I go to Trader Joe’s or Aldi about every two weeks, and usually spend about $100. But as the Tax Foundation’s recent report of the value of $100 in each state shows, I’m not getting as many groceries as millions of Americans in other states.

Color me annoyed, but I live near Washington D.C. and I guess this should come as no surprise to me.

The data come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and have been published for three years now. The value for each state is in comparison to the national average.

As you know I love maps, and I really love maps that others make for me. And they were kind enough to use my color scheme. Wonderful folks. 🙂

But it’s important to remember that in general, states and areas with higher prices also usually have higher salaries. The Tax Foundation article says:

It’s generally the case that states with higher nominal incomes also have higher price levels. This is because in places with higher incomes, the prices of finite resources like land get bid up. (This is especially true in cities.) What is also true is that places with high costs of living pay higher salaries for the same jobs. This is what labor economists call a compensating differential; the higher pay is offered in order to make up for the low purchasing power.

I did a post a little while back analyzing the expenses for the big three (housing, transportation, and food) in each state. It looks like my analysis was spot on as my final map looks strikingly similar to the Tax Foundation map above as far as how expensive each state is in relative terms.

The least expensive states in my analysis of the big three are West Virginia, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

The Tax Foundation’s report shows that $100 is worth the most in Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas. And West Virginia is 4th.

Regarding the issue of higher salaries in higher costs states, I’ve got you covered. I did a post highlighting a great tool that shows the expected salary for a whole host of college majors and professions in different parts of America.

It would be nice if states that have a higher cost of living also had commensurate salaries, and more often than not they probably do.

But the Tax Foundation article shows an example between North Dakota and Massachusetts. They have similar median nominal incomes, but $100 is worth much more in North Dakota.

Granted, as in all cases of data aggregated by state, the numbers can be skewed by special regions within the state.

For instance in the example above the Massachusetts data is no doubt being skewed by the fact that Boston is a pretty expensive city.

Massachusetts has a total of 6.8 million people, and 67% of them live in the greater Boston metropolitan area. So if you’re one of the 2.2 million people in Massachusetts who do not live in the Boston area, your results may vary.

If you want to see the full list of all 50 states and how much $100 is worth in each one it’s at the bottom of the Tax Foundation article.

I will no doubt be using this data for other analysis that I may or may not be cooking up!