U.S. Metro Area Cost of Living Index Update

[Pages:13]ANALYSIS

U.S. Metro Area Cost of Living Index Update

BY CHRIS LAFAKIS & STEVEN G. COCHRANE

R egional living costs are closely related to quality of life, migration patterns, and, by extension, long-term economic potential. For example, both Ames IA and Wichita Falls TX have per capita incomes that are below the U.S. average. After adjusting for living costs, however, both metro areas have above-average living standards, at least as measured by relative cost. By contrast, the Santa Rosa and San Diego metro areas in California have above-average per capita income, yet relative living costs remain high.

Higher living costs discourage people from migrating to a given area while simultaneously encouraging residents to leave. Empirical evidence suggests there is a negative correlation between population growth, of which migration flows are the key determinant, and living costs (see Chart 1). Los Angeles and New York have experienced persistent net domestic migration outflows even during expanding business cycles. On the other hand, southern areas with low living costs have benefited from substantial migration inflows. Along with labor force productivity growth, population growth determines an area's economic potential. Thus, an area's cost structure is critically important to its long-term performance.

This article presents the most recent update of the Moody's Analytics metro area cost of living index, which considers the costs of energy, retail goods, housing, insurance and transportation. The article also examines alternate measures of living costs.

Methodology

The Moody's Analytics cost of living index is a nationally indexed composite average of five key cost of living components. The weight of each component of the index varies depending on the metropolitan area, and in various metro areas, some components make up a larger portion of the total cost of living. For example, housing costs constitute 42% of the overall cost of liv-

ing in Victoria TX as compared with 65% in San Jose CA. Energy costs constitute 3% of the overall cost of living in San Francisco as compared with 15% in Laredo TX.

Annual expenditures are calculated for each of the five index components in every metro area and subsequently indexed to their respective national benchmark. These ratios are applied to the various components of U.S. living costs. The results are summed and indexed to the annual national expenditure average. The cost of living index does not incorporate a moving average, a technique used to reduce volatility. By using unadjusted and unbiased data, the cost of living index accurately depicts living costs in any given metro area at a specific point in time. National expenditure patterns are derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual consumer expenditure survey.

One of the largest inputs into living costs is retail expenditure. This category includes expenditures on a wide variety of goods such as food, apparel, entertainment and household furnishings. The cost index for this expenditure category is equal to national expenditures on these items adjusted for the difference between retail wages and salaries per employee in the metro area and in the nation. If wages and salaries per employee are higher and rising more quickly in a metro area than in the rest of the nation, producers must pass through price increases to compensate for elevated unit labor costs.

Retail expenditures constitute between 20% and 34% of a metro area's living costs, depending on the area.

Notwithstanding the recent severe downturn in house prices, housing expenditures are the single greatest component of household expenditure and are represented as such in the cost of living index. On average, the cost of housing accounts for 52% of total living costs as estimated in the Moody's Analytics cost of living index. Because of its large weight, the cost of housing is the cause of most of the annual variation in the cost of living index. Housing costs are also the most volatile component of the cost of living index, varying widely depending on region.

Housing costs are estimated by considering both mortgage payments and rent outlays. Monthly mortgage payments are estimated for each metro area using house price data from the National Association of Realtors. This house price metric is preferred because, unlike other price measures, it reflects actual prices paid. A five-year average of the house price data is used to counteract price biases that might arise from the mix of homes sold in any one year. The base value is extended using price growth in the Federal Housing Finance Authority's repeat-sales house price index, which, unlike the NAR data, is not subject to a mix bias. Annual homeowner expenditures are also calculated by assuming a 30-year mortgage with an 80% loan-to-value ratio.

