Advertiser Disclosure

Credit Cards, Featured, News

Average U.S. Credit Card Debt in 2019

Editorial Note: The content of this article is based on the author’s opinions and recommendations alone. It has not been previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any of our network partners.

Updated – March 26, 2019

Credit card balances are at all-time highs. Rate increases by the Federal Reserve  will mean consumers pay billions more in interest charges.

We’ve updated our statistics on credit card debt in America to illustrate how much consumers are now taking on.

  • Americans paid banks $113 billion in credit card interest in 2018, up 12% from the $101 billion in interest paid in 2017, and up 49% over the last five years, as Fed rate increases have been passed on to consumers. MagnifyMoney analyzed FDIC data through December 2018 for each bank whose deposits are insured by the FDIC.
  • The four Federal Reserve rate increases in 2018 meant most credit card Annual Percentage Rates (APRs) increased a full percentage point more last year. Even without any interest rate increases in 2019, we estimate the increase in interest paid in the coming will continue to grow, putting Americans on track to pay over $122 billion in interest in 2019, an additional $9 billion more than the $113 billion currently being paid annually. Our analysis of the impact of Fed rate hikes found credit card rates are the most sensitive to Fed rate hikes, rising more than twice as fast as mortgage rates.
  • Average APRs on credit card accounts assessed interest are now 16.86%, up nearly 4 percentage points in five years, according to the Federal Reserve.

  • Total revolving credit balances are $1.03 trillion as of January 2019. The figure, reported monthly by the Federal Reserve, is the total amount of revolving credit balances reported by financial institutions, the overwhelming majority of which are credit and retail card balances, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). As of March 2018, non-card-related revolving balances such as overdraft lines of credit were approximately $74 billion, according to our analysis of the FDIC data used by the Federal Reserve to calculate total revolving balances.

  • Americans carry $682 billion in credit card debt that is not paid in full each month. This estimate includes people paying interest, as well as those carrying a balance on a card with a 0% intro rate. We based the estimate on a CFPB study of credit card account data that found 29% of total credit card balances are paid off each month, implying 71% of credit card balances revolve each month. We applied the percentage to the Federal Reserve’s revolving credit balance data less $74 billion in non-credit card revolving debt to reach $682 billion in credit card balances carried over month to month.
  • 43.8% of credit card accounts aren’t paid in full each month, according to the American Bankers Association. Those who don’t pay in full tend to have higher balances, which is why the percentage of balances not paid in full (71%) is higher than the percentage of accounts not paid in full (43.8%).
  • The average credit card balance is $6,348 for individuals with a credit card, according to Experian. This excludes store credit cards, which have an average balance of $1,841. Both figures include the statement balances of individuals who pay their balance in full each month.

Credit card use

  • Number of Americans who actively use credit cards: 176 million as of 2018, according to Transunion.
  • Average number of credit cards per consumer: 3.1, according to Experian. That doesn’t include an average of 2.5 retail credit cards.
  • Number of Americans who carry credit card debt month to month: 70 million.

Credit card debt

The following estimates only include the credit card balances of those who carry credit card debt from month to month — they exclude balances of those who pay in full each month.

  • Total credit card debt in the U.S. (not paid in full each month): $686 billion
  • Average APR: 16.86% (also excludes those with a 0% promotional rate for a balance transfer or purchases)
    • This estimate comes from the Federal Reserve’s monthly reporting of APRs on accounts assessed interest by banks.

Credit card balances

The following figures include the credit card statement balances of all credit card users, including those who pay their bill in full each month.

  • Total credit card balances: $1.03 trillion as of January 2019, an increase of 3.2% from January 2018. This includes credit and retail cards, and a small amount of overdraft line of credit balances.
  • Average credit card balance: $6,358, according to Experian (excludes retail credit cards, which have lower balances. The average consumer has $1,841 in balances on retail cards and we estimate combining all consumers with retail or credit card debt the average is approximately $5,000 per individual). All averages include those who pay their bill in full each month.

Who pays off their credit card bills?

According to the American Bankers Association, in 2018, accounts that are paid in full versus carrying debt month to month comprise the following mix of open credit card accounts:

  • Revolvers (carry debt month to month): 43.8% of credit card accounts
  • Transactors (use card, but pay in full): 30.4% of credit card accounts
  • Dormant (have a card, but don’t use it actively): 25.8% of credit card accounts

Delinquency rates

Credit card debt becomes delinquent when a bank reports a missed payment to the major credit reporting bureaus. Banks typically don’t report a missed payment until a person is at least 30 days late in paying. When a consumer doesn’t pay for at least 90 days, the credit card balance becomes seriously delinquent. Banks are very likely to take a total loss on seriously delinquent balances.

