Dallas Is Still a Cheap Place to Live, and the Rest of Texas Is Even Cheaper

100wikicommons.png
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Stretches pretty far anywhere in our fair state.
"It's so expensive to live here." You hear it with some frequency from young Dallasites, but if you've spent any time in other major metro areas, either in the U.S. or abroad, you know it's a little naive. For being the fourth biggest metro in the country, DFW remains relatively cheap, despite its residents having the least purchasing power of anyone in Texas.

Using new data from the American Cities Survey and the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis and an idea from the web site Vox, we took a look at median incomes and spending power in Dallas, the rest of Texas and the rest of the United States.

Before getting too deeply into any local data, it should be noted that Texas remains an extremely cheap place to live overall. In non-metropolitan Texas the nationwide average $100 will buy you $113.64, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis numbers. Comparatively, that same $100 will get you only $101.94 worth of stuff in non-metropolitan California or $108.34 in non-metropolitan Utah. You can get even more bang for your buck in rural Mississippi ($120.63) but you have to live in rural Mississippi.

In the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington census area, the average Benjamin has a purchasing power of $99.01, the lowest in Texas. You'll get more bang for your buck in Houston ($99.30), Austin ($101.52), San Antonio ($106.50) and El Paso ($110.13). Each of those numbers, Dallas included, is more than you'd realize in places like New York City ($81.83), Los Angeles ($84.60) and Chicago ($93.81) -- the three U.S. metro areas bigger than DFW. Of the top ten metro areas by population, only Houston and Atlanta ($104.60) are cheaper than Dallas.

When you adjust average median incomes for the purchasing power of that income, you get a truer picture of the relative expense of living in a city. So we did.

DFW, according to the American Cities Survey data, has the second highest median household income in the state at $57,389. When you adjust that figure by the buying power number, the Metroplex drops behind Houston in adjusted median income. Austin has the highest incomes, either way you look at it ($61,750 non-adjusted or $62,689 adjusted). San Antonio gains the most from the adjustment. In actual income households make $51,716 per year much less than its bigger rivals. After adjustment, San Antonio households bring in $55,078 leaving them just $2,000 short of Dallas and Houston medians.

The big takeaway here? It's still really cheap to live in Texas, even in its most expensive areas.


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
61 comments
fred.garvin.mp.713
fred.garvin.mp.713

I couldn't tell from reading the sources, but does that cost of living include transportarion?

Because that's an often overlooked factor. Yes, housing may be higher in NYC, but my transportion costs were daily subway rides, the rare taxi, and lots of walking. I didn't have a car there.

When added up (purchase, maintenance, gas, insurance), I spend WAY more on transportation here than there.

OnlyLogical
OnlyLogical

But u have to live in Miss.

Well u have to live here, too.

Not much diff.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

Isn't Dallas the 5th largest metro area?  NY, LA, Chi, Hou/Beau, Dal/Ft

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

Dallas may be a cheap place to live, but it's chock-full of businesses and corporations, so there are no jobs.

“Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs..."

----- Guess who

riconnel8
riconnel8

I don't think there's anything cheap about living in DFW other than housing which by the way is going up even as I type.  Utilities are more expensive than many other areas of the country and property taxes are a killer.  My car insurance just went up...again and for the 20 plus years I've lived here I haven't been in an accident (knock on wood...I am somewhat superstitious).  I had a friend who worked for one of the larger real estate agencies in the metroplex and she said that when people called asking about home prices they were very interested until they asked about taxes...then they would end the call.  Yes, it's less expensive to live here than where I would prefer to live (Seattle) but you also get what you pay for. If I lived in any of the more expensive large cities mentioned in the article I'd be making $10,000. more for the same work. 


Whenever I see an article like this I think to myself....local leaders promotional campaign at work.  Maybe if they tell us enough times how wonderful we have it here we'll start to believe it.  I think you have to be a native or a certain kind of person to believe the hype.


So all you natives can start hating on me...I feel the same way about my home state. But don't be blind to the realities.  I'm just waiting to see what Texas is going to do about water.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

Don't people create and fill jobs?

That sure seemed the case everywhere I've worked. How about you?

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@riconnel8 Texas is a moderate to high tax state.  We don't have income tax, but high property, sales taxes, and high insurance and utilities costs, cause the GOP don't regulate them

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

Everywhere I worked, the people created the business or corporation prior to creating the jobs.

Do you think Clinton was playing a silly semantical game as well, or was there a greater message?

