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.

A list of the top 50 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co holdings showing which stocks are owned by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co's hedge fund.

Cost comparison table showing 2023 and 2024 median costs by location

How racially diverse are residents in Massachusetts? This topic shows the demographic breakdown of residents by race/ethnicity and the increases in the Non-white population since 2010.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Non-Hispanic population of Plymouth County by race. It includes the distribution of the Non-Hispanic population of Plymouth County across various race categories as identified by the Census Bureau. The dataset can be utilized to understand the Non-Hispanic population distribution of Plymouth County across relevant racial categories.

Key observations

Of the Non-Hispanic population in Plymouth County, the largest racial group is White alone with a population of 408,417 (80.58% of the total Non-Hispanic population).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Racial categories include:

• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• Some other race
• Two or more races (multiracial)

Variables / Data Columns

• Race: This column displays the racial categories (for Non-Hispanic) for the Plymouth County
• Population: The population of the racial category (for Non-Hispanic) in the Plymouth County is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each race as a proportion of Plymouth County total Non-Hispanic population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Plymouth County Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 14 counties in the Massachusetts by French Canadian population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each county over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by French Canadian Population: This column displays the rank of county in the Massachusetts by their French Canadian population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• County: The County for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• French Canadian Population: The French Canadian population of the county is shown in this column.
• % of Total County Population: This shows what percentage of the total county population identifies as French Canadian. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Massachusetts French Canadian Population: This tells us how much of the entire Massachusetts French Canadian population lives in that county. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: This column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 53 cities in the Middlesex County, MA by Liberian population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each city over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Liberian Population: This column displays the rank of city in the Middlesex County, MA by their Liberian population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• City: The City for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Liberian Population: The Liberian population of the city is shown in this column.
• % of Total City Population: This shows what percentage of the total city population identifies as Liberian. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Middlesex County Liberian Population: This tells us how much of the entire Middlesex County, MA Liberian population lives in that city. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: This column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

The 2015 TIGER Geodatabases are extracts of selected nation based and state based geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) database. The geodatabases include feature class layers of information for the fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Island areas (American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands). The geodatabases do not contain any sensitive data. The 2015 TIGER Geodatabases are designed for use with Esriâ s ArcGIS.

        The 2015 State Geodatabase for Massachusetts geodatabase contains multiple layers. These layers are the Block, Block Group, Census Designated Place, Census Tract, County Subdivision and
        Incorporated Place layers.

        Block Groups (BGs) are clusters of blocks within the same census tract. Each census tract contains at least one BG, and BGs are uniquely numbered
        within census tracts. BGs have a valid code range of 0 through 9. BGs have the same first digit of their 4-digit census block number from the same
        decennial census. For example, tabulation blocks numbered 3001, 3002, 3003,.., 3999 within census tract 1210.02 are also within BG 3 within that
        census tract. BGs coded 0 are intended to only include water area, no land area, and they are generally in territorial seas, coastal water, and
        Great Lakes water areas. Block groups generally contain between 600 and 3,000 people. A BG usually covers a contiguous area but never crosses
        county or census tract boundaries. They may, however, cross the boundaries of other geographic entities like county subdivisions, places, urban
        areas, voting districts, congressional districts, and American Indian / Alaska Native / Native Hawaiian areas. 

        The BG boundaries in this release are those that were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the
        2010 Census. 

        The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of census data and comparison back to
        previous decennial censuses. Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people.
        When first delineated, census tracts were designed to be homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living
        conditions. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Physical changes in street patterns caused by
        highway construction, new development, and so forth, may require boundary revisions. In addition, census tracts occasionally are split due to
        population growth, or combined as a result of substantial population decline. Census tract boundaries generally follow visible and identifiable
        features. They may follow legal boundaries such as minor civil division (MCD) or incorporated place boundaries in some States and situations to
        allow for census tract-to-governmental unit relationships where the governmental boundaries tend to remain unchanged between censuses. State and
        county boundaries always are census tract boundaries in the standard census geographic hierarchy. In a few rare instances, a census tract may
        consist of noncontiguous areas. These noncontiguous areas may occur where the census tracts are coextensive with all or parts of legal entities
        that are themselves noncontiguous. For the 2010 Census, the census tract code range of 9400 through 9499 was enforced for census tracts that
        include a majority American Indian population according to Census 2000 data and/or their area was primarily covered by federally recognized American
        Indian reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands; the code range 9800 through 9899 was enforced for those census tracts that contained little
        or no population and represented a relatively large special land use area such as a National Park, military installation, or a business/industrial
        park; and the code range 9900 through 9998 was enforced for those census tracts that contained only water area, no land area. 

        An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a minor civil division (MCD),
        which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without regard, necessarily, to population. Places always nest within a state,
        but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. An incorporated place usually is a city, town, village, or borough, but can have
        other legal descriptions. CDPs are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. CDPs are delineated
        to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state
        in which they are located. The boundaries for CDPs often are defined in partnership with state, local, and/or tribal officials and usually coincide
        with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity. CDP boundaries often change from one decennial
        census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern and development; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily
        have the same boundary. The only population/housing size requirement for CDPs is that they must contain some housing and population. 

        The boundaries of most incorporated places in this shapefile are as of January 1, 2013, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and
        Annexation Survey (BAS). Limited updates that occurred after January 1, 2013, such as newly incorporated places, are also included. The boundaries
        of all CDPs were delineated as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2010 Census.

        The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no
        counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The
        latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri,
        Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary
        divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data
        presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data
        presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto
        Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin
        Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. 

        The boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are mostly as of January 1, 2013, primarily as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and
        Annexation Survey (BAS). However, some changes made after January 2013, including the addition and deletion of counties, are included.

        County subdivisions are the primary divisions of counties and their equivalent entities for the reporting of Census Bureau data. They include
        legally-recognized minor civil divisions (MCDs) and statistical census county divisions (CCDs), and unorganized territories. For the 2010 Census,
        the MCDs are the primary governmental and/or administrative divisions of counties in 29 States and Puerto Rico; Tennessee changed from having CCDs
        for Census 2000 to having MCDs for the 2010 Census. In MCD States where no MCD exists or is not defined, the Census Bureau creates statistical
        unorganized territories to complete coverage. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas are covered by county
        subdivisions. The boundaries of most legal MCDs are as of January 1, 2013, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey
        (BAS). 

        The boundaries of all CCDs, delineated in 21 states, are those as reported as part of the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program
        (PSAP) for the 2010 Census.

Cost comparison table showing 2023 and 2024 median costs by location

Data, statistics and adopted local options related to property taxes

Cost comparison table showing 2023 and 2024 median costs by location

Cost comparison table showing 2023 and 2024 median costs by location