26

MOODY'S ANALYTICS / Regional Financial Review / May 2010

ANALYSIS U.S. Metro Area Cost of Living Index

Rental expenditures are estimated by extending monthly rental payments reported in the decennial census with the growth in the FHFA home price indices. Over sufficiently long periods of time, there exists a strong correlation between rental rates and house prices, which underpins the rental expenditure estimation methodology. The rental price for New York incorporates data from the Census Bureau's New York City housing and vacancy survey as well; since the decennial census value covers only a small portion of the market, it does not meaningfully represent the rental market in New York.

Moody's Analytics estimates of metro area homeownership rates are then used to reconcile the costs of owning and renting. The composite average is compared with the national average.

The third component of the cost of living index is household utility expenditure. Utility expenditures cover outlays on electricity and heating fuels. Expenditures are calculated by multiplying demand for a particular energy fuel by the price of that fuel. Data from the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration is used to calculate the specific demand for each fuel type in a metro area. This approach is taken because calculating utility costs based on a fixed amount of electricity and other fuels would bias the cost of living index for this component, since demand for heating and cooling varies considerably by region, as do the type of fuels used.

For natural gas and heating oil, the appropriate state-level prices were used at the metro area level, as the primary variation in these prices is due to state-level taxes. For electricity, however, the price per kilowatthour for each metro area was obtained from the EIA, which publishes prices for specific energy providers. Metro areas are mapped every year to their primary energy provider to determine the cost of electricity in each area. Price data from the primary cooperative or publicly owned utility are used for those few areas not served by a privately owned utility. Household utility expenditures account for approximately 8% of the cost of living index.

Automobile insurance expenditures are a small portion of living costs, accounting for

just 6% of the cost of living index. The expenditure data come from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which estimates a policy-adjusted average expenditure for each state. The state average is used for all metro areas within a state, as no finer regional breakdown of the data is available.

Public transportation expenditures are generally not an appreciable portion of overall living expenses in most regions, accounting for only 1% of total consumer expenditures nationally. In those areas where it is important, public transportation is a substitute for private transportation. Thus, no separate estimate of public transportation expenditures is included in the cost of living index. The relative cost of private transportation is used as a proxy for all commuting-related costs.

Transportation expenditures are the smallest and most consistent component of the cost of living index across metro areas. This component uses gasoline outlays to determine the variable-cost portion of consumer transportation spending. Vehicle prices are not used because they vary little across regions. To accurately estimate gasoline consumption at the metro level, commuting distance, traffic congestion, and retail gasoline prices must be considered. Metro area transportation costs are estimated by multiplying local retail gasoline prices, which are obtained from the Oil Price Information Service, by an estimate of the necessary number of gallons purchased per household for work and normal travel. The number of gallons purchased is determined by dividing the estimated number of miles driven by the estimated vehicle efficiency in each census division. This census division estimate of gallons per household is adjusted to the metro area level by incorporating actual metro area and census division commuting times obtained from the decennial census. The use of actual commuting times allows Moody's Analytics to more accurately reflect the varied traffic conditions faced by residents within each metro area.

Results

Consistent with prior years' results, areas with the highest housing costs are also the

areas with the most expensive living costs (see Table 1). These areas include the Northeast Corridor, southern Florida and coastal California (see Chart 2). For the third consecutive year, San Jose has the nation's highest cost of living, with costs 50% greater than the national average. This, however, is an improvement from 64% greater in 2007 and is back in line with its relative costs of the earlier years of this past decade. All five metropolitan areas and divisions with the highest living costs are in California.

Housing costs, which were the primary catalyst for rises in the cost of living index for many metro areas through much of the past decade, have now become the primary reason for relative costs to falter in 2008, narrowing some of the historical differences (see Chart 3). The national house price correction began in early 2006 and was in full swing by 2008, particularly in Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, and parts of the Northeast (see Chart 4). Housing costs in 2008 accounted for 51.8% of total living costs as estimated by the Moody's Analytics cost of living index, compared with a peak of 53.0% in 2006. Housing costs have accounted for an average of 52.1% of total living costs since 2000.

California still has the highest-cost metropolitan areas, with San Jose and San Francisco ranking first and second. Similarly, two New York metro divisions--Bridgeport CT and Nassau-Suffolk NY--still rank among the top 10.

