households were selected for interviews. Thus the intended sample size was 780 households, 130 from each county.

Unlike county and village selection, the selection of households within each village was done according to standard sample selection procedures. In each village, a list of all households in the village was obtained from village leaders. An "interval" was calculated as the number of the households in the village divided by the number of households desired for the sample (50 for main villages and 20 for other villages). For the list of households, a random number was drawn between 1 and the interval number. This was used as a starting point. The interval was then added to this number to get a second number, then the interval was added to this second number to get a third number, and so on. The set of numbers produced were the numbers used to select the households, in terms of their order on the list.

In fact, the number of households in the sample is 785, as opposed to 780. Most of this difference is due to a village in which 24 households were interviewed, as opposed to the goal of 20 households

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Household Questionnaire

The household questionnaire contains sections that collect data on household demographic structure, education, housing conditions, land, agricultural management, household non-agricultural business, household expenditures, gifts, remittances and other income sources, and saving and loans. For some sections (general household information, schooling, housing, gift-exchange, remittance, other income, and credit and savings) the individual designated by the household members as the household head provided responses. For some other sections (farm land, agricultural management, family-run non-farm business, and household consumption expenditure) a member identified as the most knowledgeable provided responses. Identification codes for respondents of different sections indicate who provided the information. In sections where the information collected pertains to individuals (employment), whenever possible, each member of the household was asked to respond for himself or herself, except that parents were allowed to respond for younger children. Therefore, in the case of the employment section it is possible that the information was not provided by the relevant person; variables in this section indicate when this is true.

The household questionnaire was completed in a one-time interview in the summer of 1995. The survey was designed so that more sensitive issues such as credit and savings were discussed near the end. The content of each section is briefly described below.

Section 0 SURVEY INFORMATION

This section mainly summarizes the results of the survey visits. The following information was entered into the computer: whether the survey and the data entry were completed, codes of supervisor’s brief comments on interviewer, data entry operator, and related revising suggestion (e.g., 1. good, 2. revise at office, and 3. re-interview needed). Information about the date of interview, the names of interviewer, supervisor, data enterer, and detail notes of interviewer and supervisor were not entered into the computer.

Section 1 GENERAL HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION

1A HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE 1B INFORMATION ABOUT THE HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS’ PARENTS 1C INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT LIVING IN HOME

Section 1A lists the personal id code, sex, relationship to the household head, ethnic group, type of resident permit (agricultural [nongye], non-agricultural [fei nongye], or no resident permit), date of birth, marital status of all people who spent the previous night in that household and for household members who are temporarily away from home. The household head is listed first and receives the personal id code 1. Household members were defined to include “all the people who normally live and eat their meals together in this dwelling.” Those who were absent more than nine of the last twelve months were excluded, except for the head of household. For individuals who are married and whose spouse resides in the household, the personal id number of the spouse is noted. By doing so, information on the spouse can be collected by appropriately merging information from the section 1A and other parts of the survey.

Section 1B collects information on the parents of all household members. For individuals whose parents reside in the household, parents’ personal id numbers are noted, and information can be obtained by appropriately merging information from other parts of the survey. For individuals whose parents do not reside in the household, information is recorded on whether each parent is alive, as well as their schooling and occupation.

Section 1C collects information for children of household members who are not living in home. Children who have died are not included. The information on the name, sex, types of resident permit, age, education level, education cost, reasons not living in home, current living place, and type of job of each such child is recorded.

Section 2 SCHOOLING

In Section 2, information about literacy and numeracy, school attendance, completion, and current enrollment for all household members of preschool age and older. The interpretation of pre-school age appears to have varied, with the result that while education information is available for some children of pre-school age, not all pre-school children were included in this section. But for ages 6 and above information is available for nearly all individuals, so in essence the data on schooling can be said to apply all persons 6 age and above. For those who were enrolled in school at the time of the survey, information was also collected on school attendance, expenses, and scholarships. If applicable, information on serving as an apprentice, technical or professional training was also collected.

Section 3 EMPLOYMENT

3A GENERAL INFORMATION 3B MAJOR NON-FARM JOB IN 1994 3C THE SECOND NON-FARM JOB IN 1994 3D OTHER EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES IN 1994 3E SEARCHING FOR NON-FARM JOB 3F PROCESS FOR GETTING MAJOR NON-FARM JOB 3G CORVEE LABOR

All individuals age thirteen and above were asked to respond to the employment activity questions in Section 3. Section 3A collects general information on farm and non-farm employment, such as whether or not the household member worked on household own farm in 1994, when was the last year the member worked on own farm if he/she did not work in 1994, work days and hours during busy season, occupation and sector codes of the major, second, and third non-farm jobs, work days and total income of these non-farm jobs. There is a variable which indicates whether or not the individual responded for himself or herself.

Sections 3B and 3C collect detailed information on the major and the second non-farm job. Information includes number of months worked and which month in 1994 the member worked on these jobs, average works days (or hours) per month (per day), total number of years worked for these jobs by the end of 1994, different components of income, type of employment contracts. Information on employer’s ownership type and location was also collected.

Section 3D collects information on average hours spent doing chores and housework at home every day during non-busy and busy season. The chores refer to cooking, laundry, cleaning, shopping, cutting woods, as well as small-scale farm yard animals raising, for example, pigs or chickens. Large-scale animal

。Average Monthly Household Expenditure: Bima Municipality: Income and Receipt Group: IDR 3,000,000 - IDR 3,999,999数据按每年更新，2012至2012期间平均值为3,353,986.000 IDR，共1份观测结果。CEIC提供的Average Monthly Household Expenditure: Bima Municipality: Income and Receipt Group: IDR 3,000,000 - IDR 3,999,999数据处于定期更新的状态，数据来源于Central Bureau of Statistics，数据归类于Indonesia Premium Database的Domestic Trade and Household Survey – Table ID.HB004: Cost of Living Survey (SBH-2012): Average Monthly Household Expenditure: by Cities and by Income Group。