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@scottindallas

I get it, it's the collective that creates jobs, and this is why the worker will rise.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

Everywhere I worked, the people created the business or corporation prior to creating the jobs.

ahh, so you agree, the people create the jobs, as well as create the businesses and the corps..

Do you think Clinton was playing a silly semantical game as well, or was there a greater message?

the "message" was first not well said, and second was about the difference between supply side economic ideas vs demand side economic ideas. when you parse her words such as you did the last part isn't there to tell you what the "message" was.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@TheRuddSki no dumbass, your sophomoric analysis would conflate Vietnam with the US.  If you don't understand the difference, well, that explain a lot

riconnel8
riconnel8

@mavdog You should have read the entire article instead of focusing on only one part.  Here's what Wiki says in its entirety:


According to the Tax Foundation, Texans' state and local tax burdens are among the lowest in the nation, 7th lowest nationally, with state and local taxes costing $3,580 per capita, or 8.7% of resident incomes. Texas is one of only 7 states not to have a state income tax.[ The state sales tax rate, 6.25%, is above the national medium, with localities adding up to 2% (8.25% total).


While property taxes are among the highest in the nation, property costs are also among the lowest in the nation. Property taxes constitute the majority of revenue and are collected and kept by local governments, as the Texas Constitution specifically prohibits a state property tax

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@Mavdog

She said businesses don't create jobs, and that's why trickle-down economics don't work.

She makes not a lot of sense, but she doesn't have to.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@scottindallas

I think Vietnam is more humid, right? Anyway, Ford exists because the people demanded the Model A, which led to the creation of manufacturing jobs by the Workers Unions.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@riconnel8 @mavdog

I did read the entire article. did you see the link posted includes all taxes when comparing the states?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

She said businesses don't create jobs, and that's why trickle-down economics don't work.

in a very simple read of her comments, yes that is sort of what she said. if one can move beyond being simple, that isn't truly what was said.

She makes not a lot of sense, but she doesn't have to.

she will have to make sense when and if she is a candidate for office. 

riconnel8
riconnel8

@mavdog what your article is doing, to me, is playing with the numbers.  Using your article look at the amount of Total State Taxes Collected....here's what you'll find:


TX.....................  48.6 BILLION.............3rd Highest


Where do those monies come from Mavdog?  In Texas, according to your article, corporations do NOT pay taxes.  Who's paying?  The $3,052 amount you gave as the average tax amount paid by a Texas resident doesn't even cover my property tax.


The two taxes that affect me the most are sales and property.


Texas Property Taxes...... 3rd highest.


and


Sales taxes in the 108 cities with populations over 200,000 we're 27th highest.


Then factor in that Homeowners insurance Texas is 2nd highest. 


Car insurance (out of the country's 25 largest metro areas)... Dallas comes in 13th.

It's expensive to live here.....although the homes, so far, have remained reasonable.







TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@“Don’t let anybody tell you that its corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed.

Wow, man. That's heavy.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@riconnel8

I don't understand how you can justify the claim that the "article...is playing with the numbers", for the numbers are what they are.

Your remark may have justification if there were some taxes included and some taxes excluded...but all the taxes for each State are included. it is a fair and equitable comparison.

The $3,052 amount you gave as the average tax amount paid by a Texas resident doesn't even cover my property tax.

the number you cite is per resident, not the amount per household. If you have the state average of 3.7 people/household your household taxes paid would be around $11,300.

The best tool to compare is total taxes paid as a % of average per capita income, which for TX was stated at 7.5% vs a national average of 10%.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

she ain't heavy, she's my sister...

so you think that you now understand what you didn't want to try and understand before?

riconnel8
riconnel8

@mavdog we are talking apples and oranges here.  You want to take the total amount of tax money Texas took in divide it by the total population and then compare it to what other states amounts are and say we are living in a fairly decent tax state....

comparatively...per capita. Do I have that right?


I am not talking per capita I'm saying the reality of the cost of living (not just what we pay in taxes) is high here.  The reality of it is (not the per capita) that when corporations aren't paying taxes either you lose services paid for by taxes and/or the residents paying taxes are picking that amount up.  The same goes for the number of people in poverty not paying taxes...we pick that up. 


Let's figure this another way other than per capita and lets figure in all the real expenses of living here including insurance and utilities.  Now can you tell me how we're doing?