But some changes are appearing in the rankings. First, California metro areas are now less dominant among the top 10 high-cost areas. Whereas nine of the top 10 were in California in 2005--Bridgeport was the only exception--only five of the top 10 were California metro areas in 2008, largely reflecting rapidly falling house prices at that time. Honolulu HI, Naples FL and Newark NJ now are among the highest ranking. Naples ultimately faced house price declines of similar magnitude to the California metro areas, but its price decline was slower to appear.

Aside from California metro areas, the top quintile among the 384 metro areas and divisions in the U.S. is dominated by

MOODY'S ANALYTICS / Regional Financial Review / May 2010

27

ANALYSIS U.S. Metro Area Cost of Living Index

Chart 1: Costs, Growth Negatively Correlated

Based on top 50 metro areas

5

Average annual population growth, %

4

1998-2008

3

2

1

0

-1 85

Cost of living, 2008, U.S.=100

95

105

115

125

135

145

155

Sources: Moody's Analytics, Census Bureau

FROM MOODY'S 1

Chart 3: The Largest Declines in Living Costs...

Change in relative living costs, 2007-2008

Chart 2: Living Costs Are Highest on the Coasts

Living cost by metro area

U.S. metro average=95

Source: Moody's Analytics

Low, below 90 Average, 90 to 100 High, 100 to 110 Very high, above 115

FROM MOODY'S 2

Chart 4: ...Occurred in Housing Bust Areas

Change in housing costs, %, 2007-2008

Source: Moody's Analytics

Average=-0.7

Decrease Modest increase, 0 to 1.8 Large increase, above 1.8

FROM MOODY'S 3

U.S. metro average=2.6% increase

Source: Moody's Analytics

Greater than 5% decline 0% to 5% decline 0% to 7% increase Greater than 7% increase

FROM MOODY'S 4

areas in Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, the New York City area, and the coastal metro areas of Washington State. Within this quintile, costs have fallen over the past 10 years in the California and Massachusetts metro areas. Massachusetts house prices were among the first to falter at middecade, followed closely by many of the southern California metro areas. In all others that make up this top 20%, relative living costs rose over this period, no more so than in Honolulu and Naples. Rising costs through 2008 in Florida are also exemplified by a shift into the top quintile of Jacksonville and Orlando since 2002. Among others, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin and Salt Lake City can be found in the top 20%. Salt Lake City is a newcomer to this top ranking because of its rise in house prices and because it was among the last of the major metro areas to suffer a downturn in prices.

The lowest quintile of metro areas remains dominated by the Midwest, mostly concentrated in Illinois (excluding Chicago), Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. These are joined by areas of western Pennsylvania and upstate New York. Other small areas in the mid-South and Southeast are among these lowest-cost areas. Danville IL is holding firm to its bottom ranking among all metro areas with costs 22% below average. Significantly, every metro area in the lowest quintile saw its relative costs continue to fall from 2002 to 2008. Thus, their comparative cost advantage continued to improve. Many of these areas, particularly in the industrial Midwest, have suffered from the deindustrialization of their economies, and their ever-falling relative costs offer them some potential for revitalization as the U.S. economy strives to become more cost competitive within the global economy.

The distribution of the cost of living across metro areas has changed since the early years of this past decade with a slightly more even distribution around the U.S. index today (see Table 2). In 2008, 101 of the 384 metro areas had a COLI greater than 100, or above the U.S. norm. In 2005 this figure was 96; in 2002 it was 82. As during the years following the 2001 recession, two factors led to this change. First, through the expansion that ended in late 2007, many midsize metro areas experienced rapid growth, particularly if they were peripheral to large metro areas. Much of this growth was fueled by homebuilding and the rapid rise in housing values. Also, businesses followed the population movement outward from the metro area centers, often to be closer to their workforces.

