New York
San Francisco
Stamford, Conn.
San Jose, Calif.
San Diego
Santa Barbara, Calif.
Bakersfield, Calif.
Los Angeles
Fresno, Calif.
Boston
Okay, NY, SF, Boston -- just pricey cities to live in, due to geography and history. San Diego, LA, well, at least they're big cities. San Jose, smaller city, but there's the whole "we hold conferences here all the time and gouge the tourists" factor, perhaps. Stamford, Santa Barbara -- rich places, quasi-suburbs.
But Bakersfield? Fresno? Why? I mean, I only have reports from an acquaintance who loathed Fresno with every fiber of her being (and had nothing at all to say about Bakersfield), but that's kind of bizarre.
We're number one! We're number one!
I'm a little surprised Boston wasn't higher, too.
Fresno? That's a surprise.
And Bakersfield is even higher. Your paycheck goes farther in LA than Bakersfield?
And 8 of those cities are in CA. I'm a little surprised that DC isn't there.
The eternal "we're just kids in high school" band, Def Leppard, is on Regis and Kelly right now.
They are finally OLD!
I don't know why I find this amusing, but I do.
I think they're comparing income to cost of living, no? So even if it's not expensive to live in Bakersfield, you can't make any money there, either.
What Jesse said. Bakersfield is just a big flat nothing in the middle of the desert. If you're a teenager about to enter the job market in Bakersfield, your best bet is probably to move the hell away from there.
I'm a little surprised that DC isn't there.
Baltimore mitigates the effects a little? I dunno. It's weird.
I wonder if they factor in the cost of owning a car into their calculations. None of the NYistas own a car, and it's a substantial savings.
That's a good point, Tom -- when a friend of mine was leaving NYC, we figured that her base costs for living weren't going to go down all that much, because she was going to have to get a car.