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

Maybe she meant lawn care.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@riconnel8

first, I am not taking any position regarding Texas being a "fairly decent tax state", all my posts was intended to do was to provide the answer to a question posed by another poster.

the data I found took the total taxes paid and made them comparative across States by factoring them per resident. that dos seem to be a fair way to compare tax burdens wouldn't you agree?

what you wish to see is a comparison of spendable income per resident. that number should include housing, food, and expenses such as utilities. Not sure any data will include insurance, that is an elective and variable purchase that is not easily accounted for across a variety of people.

riconnel8
riconnel8

That being said compared to Los Angeles and NYC we probably do look good.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@scottindallas

They beat the Golwater out of her at Wellsely.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

no, don't think she meant lawn care, but who knows you might be right.

here is the question: does the fact there are lawns that need maintaining create the jobs for lawn care workers, or does the fact there are businesses who do lawn care create the jobs for the workers?

riconnel8
riconnel8

@mavdog No it doesn't seem like a fair way to compare tax burdens because it doesn't show the true tax burden per individual or even give a close estimate as to what the true burden would be. Nor does that limited info (just tax info) give one any idea on what it really costs to live here.  Now if you want to wrap a ribbon around an old box and call it a present...yes, maybe per capita proves something....but what and to what end?

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

Lawns create jobs.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@riconnel8

what other way would you think is a more accurate manner to compare tax burdens? per resident sure seems to be a fair way to compare..you could do per household but as household size varies that doesn't seem to show an accurate comparison.

there's other metrics you can use to compare varied MSA's on housing costs, insurance costs, transportation costs, etc. This is just to compare taxes.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

Lawns create jobs.

then count yourself as a believer in demand side economics.

riconnel8
riconnel8

@mavdog  You keep talking about "tax burden" as if that's the only criteria on whether DFW is affordable and whether or not we should be pigs in mud happy about the actual cost of living here. The article talked about more than "tax burden" it was titled in part Dallas Is Still a Cheap Place to Live. If the per resident (per capita) tax number given were the actual number it actually costs that would be something to partially judge by but it's not.  I know that you are smart enough to know what I'm saying and pointing out.  You can lead a horse to water..yada, yada, yada.......


Anyway, I've spent a day on this....wayyyyyy to much time on someone who doesn't want to see. 

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

Jobs create lawns, businesses create jobs, people create businesses. Those businesses are created to answer existing demand, or as a result of innovation.

Was the first Apple computer created due to demand?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@riconnel8

see my above post. the reference and info to the tax burden was in response to and directly below this comment posted above:

Texas is a moderate to high tax state

if you "don't want to see" I can't force you.


mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

Jobs create lawns

what?

Was the first Apple computer created due to demand?

According to Wozniak, the first Apple he made was done to one-up the other hobbyist in their local computer club, so yes it was demand motivated.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

Very good, you've conflated personal ambition with market demand and the shark jumped you.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

Very good, you've conflated personal ambition with market demand and the shark jumped you.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

Very good, you've conflated personal ambitions with market demand and the shark jumped you.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

Very good, you've conflated personal ambition with market demand and the shark jumped you.

"personal ambition"? Wozniak and Wayne couldn't care less about establishing a business and getting rich from computers. that was Jobs passion, in fact Wayne sold out instead of going into business.

the shark just ate your lunch.


TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

I did. This software will not allow you to post the same comment twice, but it will allow itself the option to post or not post as it wishes.

Kinda reminds me of Dear Leader.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

so the need to "one-up" someone has nothing to do with personal ambition.

The shark is tap-dancing on your head about now, but to wrap this nonsense up - you've done a great job of deflection, but you don't really need to make sense unless you run for president.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

This software will not allow you to post the same comment twice

apparently you solved that, you managed to post 3x

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

guess that is how one defines "personal ambition". it could be one's "personal ambition" to be a bum. it could be another person's "personal ambition" to be a billionaire. 

Woz just wanted to compete. he didn't have any "personal ambition" for success.

are you saying that you don't understand supply vs demand? ok...

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@mavdog

You often seem to need stuff explained more than once. I did not post multiple times.

Let me know if you still don't understand, I'll try it in Swahili.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@TheRuddSki

oh, ok, we'll stop that line until next time you throw out Hillary's remarks.

that blog conveniently forgets that the right "embraced" pan-arabism, and was instrumental in its longevity.

Greenfield is just upset because its not his preferred pan-arabs in power. all of them are the same, just a matter of whose ox is being gored.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...