But within this trend, the average and median of the COLIs across all the metro

28

MOODY'S ANALYTICS / Regional Financial Review / May 2010

ANALYSIS U.S. Metro Area Cost of Living Index

TABLE 1

2008 Cost of Living Index

Index: U.S. = 100

New England Bangor ME Barnstable Town MA Boston MA Bridgeport CT Burlington VT Cambridge MA Hartford CT Lewiston ME Manchester NH New Haven CT Norwich CT Peabody MA Pittsfield MA Portland ME Providence RI Rockingham County NH Springfield MA Worcester MA

Middle Atlantic Albany NY Allentown PA Altoona PA Atlantic City NJ Binghamton NY Buffalo NY Camden NJ Edison NJ Elmira NY Erie PA Glens Falls NY Harrisburg PA Ithaca NY Johnstown PA Kingston NY Lancaster PA Lebanon PA Nassau NY New York NY Newark NJ Ocean City NJ Philadelphia PA Pittsburgh PA Poughkeepsie NY Reading PA Rochester NY Scranton PA State College PA Syracuse NY Trenton NJ

2002 Index

Rank

87.7

315

115.8

21

120.8

14

133.2

5

97.4

109

122.0

11

105.2

46

89.3

274

105.8

41

107.0

36

102.7

60

113.0

25

95.6

129

98.9

93

101.2

71

105.2

45

95.2

137

105.3

44

93.8

160

97.4

107

85.4

362

105.7

42

85.9

356

87.5

322

100.4

78

115.7

22

84.8

371

86.5

346

89.9

255

90.3

243

90.0

253

83.4

379

98.3

99

91.8

202

88.9

285

124.4

10

118.5

17

121.9

12

101.3

70

101.4

67

91.1

229

100.4

80

91.3

221

89.0

281

86.4

350

89.2

279

88.3

295

104.7

50

MOODY'S ANALYTICS / Regional Financial Review / May 2010

2005 Index

Rank

88.6

247

118.2

27

118.4

26

131.2

8

97.9

106

119

25

105.6

58

90.1

203

107.4

48

107.3

49

104.6

62

112.1

38

95.3

135

100.3

94

103.4

70

105.9

54

96.7

118

105.8

55

93.4

153

99.1

100

84.2

347

108.8

42

83.3

358

83.7

352

103.8

66

119.5

24

81.9

372

83.5

355

89.6

216

89.4

220

89.1

230

82

369

101.2

81

91.8

175

87.5

269

127.7

14

121.7

20

122.6

18

107.6

46

102.3

76

88.5

251

103.9

64

92.3

165

85.2

318

85.4

305

87.4

271

85.4

305

106.9

50

2008 Index

Rank

90.1

231

117.9

23

118.2

22

136.7

5

101

91

119.3

20

109.7

37

91.8

197

107.5

46

112.6

32

107.7

44

111.6

35

99.2

109

101.5

86

103.7

68

105.1

61

99

113

103.5

70

97.3

127

101.8

83

84

348

111.7

34

85

325

84.9

327

107.8

43

124

13

81.5

374

83.4

357

92.2

192

91.3

207

91.1

209

82

371

104

67

93.8

173

89.8

237

130.1

9

126.8

12

127.8

10

109.7

37

106.2

57

90.6

222

104.9

62

95.2

152

86

309

87.5

278

89.9

235

87.3

281

113.3

29

2002-2008 Change in living cost

2.4 2.1 -2.6 3.5 3.6 -2.7 4.5 2.5 1.7 5.6 5.0 -1.4 3.6 2.6 2.5 -0.1 3.8 -1.8

3.5 4.4 -1.4 6.0 -0.8 -2.6 7.4 8.3 -3.3 -3.1 2.3 1.0 1.1 -1.3 5.7 2.0 1.0 5.7 8.3 5.9 8.4 4.8 -0.5 4.6 3.9 -3.0 1.1 0.7 -1.0 8.6

29

ANALYSIS U.S. Metro Area Cost of Living Index

TABLE 1 (cont.)

