Kiplinger, a leading publisher of business forecasts and personal finance advice, which in recent years has become best known for the annual city rankings it publishes, has placed two North Carolina cities on a couple of its recent lists. Durham is No. 9 on the list of 10 Best Cities for Singles, while Asheville is No. 8 on the list of 10 Worst Cities for Singles. It's interesting how Kiplinger describes its methodologies. At the heart of it, it doesn't seem to be much about heart at all, but rather about money.
Here's how the Best were determined:
"Finding the best cities for singles goes beyond simply identifying the places with the highest percentage of bachelors and bachelorettes. Financial factors count, too. After all, you’ll want to meet someone who can afford to date, right? To put together our list of best cities for singles, we took into account income and living costs. The cities that made the final cut boast household income levels well above the Census Bureau average of $49,536. The cost-of-living score -- derived from Council for Community and Economic Research data -- indicates essential costs, including rent. A high score is acceptable as long as it’s offset by attractive incomes and a strong dating pool..."
And how the Worst were determined:
"Landing on our list of worst cities for singles doesn’t necessarily make a city a bad place to live. Far from it. Many of these cities are great for couples, families or retirees, and many offer enviable amenities, from warm weather to low living costs. What these cities don’t offer are deep pools of financially attractive singles. Like it or not, when it comes to dating, money matters -- at least to a degree. So while love might ultimately conquer all, a steady paycheck conquers the here and now -- the tab for dinner and the like."
This all reminds me of a memorable line from I Think I Love My Wife: "You can lose lots of money chasing women, but you will never lose women chasing money."
Topping the list of best cities for singles, strangely enough, is Ann Arbor, Michigan. Notables on the list are Los Angeles at No. 5 and New York at No. 8. Topping the worst is Yuma, Arizona. Notably, all of the worst cities for singles are either in the South or Midwest. Interesting.
Here's how the Best were determined:
"Finding the best cities for singles goes beyond simply identifying the places with the highest percentage of bachelors and bachelorettes. Financial factors count, too. After all, you’ll want to meet someone who can afford to date, right? To put together our list of best cities for singles, we took into account income and living costs. The cities that made the final cut boast household income levels well above the Census Bureau average of $49,536. The cost-of-living score -- derived from Council for Community and Economic Research data -- indicates essential costs, including rent. A high score is acceptable as long as it’s offset by attractive incomes and a strong dating pool..."
You weren't with me shooting in the gym. [Image source]
And how the Worst were determined:
"Landing on our list of worst cities for singles doesn’t necessarily make a city a bad place to live. Far from it. Many of these cities are great for couples, families or retirees, and many offer enviable amenities, from warm weather to low living costs. What these cities don’t offer are deep pools of financially attractive singles. Like it or not, when it comes to dating, money matters -- at least to a degree. So while love might ultimately conquer all, a steady paycheck conquers the here and now -- the tab for dinner and the like."
This all reminds me of a memorable line from I Think I Love My Wife: "You can lose lots of money chasing women, but you will never lose women chasing money."
Topping the list of best cities for singles, strangely enough, is Ann Arbor, Michigan. Notables on the list are Los Angeles at No. 5 and New York at No. 8. Topping the worst is Yuma, Arizona. Notably, all of the worst cities for singles are either in the South or Midwest. Interesting.
0 comments :
Post a Comment