Delinquency rates peaked in 2009 at nearly 7%, but in 2018 they have remained below 2.5%.

Debt burden by income

Those with the highest credit card debts aren’t necessarily the most financially insecure. According to the 2016 Survey of Consumer Finances, the top 10% of income earners who carried credit card debt had nearly twice as much debt as the average.

However, people with lower incomes have more burdensome credit card debt loads. Consumers in the lowest earning quintile had an average credit card debt of $2,100. However, their debt-to-income ratio was 13.9%. On the high end, earners in the top decile had an average of $12,500 in credit card debt. But debt-to-income ratio was just 4.8%.

Income Percentile

Median Income

Average CC Debt

CC Debt: Income Ratio

0%-20%

$15,100

$2,100

13.9%

20%-40%

$31,400

$3,800

12.1%

40%-60%

$52,700

$4,400

8.3%

60%-80%

$86,100

$6,800

7.9%

80%-90%

$136,000

$8,700

6.4%

90%-100%

$260,200

$12,500

4.8%

 

Although high-income earners have more manageable credit card debt loads on average, they aren’t taking steps to pay off the debt faster than lower income debt carriers. In fact, high-income earners are as likely to pay the minimum as those with below average incomes. If an economic recession leads to job losses at all wage levels, we could see high levels of credit card debt in default.

Generational differences in credit card use

In 2017, Generation X surpassed the baby boomer generation to have the highest credit card balances. Experian estimates that on average, Generation X has a balance of $7,750 per person, 21.94% more than the national average ($6,354). Boomers carry nearly as much as Generation X with an average balance of $7,550.

At the other end of the spectrum, millennials, who are often characterized as frivolous spenders and are too quick to take on debt, have nearly the lowest credit card balances. Their median balance clocks in at $4,315. The youngest generation, Gen Z, has the smallest average balance of $2,047 per person.

How does your state compare?

Using data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel and Equifax, you can compare median credit card balances and credit card delinquency.

State

Credit Card Debt Per Debtor

Credit Card Debt Per House

Alabama

$3,710.56

$7,198.48

Alaska

$5,879.85

$11,406.91

Arizona

$4,299.70

$8,341.42

Arkansas

$3,289.01

$6,380.69

California

$4,569.51

$8,864.85

Colorado

$4,898.56

$9,503.20

Connecticut

$5,171.89

$10,033.47

Delaware

$4,338.88

$8,417.42

Florida

$4,318.35

$8,377.59

Georgia

$4,727.46

$9,171.27

Hawaii

$5,330.46

$10,341.09

Idaho

$3,791.84

$7,356.18

Illinois

$4,412.71

$8,560.65

Indiana

$3,624.05

$7,030.65

Iowa

$3,169.16

$6,148.17

Kansas

$3,854.05

$7,476.85

Kentucky

$3,457.67

$6,707.88

Louisiana

$3,767.91

$7,309.75

Maine

$3,905.56

$7,576.78

Maryland

$5,287.61

$10,257.96

Massachusetts

$4,720.53

$9,157.83

Michigan

$3,458.51

$6,709.51

Minnesota

$4,257.26

$8,259.08

Mississippi

$3,204.95

$6,217.60

Missouri

$3,763.46

$7,301.11

Montana

$3,732.83

$7,241.69

Nebraska

$3,594.46

$6,973.25

Nevada

$4,263.19

$8,270.59

New Hampshire

$4,943.44

$9,590.27

New Jersey

$5,361.06

$10,400.47

New Mexico

$4,185.93

$8,120.71

New York

$4,969.84

$9,641.50

North Carolina

$4,124.04

$8,000.63

North Dakota

$3,756.19

$7,287.00

Ohio

$3,738.95

$7,253.56

Oklahoma

$4,038.90

$7,835.47

Oregon

$3,881.17

$7,529.48

Pennsylvania

$4,209.21

$8,165.86

Rhode Island

$4,376.34

$8,490.10

South Carolina

$4,187.65

$8,124.04

South Dakota

$3,608.28

$7,000.07

Tennessee

$3,903.24

$7,572.28

Texas

$4,937.00

$9,577.78

Utah

$3,775.21

$7,323.92

Vermont

$4,199.77

$8,147.56

Virginia

$5,404.32

$10,484.38

Washington

$4,568.09

$8,862.09

West Virginia

$3,381.36

$6,559.84

Wisconsin

$3,410.29

$6,615.96

Wyoming

$3,944.72

$7,652.76

 

