The “quality of life” measurement is derived from 39 factors, including environment, health, safety, and availability of public services like transporation and education. Low cost of living does not necessarily translate into higher quality of life. For instance, you could live in Jakarta, or somewhere like that, for extremely low cost. However, your quality of life would not be so good due to pollution, crime, surrounding poverty, and other things like that.
Also, the second link shows that people in Zurich have the highest purchasing power among the surveyed cities. Thus, if prices are high in Zurich, this is more than offset by high average wages.
Of course, the major omission in these surveys is income inequality. Quality of life by income percentile varies at different rates in different cities. So, even if Zurich, on average, is the best city to live in, this does not mean that it is still the best city if you are in the top 10% or bottom 10% of society.
@ohai: indeed but even though income inequality is not included here Switzerland is actually doing very well in this regard too (world bank gini 33%)
@krazykanuck: What you mentioned is exactly the point of this study. Some cities may seem cheap but the salaries are even cheaper. It is all about purchasing power and even though Switzerland seems expensive for a visitor, the salaries are in fact even higher.
I think the original study is done every year by UBS and it is quite comprehensive. The study compares price levels, wage levels and purchasing power:
^ Yeah I get that and although globally it is comprehensive, it only covers 4 cities in the US. Anyway it doesn’t matter much for where I live right now because anywhere my city would fall, I’d be an outlier in income inequality relative to my age and the city in general. Plus because of my point in life, I like good weather, low taxes, low COL, and having stuff to do which definitely isn’t lacking.
Seeing median income and then the distribution around that would be telling. Where I live doesn’t have very good median incomes (median household income of $44k according to the census data)… but it’s because we have lots of poor people and a big service/working class sector that drag that down. If you’re an up and coming BSD who makes a fair bit more than that by himself, you can live really well. The professional jobs pay relatively well vs. COL.
I realize they can’t look at every city in the world, but how do they choose them? I ask because the choice of US cities is a little curious. NYC, LA and Chicago are pretty obvious choices, but why Miami? Not only is Miami not one of the largest cities in the US, it isn’t even the largest city in Florida. Why not look at places like San Diego, Houston, Dallas, Philly, San Fran, etc? Heck, Austin is a fantastic place to live and is twice the size of Miami but isn’t looked at.
That I was trying to get at is that inequitable countries are relatively better for rich people. If you are in the top 10% of society in terms of income (which most people here probably are), it is uncertain that it is best to live in the city with the highest median cost of living.
^ All good points, but that get’s back to one of my original questions: are they looking at the city proper or the MSA? I would also disagree that Miami is more multicultural than Houston or San Diego.
I find these quality of living surveys (most liveable city in the world rankings) are never consistent.
Most of them would say Zurich has the best overall living condition, followed by usually Sydney and Vancouver… but last year a publisher from UK ranked Hong Kong as the most liveable city in the world, which shocked everyone.
My point is, it varies from person to person, and what you enjoy doing (outdoor vs fine arts, winter sports vs water sports, etc) plays a huge part on where you want to live as well.
As for purchasing power, that’s probably the LEAST of my concern. Most of the important aspects of a city are priceless.