The Most Expensive Cities for Singles -- and the Cheapest
Looking for love in all the pricey places? Check out these lists of the most and least expensive cities for singles before you go on that next date or plan your next move. Looking good doesn’t come cheap, and the price of a decent wardrobe and a gym membership add ups before you even step out the door.
To determine which cities were the least and most affordable for singles, GoBankingRates examined 89 cities and rated them according to four expense categories -- clothing, dates, gym memberships and rent -- using data from Numbeo.com. “Singles are more likely to exercise, and to have a gym membership,” says Elyssa Kirkham, a finance writer for GoBankingRates. “They’re more likely to rent than own a home, and spend more money on dates and clothing.”
Related: Hot New Dating Criteria: What’s Your Credit Score?
San Francisco is the most expensive city for singles, especially when it comes to rent. Rent is 30 percent more expensive in San Francisco than it is in Honolulu. The cost of a date here is $147, compared with the median cost of $109. California just might be the most expensive state to date in, claiming seven of the top 15 spots: San Francisco, Fremont, Glendale, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and Oakland.
The second most expensive city? New York City, which boasts the most expensive gym membership at $90 per month. Clothing costs here are the second-highest in the nation -- bad news for all the Carrie Bradshaws out there. And date night will set you back $145.
The most expensive date night in the country is in Washington, D.C., which came in third overall. Date night in our nation’s capital costs $166 for dinner, a bottle of wine, two movie tickets and a 10-mile taxi ride. Compare that to Chattanooga, Tennessee, which had the cheapest date night at $78.
Looking for more bang for your buck? Move to Reno, Nevada. Rent here is just 86 cents per square foot, and a night out averages $97.30. Keep in mind, though, that “the Biggest Little City in the World” was once known as the divorce capital of the world, so dating there may offer less promise than other locales.
Related: The Bad News About All the Singles in America
Most Expensive Cities for Singles
- San Francisco
- New York
- Washington, D.C.
- Honolulu
- Boston
- Fremont, California
- Glendale, California
- Anchorage, Alaska
- Miami
- Seattle
- Irvine, California
- Los Angeles
- San Diego
- Oakland, California
- Madison, Wisconsin
Related: Marriage?? Young Americans Aren’t Even Shacking Up
15 Cheapest Cities for Singles
- Reno, Nevada
- Tucson, Arizona
- Grand Rapids, Michigan
- Tacoma, Washington
- Indianapolis
- Mesa, Arizona
- Little Rock, Arkansas
- Albuquerque, New Mexico
- Huntsville, Alabama
- Memphis, Tennessee
- St. Louis, Missouri
- Jackson, Mississippi
- Stockton, California
- Omaha, Nebraska
- Chattanooga, Tennessee
The 10 Worst States to Have a Baby
The birth rate in the U.S. is finally seeing an uptick after falling during the recession. Births tend to fall during hard economic times because having a baby and raising a child are expensive propositions.
Costs are not the same everywhere, though. Some states are better than others for family budgets, and health care quality varies widely from place to place.
A new report from WalletHub looks at the cost of delivering a baby in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as overall health care quality and the general “baby-friendliness” of each state – a mix of variables including average birth weights, pollution levels and the availability of child care.
Mississippi ranks as the worst state to have a baby, despite having the lowest average infant-care costs in the nation. Unfortunately, the Magnolia State also has the highest rate of infant deaths and one of lowest numbers of pediatricians per capita.
Related: Which States Have the Most Unwanted Babies?
On the other end of the scale, Vermont ranks as the best state for having a baby. Vermont has both the highest number of pediatricians and the highest number of child centers per capita. But before packing your bags, it’s worth considering the frigid winters in the Green Mountain State and the amount of money you’ll need to spend on winter clothing and heat.
Here are the 10 worst and 10 best states for having a baby:
Top 10 Worst States to Have a Baby
1. Mississippi
- Budget Rank: 18
- Health Care Rank: 51
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 29
2. Pennsylvania
- Budget Rank: 37
- Health Care Rank: 36
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 51
3. West Virginia
- Budget Rank: 13
- Health Care Rank: 48
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 50
4. South Carolina
- Budget Rank: 22
- Health Care Rank: 43
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 49
5. Nevada
- Budget Rank: 39
- Health Care Rank: 35
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 46
6. New York
- Budget Rank: 46
- Health Care Rank: 12
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 47
7. Louisiana
- Budget Rank: 8
- Health Care Rank: 50
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 26
8. Georgia
- Budget Rank: 6
- Health Care Rank: 46
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 43
9. Alabama
- Budget Rank: 3
- Health Care Rank: 47
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 44
10. Arkansas
- Budget Rank: 12
- Health Care Rank: 49
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 37
Top 10 Best States to Have a Baby
1. Vermont
- Budget Ranks: 17
- Health Care Rank: 1
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 5
2. North Dakota
- Budget Rank: 10
- Health Care Rank: 14
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 10
3. Oregon
- Budget Rank: 38
- Health Care Rank: 2
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 14
4. Hawaii
- Budget Rank: 31
- Health Care Rank: 25
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 1
5. Minnesota
- Budget Rank: 32
- Health Care Rank: 5
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 12
6. Kentucky
- Budget Rank: 1
- Health Care Rank: 33
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 20
7. Maine
- Budget Rank: 25
- Health Care Rank: 10
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 15
8. Wyoming
- Budget Rank: 22
- Health Care Rank: 17
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 7
9. Iowa
- Budget Rank: 14
- Health Care Rank: 25
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 9
10. Alaska
- Budget Rank: 50
- Health Care Rank: 6
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 2
Top Reads From The Fiscal Times
- The 10 Worst States for Property Taxes
- Americans Are About to Get a Nice Fat Pay Raise
- You’re Richer Than You Think. Really.
Worried About a Recession? Here’s When the Next Slump Will Hit
The next recession may be coming sooner than you think.
Eleven of the 31 economists recently surveyed by Bloomberg believed the American recession would hit in 2018, and all but two of them expected the recession to begin within the next five years.
If the recession begins in 2018, the expansion would have lasted nine years, making it the second-longest period of growth in U.S. history after the decade-long expansion that ended when the tech bubble burst in 2001. This average postwar expansion averages about five years.
The recent turmoil in the stock market and the slowdown in China has more investors and analysts using the “R-word,” but the economists surveyed by Bloomberg think we have a bit of time. They pegged the chance of recession over the next 12 months to just 10 percent.
Related: Stocks Are Sending a Recession Warning
While economists talk about the next official recession, many average Americans feel like they’re still climbing out of the last one. In a data brief released last week, the National Employment Law Project found that wages have declined since 2009 for most U.S. workers, when factoring in cost of living increases.
A full jobs recovery is at least two years away, according to an analysis by economist Elise Gould with the Economic Policy Institute. “Wage growth needs to be stronger—and consistently strong for a solid spell—before we can call this a healthy economy,” she wrote in a recent blog post.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- This CEO Makes 1,951 Times More Than Most of His Workers
- Seven Reasons Why the Fed Won’t Hike Interest Rates
- $42 Million for 54 Recruits: U.S. Program to Train Syrian Rebels Is a Disaster