State

Silent

Boomers

Gen X

Millennials

Gen Z

Alaska

$5,456

$9,495

$8,995

$4,464


$1,518


Alabama

$3,511

$6,461

$6,485


$3,324


$1,455




Arkansas

$3,194

$5,995

$6,197


$3,240


$1,803


Arizona

$4,149

$6,967

$6,778


$3,575


$1,555


California

$4,232

$7,050

$6,578


$3,654


$1,596


Colorado

$4,004

$7,499

$7,439


$3,833



$1,514


Connecticut

$4,091

$8,179

$8,046


$3,716



$2,567


Dist. of Columbia

$5,486

$7,976

$7,393


$4,596



$2,814


Delaware

$4,147

$7,128

$7,144


$3,285



$1,608


Florida

$4,311

$7,047

$6,615


$3,639



$1,837


Georgia

$4,356

$7,517

$6,972


$3,540


$1,835


Hawaii

$4,386

$7,073

$7,355


$4,203


$1,657


Iowa

$2,367

$5,297

$6,163


$2,857


$935


Idaho

$3,477

$6,147

$6,332


$3,193


$928


Illinois

$3,641

$7,054

$7,040


$3,537


$1,556


Indiana

$3,137

$5,998

$6,174


$3,003


$1,402


Kansas

$3,187

$6,514

$6,930


$3,292


$1,421


Kentucky

$3,044

$5,727

$6,080


$3,082


$1,372


Louisiana

$3,679

$6,598

$6,561


$3,425


$1,971


Massachusetts

$3,481

$7,017

$7,022


$3,479

$1,882


Maryland

$4,341

$7,994

$7,458


$3,671


$1,749


Maine

$3,107

$6,054

$6,531


$3,375


$1,286


Michigan

$3,436

$6,049

$6,113


$2,971


$1,523


Minnesota

$3,025

$6,299

$6,898


$3,244


$1,338


Missouri

$3,265

$6,333

$6,757


$3,279


$1,346


Mississippi

$3,218

$5,634

$5,718


$3,043


$2,011


Montana

$3,285

$5,977

$6,868


$3,385


$1,506


North Carolina

$3,481

$6,566

$6,710


$3,397


$1,486


North Dakota

$2,141

$5,362

$6,646


$3,326


$1,467


Nebraska

$2,717

$5,909

$6,498


$3,136


$1,388


New Hampshire

$3,582

$7,140

$7,443


$3,519


$1,666


New Jersey

$4,126

$8,011

$7,882


$3,928


$2,241


New Mexico

$4,373

$6,906

$6,534


$3,532


$1,207


Nevada

$4,733

$6,993

$6,357


$3,700


$1,185


New York

$3,906

$7,127

$7,234


$3,986


$2,495


Ohio

$3,313

$6,383

$6,530


$3,135


$1,465


Oklahoma

$3,484

$6,789

$6,900


$3,493


$1,641


Oregon

$3,618

$6,502

$6,481


$3,245


$856


Pennsylvania

$3,282

$6,550

$7,059

$3,457


$1,545


Rhode Island

$3,524

$7,162

$7,313


$3,371


$1,786


South Carolina

$4,019

$6,537

$6,559


$3,281

$1,375


South Dakota

$2,584

$5,710

$6,900

$3,250


$1,531


Tennessee

$3,388

$6,309

$6,505


$3,308


$1,737


Texas

$4,350

$7,591

$7,119


$3,779


$1,945


Utah

$3,364

$6,411

$6,713


$3,070


$932


Virginia

$4,132

$7,956

$7,968


$3,985

$1,692


Vermont

$3,681

$6,197

$6,547


$3,297


$2,511


Washington

$3,947

$7,365

$7,190


$3,500


$1,355


Wisconsin

$2,740

$5,673

$6,289


$2,914


$992


West Virginia

$2,914

$5,573

$6,158


$3,238


$1,166


Wyoming

$3,523

$6,356

$6,889

$3,663

$1,442

Advertiser Disclosure: The products that appear on this site may be from companies from which MagnifyMoney receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). MagnifyMoney does not include all financial institutions or all products offered available in the marketplace.

