Here's What $100 Is Worth In Each State

[TampaYankee]

Here's What $100 Is Worth In Each State

The Huffington Post | By Kevin Short

How far can you stretch a buck? It totally depends on where you live.

The map below, created by nonprofit research organization Tax Foundation using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, shows the real value of $100 adjusted to reflect average price levels in each state. In Mississippi, for instance, $100 would be enough to buy what would cost $115.74 in a place where prices are closer to the national average. In a pricey state like New York, $100 is only worth about $86.66.

The BEA originally calculated these values based on what are called "regional price parities," which measure differences in prices for goods and services between regions. The data also reflects the BEA’s Personal Consumption Expenditure price index, which tracks changes in average national prices over time.

The wide range between states is in part due to the number of large cities in each state.

"As people gather into densely-packed cities, the price of real estate in those cities rises as people and businesses compete for ownership of scarce land," Alan M. Cole, an economist at the Tax Foundation, wrote in an email to The Huffington Post.

States on the Gulf Coast or the Mississippi River tend to be cheaper places to live because it's easy to ship goods there, Cole said. States that are more isolated from transportation networks, like Alaska and Hawaii, have to pay more to import goods, so things generally cost more.

Cole argues that the U.S. often overlooks these regional differences in purchasing power when designing tax and welfare policy.

"This data highlights the problems of basing federal policy on nominal income data alone," Cole said. "Income data without context is a poor measure of people’s well-being."

[TampaYankee]

It's a good thing that money goes further in Mississippi since there is a lot less of it there.

[RA1]

Interesting graphic but like a lot of these kinds of things, much depends upon comparison points. For instance, US inflation supposedly is at a very low point but looking at a "comfort basket" of goods and services one can see much higher prices than a very short time ago. Beef at the grocery store went up 2-3% yet a medium price steak went up 25%. Etc.

Of course, most everything is relative. Last December, on a trip to NYC, two of my passengers had a glass of wine each in a medium upscale bar for $50. Those same glasses of wine would have cost 18-20 in MEM.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Interesting graphic but like a lot of these kinds of things, much depends upon comparison points. For instance, US inflation supposedly is at a very low point but looking at a "comfort basket" of goods and services one can see much higher prices than a very short time ago. Beef at the grocery store went up 2-3% yet a medium price steak went up 25%. Etc.

Of course, most everything is relative. Last December, on a trip to NYC, two of my passengers had a glass of wine each in a medium upscale bar for $50. Those same glasses of wine would have cost 18-20 in MEM.

Best regards,

RA1

Obviously they were not drinking Paisano.

I agree with the thrust of your statement. While economists say that inflation has been low, my grocery bill screams otherwise, especially meats across the board. Even things like pickles and olives seem to have increased by twenty to twenty five percent of the last couple of years, and breads have become outrageous too.

[RA1]

I, probably like you, use the weekly advertisement of specials as the center of my grocery shopping. I love to cook and, after many years on the road, tire of restaurant meals, no matter how "good". If I am in town, I probably grocery shop 3-5 times during the week. I like for stuff to be fresh and I constantly seek new ideas for my personal cuisine. Fresh fruit all year and fresh vegetables, especially this time of year, are definitely on my menu. Still, as you suggest, it is a struggle to stay on budget.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest CharliePS]

The problem with this analysis is the same as the one the authors point out with single federal statistics for the whole country, ignoring the regional differences. States are not homogeneous units, either. I moved from a less expensive state, in the Northeast, to one of the most expensive states, in the West, but my overall cost of living actually went down, because I moved from a major city, which was the most expensive place in an inexpensive state, to a relatively inexpensive town in a very expensive state. If one wants to make judgments about the effects of economic policy (as I assume the Tax Foundation does), then it may make sense to compare two small states of similar size, population, and location, like Rhode Island and Delaware, but the kinds of simple one-factor comparisons that politicians love between huge, populous and economically complex states in different parts of the country, like California and Texas, aren't really very enlightening.