According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, here are the 10 U.S. metro areas with the highest cost of living:
1. San Francisco
2. Miami
3. Los Angeles
4. New York
5. Napa
6. San Diego
7. Seattle
8. Honolulu
9. Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura
10. San Jose
https://apps.bea.gov/itable/index.html?appid=70&stepnum=40&Major_Area=5&State=5&Area=XX&TableId=104&Statistic=1&Year=2024&YearBegin=-1&Year_End=-1&Unit_Of_Measure=Levels&Rank=1&Drill=1&nRange=5
Others of note ...
15. Washington
19. Boston
31. Minneapolis-St. Paul
41. Chicago
66. Kenosha
122. Charlotte
125. Madison
130. Milwaukee
Miami is utterly amazing. When we were looking for our first home in Florida, condos in Miami Beach were almost being given away. Miami was a disaster area!
Times have changed and we are somewhat older!
Money laundering is easier there now
Now you have to pay for all of the long neglected repairs to all of those condos. And the homeowner insurance premiums.
Yeah, I was surprised to see Miami higher than NY, LA and others.
Could this just be because the most expensive houses in Miami are insanely expensive?
Quote from: The Sultan on August 22, 2026, 05:44:33 PMCould this just be because the most expensive houses in Miami are insanely expensive?
Yes. It's very misleading. The most expensive zip code in the USA(Fisher Island) is there as is SOBE. There are a number of suburbs in their met that are reasonable in comparison to the other listed cities.
Quote from: MU82 on August 22, 2026, 05:39:58 PMYeah, I was surprised to see Miami higher than NY, LA and others.
Not sure how they did their calculations, but they kind of look like garbage. Comparing some of the cities I've lived in, their calculations fail to live up to reality.
Quote from: forgetful on August 22, 2026, 09:00:07 PMNot sure how they did their calculations, but they kind of look like garbage. Comparing some of the cities I've lived in, their calculations fail to live up to reality.
I didn't dig into the numbers/calculations/methodology, but Napa being broken out and counted when its not even a top 300 MSA, not to mention it being part of the SF-Oakland MSA was weird. That alone made it seem odd.
I don't know about their methodology, but I do know it's about more than housing. It's a cost-of-living thing.
I'm also just the messenger.
Quote from: JWags85 on August 22, 2026, 09:56:06 PMI didn't dig into the numbers/calculations/methodology, but Napa being broken out and counted when its not even a top 300 MSA, not to mention it being part of the SF-Oakland MSA was weird. That alone made it seem odd.
It's part of the SF-Oakland CSA (not MSA). They simply used the smaller MSA's for this entire excercise.
#BadStats
This is like talking about FG%.
More upsetting princesses? (Messing up royalty)