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.

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.

The average for 2021 based on 165 countries was 79.81 index points. The highest value was in Bermuda: 212.7 index points and the lowest value was in Syria: 33.25 index points. The indicator is available from 2017 to 2021. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

In March 2025, 66 percent of households in Great Britain reported that their cost of living had increased in the previous month, compared with 45 percent in July 2024. Although the share of people reporting a cost of living increase has generally been falling since August 2022, when 91 percent of households reported an increase, the most recent figures indicate that the Cost of Living Crisis is still ongoing for many households in the UK. Crisis ligers even as inflation falls Although various factors have been driving the Cost of Living Crisis in Britain, high inflation has undoubtedly been one of the main factors. After several years of relatively low inflation, the CPI inflation rate shot up from 2021 onwards, hitting a high of 11.1 percent in October 2022. In the months since that peak, inflation has fallen to more usual levels, and was 2.5 percent in December 2024, slightly up from 1.7 percent in September. Since June 2023, wages have also started to grow at a faster rate than inflation, albeit after a long period where average wages were falling relative to overall price increases. Economy continues to be the main issue for voters Ahead of the last UK general election, the economy was consistently selected as the main issue for voters for several months. Although the Conservative Party was seen by voters as the best party for handling the economy before October 2022, this perception collapsed following the market's reaction to Liz Truss' mini-budget. Even after changing their leader from Truss to Rishi Sunak, the Conservatives continued to fall in the polls, and would go onto lose the election decisively. Since the election, the economy remains the most important issue in the UK, although it was only slightly ahead of immigration and health as of January 2025.

As of September 2024, Mumbai had the highest cost of living among other cities in the country, with an index value of 26.5. Gurgaon, a satellite city of Delhi and part of the National Capital Region (NCR) followed it with an index value of 25.1.  What is cost of living? The cost of living varies depending on geographical regions and factors that affect the cost of living in an area include housing, food, utilities, clothing, childcare, and fuel among others. The cost of living is calculated based on different measures such as the consumer price index (CPI), living cost indexes, and wage price index. CPI refers to the change in the value of consumer goods and services. The wage price index, on the other hand, measures the change in labor services prices due to market pressures. Lastly, the living cost indexes calculate the impact of changing costs on different households. The relationship between wages and costs determines affordability and shifts in the cost of living. Mumbai tops the list Mumbai usually tops the list of most expensive cities in India. As the financial and entertainment hub of the country, Mumbai offers wide opportunities and attracts talent from all over the country. It is the second-largest city in India and has one of the most expensive real estates in the world.

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

Malaysia MOF Projection: CGE: Current: SS: Travel Expenses &Cost of Living data was reported at 908.286 MYR mn in 2019. This records a decrease from the previous number of 986.314 MYR mn for 2018. Malaysia MOF Projection: CGE: Current: SS: Travel Expenses &Cost of Living data is updated yearly, averaging 1,286.611 MYR mn from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2019, with 9 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 2,491.400 MYR mn in 2013 and a record low of 754.463 MYR mn in 2017. Malaysia MOF Projection: CGE: Current: SS: Travel Expenses &Cost of Living data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Ministry of Finance. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Malaysia – Table MY.F007: Central Government Expenditure: Annual: Projection: Ministry of Finance.

South Korea's capital Seoul had the highest cost of living among megacities in the Asia-Pacific region in 2024, with an index score of 70.3. Japan's capital Tokyo followed with a cost of living index score of 57.4. AffordabilityIn terms of housing affordability, Chinese megacity Shanghai had the highest rent index score in 2024. Affordability has become an issue in certain megacities across the Asia-Pacific region, with accommodation proving expensive. Next to Shanghai, Japanese capital Tokyo and South Korean capital Seoul boast some of the highest rent indices in the region. Increased opportunities in megacitiesAs the biggest region in the world, it is not surprising that the Asia-Pacific region is home to 28 megacities as of January 2024, with expectations that this number will dramatically increase by 2030. The growing number of megacities in the Asia-Pacific region can be attributed to raised levels of employment and living conditions. Cities such as Tokyo, Shanghai, and Beijing have become economic and industrial hubs. Subsequently, these cities have forged a reputation as being the in-trend places to live among the younger generations. This reputation has also pushed them to become enticing to tourists, with Tokyo displaying increased numbers of tourists throughout recent years, which in turn has created more job opportunities for inhabitants. As well as Tokyo, Shanghai has benefitted from the increased tourism, and has demonstrated an increasing population. A big factor in this population increase could be due to the migration of citizens to the city, seeking better employment possibilities.

Kuwait Social Security Funds Expenditure: Current: TH: Cost of Living Allowance data was reported at 197.680 KWD mn in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 189.380 KWD mn for 2015. Kuwait Social Security Funds Expenditure: Current: TH: Cost of Living Allowance data is updated yearly, averaging 162.520 KWD mn from Mar 2008 (Median) to 2016, with 9 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 197.680 KWD mn in 2016 and a record low of 11.020 KWD mn in 2008. Kuwait Social Security Funds Expenditure: Current: TH: Cost of Living Allowance data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Central Statistical Bureau. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Kuwait – Table KW.F007: Social Security Funds Revenue and Expenditure.