2008 Cost of Living Index

Index: U.S. = 100

Utica NY Vineland NJ Williamsport PA York PA East North Central Akron OH Anderson IN Ann Arbor MI Appleton WI Battle Creek MI Bay City MI Bloomington IL Bloomington IN Canton OH Champaign IL Chicago IL Cincinnati OH Cleveland OH Columbus IN Columbus OH Danville IL Davenport IL Dayton OH Decatur IL Detroit MI Eau Claire WI Elkhart IN Evansville IN Flint MI Fond du Lac WI Fort Wayne IN Gary IN Grand Rapids MI Green Bay WI Holland MI Indianapolis IN Jackson MI Janesville WI Kalamazoo MI Kankakee IL Kokomo IN La Crosse WI Lafayette IN Lake County IL Lansing MI Lima OH Madison WI Mansfield OH Michigan City IN Milwaukee WI

2002 Index

86.8 95.4 85.1 89.6

Rank 335 134 366 267

92.7

176

85.9

354

101.7

66

88.9

284

87.2

329

88.0

307

89.6

266

86.5

345

88.2

300

86.4

349

103.1

57

92.9

173

95.4

134

87.6

320

95.2

137

79.6

384

85.5

360

88.7

288

83.8

376

94.0

155

86.7

338

91.7

206

88.0

308

89.4

272

86.6

342

87.3

326

93.5

164

93.9

157

91.1

226

94.9

146

92.4

187

91.0

232

88.3

297

93.5

165

87.6

319

86.5

346

85.2

363

87.2

330

109.0

32

92.2

194

83.5

378

99.6

87

85.1

367

86.7

339

96.9

114

30

2005 Index

84.9 97.4 83.8 90.4

Rank 325 110 350 199

88.8

244

83.5

355

97.5

109

85.3

312

84.3

346

84.6

335

85.9

301

84.6

335

84.5

340

83.3

358

101.3

80

88.6

247

90.1

203

84.6

335

90.7

191

78

384

83

363

85.1

321

79.8

383

89.3

225

83.8

350

88.6

247

85.4

305

86.8

284

85.3

312

83.7

352

91.2

183

90.3

200

87.4

271

90.6

194

88.9

239

87

280

88.1

259

88.2

256

85.4

305

83.1

361

83.5

355

84

349

104.9

60

88.7

245

81.2

379

97.3

112

81.6

376

84.7

332

95.6

132

2008 Index

86.4 99.4 84.6 92.7

Rank 305 107 332 184

86.7

294

82.4

367

95.7

146

86.1

308

84.5

338

84.3

342

87.9

265

85.7

316

83.4

357

85.4

321

103.6

69

89.1

242

87

288

84.9

327

90.3

226

77.7

384

81.1

377

84.2

345

81.7

373

87

288

84.3

342

88.3

254

84.8

329

85.8

313

85.7

316

82.5

366

91.6

201

88.2

257

87.7

271

90.6

222

87.9

265

86.3

307

87.6

275

88.5

249

87.2

284

81.8

372

84.2

345

84

348

107.6

45

86.5

301

80.3

381

100.5

94

80.9

378

85.3

323

95.8

143

2002-2008 Change in living cost

-0.4 4.0 -0.5 3.1

-6.0 -3.5 -6.0 -2.8 -2.7 -3.7 -1.7 -0.8 -4.8 -1.0 0.5 -3.8 -8.4 -2.7 -4.9 -1.9 -4.4 -4.5 -2.1 -7.0 -2.4 -3.4 -3.2 -3.6 -0.9 -4.8 -1.9 -5.7 -3.4 -4.3 -4.5 -4.7 -0.7 -5.0 -0.4 -4.7 -1.0 -3.2 -1.4 -5.7 -3.2 0.9 -4.2 -1.4 -1.0

MOODY'S ANALYTICS / Regional Financial Review / May 2010

ANALYSIS U.S. Metro Area Cost of Living Index

TABLE 1 (cont.)