MagnifyMoney
MagnifyMoney |

Have a question to ask or a story to share? Contact the MagnifyMoney team at [email protected]

Advertiser Disclosure

News

Study: Rent Is Higher Than Minimum Wage Pay in these 16 Cities

Editorial Note: The content of this article is based on the author’s opinions and recommendations alone. It has not been previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any of our network partners.

Rent prices have increased by 2% to 4% nationwide each year since 2011, according to CoreLogic. While gains in federal and state minimum wage rules have somewhat mitigated the bite for lower-wage earners in certain areas, it’s often not enough to compete with the rising cost of housing. Meanwhile, the population of renters has increased, forcing renters to compete for a finite supply of rental housing, which is already pricing out some people.

Using data from the Joint Center of Housing Studies and the Economic Policy Institute, MagnifyMoney identified 16 cities where the median rent claims all of a minimum wage worker’s take-home pay, and then some. Let’s take a look at big cities that are more affordable and ones where the rent is too darn high.

Key findings

  • Austin, Texas, is the least affordable major U.S. city for minimum-wage workers. Austin’s median rent is equal to 143% of take-home pay at the minimum wage.
    • The median rent in Austin is $1,220 per month, while the city’s minimum wage stands at $7.25 an hour.
    • Austin workers making minimum wage would need to work about 200 hours a month to be able to afford the median rent of $1,220.
  • Chicago is the most affordable large city, with a minimum wage of $13 an hour. But even there, the median rent of $1,050 per month will claim 69% of a minimum-wage worker’s take-home pay.
    • In Chicago, minimum wage workers would need to work just over 96 hours to make enough to pay the median rent of $1,050.

If you are able to save some of your paycheck after rent and expenses, an online savings account with a high APY and no minimum balance may be a good place to start.

A closer look at where minimum wage doesn’t cover rent

The table below shows the median rent as a percentage of take-home pay for minimum-wage workers in 34 of the largest U.S. cities. In the top 16 cities listed, the median rent costs more than 100% of a minimum-wage worker’s monthly take-home pay.

In 12 of the 16 cities where the minimum wage to median rent ratio is the highest, minimum wage is less than $10 per hour. Half of these 16 cities earn at the federal minimum wage of $7.25.

But a higher minimum wage doesn’t necessarily translate to a lower percentage spent on rent. In San Francisco, for example, the high minimum wage of $15.59 is overwhelmed by the high median monthly rent of $1,860.

The following map offers a geographical visual of where you can expect to pay a larger (and smaller) percentage of your take-home pay on rent as a minimum-wage worker.

Of the cities we looked at, we found that median rent tends to eat up more of a minimum-wage worker’s take-home pay in the South. The Midwest, on the other hand, may be more affordable for minimum-wage workers, at least when it comes to rent.

Methodology

In December 2019, MagnifyMoney calculated the minimum wage of workers in 34 of the nation’s largest cities — those with a population of 300,000 or more in 2018 — to determine the relative affordability of rental housing. Our findings are based on data from the Joint Center of Housing Studies for median rent and the Economic Policy Institute for minimum wages. To find estimated take-home pay after payroll tax, we assumed 16% withholding in Social Security, Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), Medicare and federal income tax.

Advertiser Disclosure: The products that appear on this site may be from companies from which MagnifyMoney receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). MagnifyMoney does not include all financial institutions or all products offered available in the marketplace.

Lauren Perez
Lauren Perez |

Lauren Perez is a writer at MagnifyMoney. You can email Lauren here

Advertiser Disclosure

News

Study: The Best U.S. Cities for Working from Home

Editorial Note: The content of this article is based on the author’s opinions and recommendations alone. It has not been previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any of our network partners.

Working from home has never been easier. Thanks to advances in technology, many professionals can plow through their to-do lists from the comfort of their couch. However, some cities are better for remote work than others.

Cities that are more appealing to telecommuters have higher earning power for the remote workers who live there and more remote work opportunities. Additionally, cities with longer commute times also make it more appealing for residents to choose to work from home.

To determine the best cities for working from home, MagnifyMoney combed through the Census Bureau’s 2018 1-Year American Community Survey. We examined the 100 largest U.S. cities by the number of workers, classifying them by metrics related to how many people work from home, their earning power and their cost of living.

