These Are the Best (and Worst) Cities to Live in on a $100,000 Salary

Nicolas RappBy Nicolas RappInformation Graphics Director
Nicolas RappInformation Graphics Director

Nicolas Rapp is the former information graphics director at Fortune.

Map shows best and worst cities to live in with a 100k salary
Map shows best and worst cities to live in with a 100k salary
Nicolas Rapp

Wealth is relative: In some rural American locales, a six-figure paycheck can purchase a lavish lifestyle. In others, it doesn’t cover expenses.

Comparison loan-shopping site MagnifyMoney looked at the cost of living in 381 U.S. metropolitan areas to see where a $100,000 income for a family of three would leave the household with the most leftover cash. They found that in Johnson City, Tenn., routine expenses would eat up only 62% of that income. A family in D.C., however, would spend 105% on just the basics.

The three metro areas to live if you want to stretch a paycheck the farthest were all in Tennessee—Johnson City, followed by Morristown (where 62% of annual income would go to expenses), and then Cleveland (63%).

By contrast, the places where you could make $100,000 and still go broke were mostly coastal. After D.C. came the hedge fund-heavy area surrounding Bridgeport Connecticut (where 102% of income would vanish), followed by the San Jose (99%), the San Francisco (96%), and New York (96%) areas.

For more on cost of living in American cities, explore the interactive map below. We’ve mapped MagnifyMoney’s list of the best and worst cities to live in with a $100,000 salary:

Click here if you can’t see the map.

Analysis of two-earner household with one child and a gross annual income of $100,000 in U.S. Metro areas. Estimated monthly expenses (includes childcare, transportation, food, housing, student loans, savings, and entertainment) were subtracted from after-tax income.

Data source: MagnifyMoney