The City of Toronto monitors food affordability every year using the Ontario Nutritious Food Basket (ONFB) costing tool. Food prices, among other essential needs, have increased considerably in the last several years. People receiving social assistance and earning low wages often do not have enough money to cover the cost of basic expenses, including food. As such, ONFB data is best used to assess the cost of living in Toronto by analyzing food affordability in relation to income, alongside other local basic expenses. The dataset describes the affordability of food and other basic expenses relative to income for 13 household scenarios. Scenarios were selected to reflect household characteristics that increase the risk of being food insecure, including reliance on social assistance as the main source of income, single-parent households, and rental housing. A median income scenario has also been included as a comparator. Income, including federal and provincial tax benefits, and the cost of four basic living expenses - rent food, childcare, and transportation - are estimated for each scenario. Results show the estimated amount of money remaining at the end of the month for each household. Three versions of the scenarios were created to describe: Income scenarios with subsidies: Subsidies can substantially reduce a households’ monthly expenses. Local subsidies for rent (Rent-Geared-to-Income), childcare (Childcare Fee Subsidy), and transit (Fair Pass) are accounted for in this file. Income scenarios without subsidies + average market rent: In this file, rental costs are based on average market rent, as measured by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). Income scenarios without subsidies + current market rent: Rental costs are based on current market rent (as of October 2023), as measured by the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB). All values are rounded to the nearest dollar.

Introduction

Social Security Statistics: Social Security is a government program that helps people in the U.S. with money when they retire, become disabled, or lose a family provider. It was made to give people and families a steady income, especially when they can’t work anymore or face tough times. In 2024, millions of Americans depend on Social Security to cover basic needs like food, housing, and healthcare.

Taxes from workers and employers pay for the program. Over time, people earn benefits based on how much they’ve worked and contributed to Social Security. This article includes several current trends and analyses from different insights that will explain the main parts of Social Security, how it works, and why it's so important in 2024.

The City of Toronto monitors the affordability of food annually using the Nutritious Food Basket (NFB) costing tool. Food prices, among other essential needs, have increased considerably in the last several years. People receiving social assistance and earning low wages often do not have enough money to cover the cost of basic expenses, including food. As such, NFB data is best used to monitor affordability in relation to income alongside other local basic expenses. The dataset describes the affordability of food and other basic expenses relative to income for 11 household scenarios. Scenarios were selected to reflect household characteristics that increase the risk of being food insecure, including reliance on social assistance as the main source of income, single-parent households, and rental housing. A median income scenario has also been included as a comparator. Income, including federal and provincial tax benefits, and the cost of four basic living expenses - shelter, food, childcare, and transportation - are estimated for each scenario. Results show the estimated amount of money remaining at the end of the month for each household. Three versions of the scenarios were created to describe: Income scenarios with subsidies: Subsidies can substantially reduce a households’ monthly expenses. Local subsidies for rent (Rent-Geared-to-Income), childcare (Childcare Fee Subsidy), and transit (Fair Pass) are accounted for in this file. Income scenarios without subsidies + average market rent: In this file, rental costs are based on average market rent, as measured by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). Income scenarios without subsidies + current market rent: Rental costs are based on current market rent (as of October 2022), as measured by the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB).

Although consumers around the globe wish to help protect the environment in 2022, many of them feel the current cost of living prevents them from doing so. Specifically, about two-thirds of global consumers reported wanting to do more, but that the cost of living is preventative. This sentiment was felt most in countries like Brazil and India.

Consumer Price Index CPI in the United States increased to 320.80 points in April from 319.80 points in March 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.

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

SIA206 - Impact of Cost of Living Measures on Income and Poverty Rates. Published by Central Statistics Office. Available under the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY-4.0).Impact of Cost of Living Measures on Income and Poverty Rates...

Monthly indexes and percentage changes for all components and special aggregates of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), not seasonally adjusted, for Canada, provinces, Whitehorse, Yellowknife and Iqaluit. Data are presented for the corresponding month of the previous year, the previous month and the current month. The base year for the index is 2002=100.

Damascus in Syria was ranked as the least expensive city worldwide in 2023, with an index score of ** out of 100. The country has been marred by civil war over the last decade, hitting the country's economy hard. Other cities in the Middle East and North Africa, such as Tehran, Tripoli, and Tunis, are also present on the list. On the other hand, Singapore and Zurich were ranked the most expensive cities in the world.

SIA202 - Impact of Cost of Living Measures on Income and Poverty Rates. Published by Central Statistics Office. Available under the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY-4.0).Impact of Cost of Living Measures on Income and Poverty Rates...

Market Expectation: Price Indices: Consumer Price Index (IPC-FIPE): Current Calendar Year: Standard Deviation data was reported at 0.450 % in Jun 2019. This records a decrease from the previous number of 0.490 % for May 2019. Market Expectation: Price Indices: Consumer Price Index (IPC-FIPE): Current Calendar Year: Standard Deviation data is updated monthly, averaging 0.380 % from Jan 2000 (Median) to Jun 2019, with 234 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.670 % in Feb 2003 and a record low of 0.030 % in Nov 2017. Market Expectation: Price Indices: Consumer Price Index (IPC-FIPE): Current Calendar Year: Standard Deviation data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Central Bank of Brazil. The data is categorized under Brazil Premium Database’s Business and Economic Survey – Table BR.SB018: Market Expectation: Price Indices: Consumer Price Index (IPC-FIPE). Market Expectations System was implemented in November 2001, previous projections were collected from incipient through telephone contacts, transcribed into spreadsheets and consolidated manually. Some empty time points occurred because the Market didn´t have the expectation for those days. Researched in the city of São Paulo, reflects the cost of living of families with income from 1 to 20 minimum wages.