2008 Cost of Living Index

Index: U.S. = 100

Monroe MI Muncie IN Muskegon MI Niles MI Oshkosh WI Peoria IL Racine WI Rockford IL Saginaw MI Sandusky OH Sheboygan WI South Bend IN Springfield IL Springfield OH Steubenville OH Terre Haute IN Toledo OH Warren MI Wausau WI Youngstown OH West North Central Ames IA Bismarck ND Cape Girardeau MO Cedar Rapids IA Columbia MO Des Moines IA Dubuque IA Duluth MN Fargo ND Grand Forks ND Iowa City IA Jefferson City MO Joplin MO Kansas City MO Lawrence KS Lincoln NE Manhattan KS Mankato MN Minneapolis MN Omaha NE Rapid City SD Rochester MN Sioux City IA Sioux Falls SD Springfield MO St. Cloud MN St. Joseph MO St. Louis MO Topeka KS

2002 Index

95.5 83.3 88.6 87.4 86.0 85.0 89.9 86.3 87.0 90.3 87.2 87.7 85.6 87.8 82.3 84.1 91.2 104.5 87.6 88.7

Rank 131 380 293 324 352 368 257 351 333 242 327 315 359 314 382 374 225 52 321 289

89.1

280

88.3

299

86.6

341

91.7

205

89.8

262

94.3

150

86.8

336

85.9

355

89.7

264

85.8

357

90.5

238

88.0

305

85.7

358

96.5

119

88.2

303

89.5

270

83.8

377

88.0

310

103.2

56

91.3

223

89.5

268

91.0

231

85.2

364

92.2

193

89.3

276

90.5

237

86.5

344

93.2

168

88.0

309

MOODY'S ANALYTICS / Regional Financial Review / May 2010

2005 Index

91.9 80.8 84.7 85.4 84.4 82.5 89.5 85.1 85.3 86.1 86.2 84.8

82 84.8

80 81.9 86.7 97.3 84.5 84.4

Rank 171 380 332 305 342 367 219 321 312 298 295 327 369 327 381 372 285 112 340 342

87.9

265

86.9

283

81.9

372

89.9

208

85

323

89.8

210

85.2

318

84.6

335

89.3

225

85.9

301

89.2

228

83.1

361

84.1

348

92.3

165

85.3

312

86.5

290

81.4

378

85.3

312

99.7

97

88.3

254

86.7

285

86.6

289

83.7

352

88.9

239

88.2

256

87.8

266

86.7

285

88.6

247

82.7

366

2008 Index

90 79.4 84.2

86 84.8

85 88.9 86.6 81.2 84.3 86.6 83.1 83.2 82.9 80.7 81.2 84.8 95.2 85.8 82.4

Rank 233 383 345 309 329 325 247 297 375 342 297 362 361 363 379 375 329 152 313 367

87.7

271

91

211

84

348

90.3

226

87.3

281

90.4

225

84.6

332

84.6

332

91.4

205

87.8

269

89.7

238

84.5

338

84.6

332

93

181

86.9

291

86.5

301

85.8

313

85.4

321

99.3

108

88.6

248

87.6

275

86.6

297

83.4

357

91

211

89.1

242

87.4

279

86

309

90.1

231

84.4

341

2002-2008 Change in living cost

-5.5 -3.8 -4.4 -1.4 -1.2 -0.0 -1.0 0.3 -5.8 -6.0 -0.6 -4.6 -2.4 -4.9 -1.6 -2.9 -6.4 -9.3 -1.8 -6.3

-1.4 2.8 -2.6 -1.4 -2.5 -3.9 -2.2 -1.3 1.7 2.0 -0.8 -3.5 -1.1 -3.5 -1.3 -3.0 2.0 -2.5 -3.9 -2.7 -1.9 -4.4 -1.8 -1.2 -0.2 -3.1 -0.5 -3.1 -3.6

31

ANALYSIS U.S. Metro Area Cost of Living Index

TABLE 1 (cont.)