Key findings

  • Gilbert, Ariz. is rated the best place to work from home, due to a sharp rise in the number of people working from home, which indicates more remote work opportunities, as well as the fact that remote workers there make $1.32 for every dollar earned by the average worker.
  • The second best place to work from home is Atlanta, thanks to factors like a rise in people working from home from 2017 to 2018 and good pay for remote workers. Additionally, local housing costs in Atlanta were equal to just 27% of earnings for the average person who works from home.
  • Aurora, Colo. comes in third, with residents who work remotely skipping out on the 30-minute average daily commute there.
  • The worst city to work from home was Toledo, Ohio, which had a low and stagnant number of people working from home, indicating few remote work opportunities. Those who do work from home in Toledo generally earned less in comparison to average earnings.
  • The second worst city to work from home was El Paso, Texas, followed by Greensboro, N.C.
  • On average, across the 100 cities analyzed, working from home tended to pay better than not working from home.
  • Overall, the number of people working from home is fairly flat, suggesting that the so-called “telecommuting revolution” has yet to come to fruition.
  • Long commutes did not necessarily translate to more people working from home. While New York and New Jersey had the longest average commutes, they did not see much of an increase in the number of people working from home.

Best cities for working from home

Topping our study’s ranking of the best cities to work from home is Gilbert, Ariz. Gilbert, a suburb located southeast of Phoenix, measures just over 72 square miles and has a population of more than 230,000.

Our study found that the average person working from home in Gilbert makes $1.32 for every dollar the average person makes, earning it a tie for the 20th spot regarding that metric. Gilbert also ranked high for two metrics measuring the city’s overall work-from-home climate. It ranked fourth for its share of remote workers, with 4.90% of residents working from home, and sixth for the percent change in the number of people working from home from 2017 to 2018, a 1.20% year-over-year increase. Additionally, the average commute time of a typical worker in Gilbert is 28 minutes, earning Gilbert the 27th spot for that metric as telecommuters are saving nearly half an hour each way.

All of these metrics contributed to Gilbert’s overall top ranking, making it a great option for telecommuters looking for a balanced lifestyle of good pay, a remote work-friendly culture and a decent chunk of time saved from commuting.

Atlanta snags the spot for the second best city to work from home, thanks to the high earning power of remote workers and a culture friendly to telecommuting. Atlanta has a high work-from-home rate, with 4.50% of people working from home, earning it a sixth-place ranking for that metric. Remote workers in Atlanta make $1.13 for every dollar the average worker pulls in, and housing costs accounted for just 27% of a remote worker’s earnings, landing it the 22nd spot for that metric.

Rounding out the top three for our study on the best cities to work from home is Aurora, Colo. Aurora’s rankings were boosted by the fact that remote workers in Aurora make $1.41 for every dollar that the average person makes — earning the city the 11th spot for that metric. The city also boasts 3.50% of people working from home, which landed it in 19th spot for that metric. Additionally, workers in Aurora had an average commute time of 30 minutes, which means, conversely, remote workers get to skip out on a half hour long-commute, earning the city the 18th spot for the commute time metric.

Overall, the best state to work remotely seems to be Arizona — three cities, all Phoenix suburbs, cracked our study’s top 10 best cities to work from home ranking: Gilbert (first), Chandler (seventh) and Scottsdale (tenth). Another state with a strong presence in our study’s top 10 best cities to work from home is Colorado, with Aurora ranking second and Denver ranking sixth.

Worst cities for working from home

The U.S. city falling to the bottom of our study’s ranking — making it the worst city to work from home — is Toledo, Ohio. Located in the northwest region of Ohio, Toledo has a population of around 276,000.

Remote workers in Toledo pulled in far less than the average worker, earning just $0.58 for every $1 earned by an average worker and resulting in the city ranking 99th for that metric. Additionally, remote workers in Toledo spent an average of 51% of their earnings on housing, underscoring remote workers’ overall low earning power. Toledo also had a staggeringly low percentage of residents working remotely — 0.90% — which indicates the poor overall culture of remote work and opportunity in the city.

The second worst city to work from home, according to our study, is El Paso, Texas. Remote workers in El Paso also had dismal earning power, with people who work from home making just $0.81 for every dollar earned by the average worker, and housing costs accounting for 45% of remote workers’ earnings. Like Toledo, El Paso also had a relatively low percentage of remote workers overall, with 1.60% of people working from home, placing the city 87th for that metric.