2008 Cost of Living Index

Index: U.S. = 100

Waterloo IA Wichita KS South Atlantic Albany GA Anderson SC Asheville NC Athens GA Atlanta GA Augusta GA Baltimore MD Bethesda MD Blacksburg VA Brunswick GA Burlington NC Cape Coral FL Charleston SC Charleston WV Charlotte NC Charlottesville VA Columbia SC Columbus GA Crestview FL Cumberland MD Dalton GA Danville VA Deltona FL Dover DE Durham NC Fayetteville NC Florence SC Fort Lauderdale FL Gainesville FL Gainesville GA Goldsboro NC Greensboro NC Greenville NC Greenville SC Hagerstown MD Harrisonburg VA Hickory NC Hinesville GA Huntington WV Jacksonville FL Jacksonville NC Lakeland FL Lynchburg VA Macon GA Miami FL Morgantown WV Myrtle Beach SC

2002 Index

84.9 88.1

Rank 370 304

87.7

317

91.4

218

95.6

128

93.0

170

101.3

69

91.5

212

99.6

85

117.9

19

87.0

331

91.8

202

92.6

178

100.7

76

99.6

86

89.9

254

98.8

95

99.3

89

96.1

122

89.5

268

96.0

123

82.1

383

92.4

188

86.9

334

93.4

166

95.0

144

96.5

120

91.5

215

94.2

151

109.3

31

95.0

144

98.6

96

87.8

312

96.6

116

89.9

259

94.7

148

91.2

224

92.5

183

91.9

200

86.4

348

84.3

373

97.2

110

88.8

287

91.6

209

87.6

318

89.9

257

105.0

47

89.4

271

98.1

102

32

2005 Index

84.4 84.7

Rank 342 332

86.2

295

89.4

220

93.6

151

90.6

194

99.2

99

89

234

105

59

124.9

16

85.2

318

91.3

180

88

261

110.3

41

100.3

94

86

299

96.4

124

101.1

82

94.8

140

88

261

102.5

75

81.5

377

90.5

196

85

323

100.9

84

97.1

116

93.3

156

88.5

251

91.1

185

120

23

97.3

112

96.2

125

84.8

327

93.8

148

87.5

269

93

158

96.1

127

92.6

161

88.5

251

86.5

290

82

369

101

83

87.8

266

96.6

121

86

299

87.6

268

115.9

31

86.7

285

96.5

122

2008 Index

84.6 86.5

Rank 332 301

86.5

301

89.1

242

95.5

148

91.4

205

99.2

109

90.3

226

113

30

122.9

15

87.1

286

94

170

85.7

316

101.7

85

104.5

64

88.5

249

98.7

114

102.7

76

97

130

88.2

257

101.3

88

82.6

365

89.7

238

83.8

354

99.8

105

103.5

70

95.4

149

88.4

252

90.5

224

116.4

27

100.3

95

96.8

131

84

348

93

181

86.7

294

94.3

166

95

157

93.9

172

86.9

291

88

263

83.4

357

103.2

74

88.1

262

97.2

128

88.2

257

87.7

271

116.6

26

86.6

297

98.6

115

2002-2008 Change in living cost

-0.3 -1.6

-1.2 -2.3 -0.1 -1.6 -2.1 -1.2 13.4 5.0

0.1 2.2 -6.9 1.0 4.9 -1.4 -0.0 3.4 0.9 -1.3 5.3 0.5 -2.7 -3.1 6.4 8.5 -1.1 -3.1 -3.7 7.1 5.3 -1.8 -3.8 -3.6 -3.2 -0.4 3.8 1.4 -5.0 1.6 -0.9 6.0 -0.7 5.6 0.6 -2.2 11.6 -2.8 0.5

MOODY'S ANALYTICS / Regional Financial Review / May 2010

ANALYSIS U.S. Metro Area Cost of Living Index

TABLE 1 (cont.)

2008 Cost of Living Index

Index: U.S. = 100

Naples FL North Port FL Ocala FL Orlando FL Palm Bay FL Palm Coast FL Panama City FL Parkersburg WV Pensacola FL Port St. Lucie FL Punta Gorda FL Raleigh NC Richmond VA Roanoke VA Rocky Mount NC Rome GA Salisbury MD Savannah GA Sebastian FL Spartanburg SC Sumter SC Tallahassee FL Tampa FL Valdosta GA Virginia Beach VA Warner Robins GA Washington DC West Palm Beach FL Wheeling WV Wilmington DE Wilmington NC Winchester VA Winston NC East South Central Anniston AL Auburn AL Birmingham AL Bowling Green KY Chattanooga TN Clarksville TN Cleveland TN Decatur AL Dothan AL Elizabethtown KY Florence AL Gadsden AL Gulfport MS Hattiesburg MS Huntsville AL Jackson MS

2002 Index 115.2 106.0

91.7 99.9 94.1 98.0 92.9 86.0 92.3 97.5 95.2 100.4 95.6 92.0 87.2 90.4 90.8 94.1 96.7 92.9 89.7 95.4 100.8 88.3 93.2 91.3 112.4 107.5 83.0 102.9 97.1 93.5 96.0

Rank 24 40 207 83 154 103 175 353 190 106 139 78 130 198 327 240 235 153 115 173 263 133 75 296 169 222 27 35 381 59 112 163 125

89.3

273

92.6

179

97.9

104

87.0

332

97.0

113

89.2

277

91.3

220

88.9

283

87.9

311

89.7

265

90.0

251

88.6

292

92.4

184

91.6

209

92.1

197

93.6

162

MOODY'S ANALYTICS / Regional Financial Review / May 2010

2005 Index 129.7

117.2 96

106.7 102.7 104.3 99.7 81.8 95.9 108.7 103.5

97.3 96.5 90.7 84.8 88.1 91.4 95.4 103.4 89.9 87.2 95.8 103.4 87.2 96.7

89 121.8 121.3 79.9 103.7 96.7 98.2 93.2

Rank 11 28

128 51 73 63 97

375 129 44 69 112 122 191 327 259 179 134 70 208 276 130 70 276 118 234

19 22 382 68 118 105 157

86.2

295

89.7

213

95.7

131

84.9

325

93.9

146

87.4

271

88.3

254

86.3

294

87

280

87.4

271

86.5

290

87

280

93.4

153

89.1

230

88.9

239

93.9

146

2008 Index 131.2 108.4

96.2 106.6

97.8 100.2 99.9 80.7 96.8 100.7

96.1 101.2 99.8 90.8 84.5 87.8

95.1 95.6 98.3 90.2 87.2

98 102.6

87.6 100.3

89 119.5 117.1 79.6

108 98.6 95.2 91.6

Rank 8 40

138 53 122 98 103 379 131 93 140 90 105 218 338 269 156 147 117 229 284 120 77 275 95 245 18 25 382 41 115 152 201

88.2

257

91.8

197

97.8

122

85.6

319

95

157

87.3

281

87.9

265

87.1

286

88.5

249

86.7

294

88

263

88.3

254

97.2

128

91

211

91.1

209

93.7

174

2002-2008 Change in living cost

16.0 2.4 4.5 6.7 3.7 2.2 7.0 -5.3 4.5 3.2 0.9 0.8 4.2 -1.2 -2.7 -2.5 4.3 1.5 1.6 -2.7 -2.5 2.6 1.8 -0.7 7.1 -2.3 7.1 9.6 -3.4 5.1 1.5 1.7 -4.4

-1.1 -0.8 -0.1 -1.4 -2.0 -1.9 -3.4 -1.8 0.6 -3.0 -2.0 -0.3 4.8 -0.6 -1.0

0.1

33

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download