Meanwhile, our study found that Greenboro, N.C., is the third worst city to work from home. Greensboro ranked last for the metric measuring the growth in the number of people working from home, with 1.90% fewer people working remotely in 2018 compared to 2017, indicating a possible decline in remote work opportunity there. Remote workers also weren’t saving a particularly significant amount of time by telecommuting, with the average commute time for residents in Greensboro being just 21 minutes.

Overall, our study found that there are bad cities for working from home nationwide, from the Northeast all the way to the West Coast.

What happened to the “telecommuting revolution”?

Roughly a decade ago, as technology became more advanced and workforces became increasingly mobile, there were predictions of a “telecommuting revolution” in which more and more employees would begin working remotely.

Indeed, a recent study from FlexJobs found that between 2005 and 2017, remote work has grown 159%. However, this massive explosion in growth in the last decade and a half slowed to just 7.9% between 2016 to 2017 — evidence that the movement is losing steam.

Our study also found a fairly stagnant remote workforce in the 100 most populated U.S. cities from 2017 to 2018. Even the city that ranked first for the metric measuring the growth of the number of people working from home from 2017 to 2018 — Irvine, California — had just a 2.40% increase in the number of telecommuters. Additionally, our study revealed a slew of cities in which there were a smaller share of remote workers in 2018 than there were in 2017, including Washington D.C., Orlando and St. Louis.

While the number of remote workers might not be completely stagnant, these are certainly signs that the telecommuting movement might be slowing down. So, what’s to blame for the seemingly slowing growth of the “telecommuting revolution”? One explanation might be linked to perceived worker productivity. In 2013, for example, Yahoo yanked its employees’ remote privileges and shortly after cited increased levels of productivity and employee engagement.

Additionally, a 2018 survey from Randstad USA found that employees might not be buying into the idea either. While 82% of workers said being able to work from home helps them maintain their work-life balance, 62% said they still prefer working in the office, a number that was even higher among younger generations.

Advantages and disadvantages of working from home

As is the case with clocking your 9-to-5 hours in a cubicle, there are both advantages and disadvantages to working from the comfort of your couch.

Advantages of working from home

  • Potentially higher pay: Our survey found that in many cities, remote workers raked in more money than non-remote workers. For example, in Norfolk, Va., the average remote worker made $1.68 for every dollar earned by the average worker. One reason for this could be that, according to the BLS, the more popular occupations for remote work include jobs in management, business and finance, all of which tend to be higher-paying.
  • Money saved on transportation: The cost of commuting is not something to overlook. Depending on the state in which you live, you could spend between $2,000 to $5,000 a year on commuting costs. Working from home enables you to save thousands of dollars a year.
  • Money saved on childcare: One of the biggest incentives for working from home is the flexibility it allows — especially for parents with kids to care for. For working parents, the cost of childcare can add up to hundreds of dollars a week. If a parent works from home, they might be able to avoid paying for a daycare service or nanny.

Learn how you can maximize your savings with the best online savings account offers. 

Disadvantages of working from home

  • Strain on relationships with colleagues: Working from home could have a negative effect on your relationships with your colleagues. At least one study has found that remote workers were more likely to report that their co-workers treat them poorly and exclude them.
  • Lack of work-life balance: When your home doubles as your workspace, it can be difficult to unplug. Indeed, one survey from Remote.co found that unplugging after work hours is the biggest challenge among telecommuters. Achieving a healthy work-life balance when you work from home can certainly be a challenging obstacle to overcome.

Methodology

For our study, we looked at data from the 2018 Census Bureau’s 1-Year American Community Survey. Metrics analyzed included:

  • The percentage of people who work from home.
  • Earnings for people working from home relative to average earnings of local workers.
  • The percentage point change in the share of workers working from home from 2017 to 2018.
  • The percentage point change in earnings for people who work from home from 2017 to 2018.
  • Housing costs as a percentage of income for people working from home.
  • Average commute time.

To create the final rankings, we ranked each city in each metric. Using these rankings, we created a final index based on each city’s average ranking. The city with the best average ranking received the highest score, while the city with the lowest average ranking received the lowest score. The cities were then indexed based on the best possible score.

Advertiser Disclosure: The products that appear on this site may be from companies from which MagnifyMoney receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear). MagnifyMoney does not include all financial institutions or all products offered available in the marketplace.

Sarah Berger
Sarah Berger |

Sarah Berger is a writer at MagnifyMoney. You can email Sarah here