Writer: Lynn Cadet
Editor: Ashley Fricker
Reviewer: Adam West
Key Takeaways
- Maryland ranks first overall, demonstrating that strong earnings can help offset higher housing costs when affordability remains within reach.
- Housing costs emerged as one of the clearest distinctions between the highest- and lowest-ranked states, with Iowa's median home value ($208,000) standing in sharp contrast to Hawaii's ($839,100).
- New York, California, and Hawaii — all high-earning states — ranked among the least affordable states for homeowners, due to high median home values, taxes, and living costs.
Saving for a down payment on a home has become one of the biggest financial hurdles facing Americans. While incomes vary from state to state, so do home prices, taxes, and everyday living costs—meaning where you live can have a significant impact on how quickly you can achieve homeownership.
While home prices often dominate the conversation, they’re only one piece of the affordability puzzle. Income, taxes, employment conditions, and everyday living expenses all influence how quickly Americans can save enough to buy a home.
This study ranks all U.S. states, including the District of Columbia, across four dimensions to determine where Americans can best save for a down payment and afford a home
Best States to Save for a Home Down Payment
Best States Balance Strong Earnings With Attainable Housing
Our findings show that the best states for homebuying combine strong earning potential with affordable, attainable housing.
Maryland, Virginia, and New Hampshire are clear examples of this pattern. All three states ranked highly thanks to their relatively high income levels and housing costs that remain manageable relative to what residents earn.
Top 5 States:
- Maryland
- South Dakota
- Virginia
- New Hampshire
- Iowa
Unlike California and Hawaii, where housing costs are higher, the top-ranked states have lower median home values and strong income potential, making homeownership more attainable for prospective buyers.
For example, Iowa — which ranks fifth in the nation — has one of the country’s lowest median home values at $208,000, compared with $734,700 in California and $839,100 in Hawaii.
Maryland isn’t the cheapest state to live in, but it demonstrates that affordability isn’t just about low home prices. The state’s high incomes help keep pace with housing costs, making homeownership more attainable than in many other high-cost states.
The highest-ranked states demonstrate that affordability isn’t just about housing prices; it’s about the relationship between income and housing costs. These states strike a balance between earning power and housing affordability, giving residents more room to save for a home down payment.
The Cost of Buying a Home Varies Dramatically by State
Housing affordability emerged as one of the strongest differentiators between the highest- and lowest-ranked states.
Depending on where you live, the amount of money needed to enter the housing market can vary dramatically. But it’s not just that the disparity exists; it’s the size of it that matters even more. In fact, the affordability gap is so stark that the standard 5% down payment can vary by tens of thousands of dollars across states.
For example, residents in Iowa can expect to pay $10,400 for a 5% down payment on a house with the state’s median home value. In contrast, a 5% down payment on Hawaii’s median home would be roughly $42,000 — a $30,000 difference.
Of course, income also influences costs. Yet, while Hawaii is a higher-earning state than Iowa, how much Hawaiians can retain in income compared to Iowans differs widely. Home price-to-income ratios range from 2.77 in Iowa to 8.36 in Hawaii, meaning Iowans keep a lot more of what they earn after housing costs are factored in.
These results reveal the disparities in housing prices Americans are currently experiencing, highlighting how homeownership can be out of reach in one state and attainable in another.
High Costs Challenge Affordability in Coastal States
In the bottom-ranked states, high living costs were the greatest barrier to affordability.
Bottom 5 States:
- New York
- California
- Hawaii
- Oregon
- Nevada
New York (#51), California (#50), and Hawaii (#49) ranked as the least affordable states for aspiring homebuyers. While all three states offer strong earnings, their cost of living and housing expenses outweigh the income benefits, making it more challenging for residents to save and afford a home.
In these states, it wasn’t just housing costs that were a problem; it was a combination of expenses. High housing costs, taxes, and living expenses consistently dragged down scores.
Take a look at New York. New York’s housing affordability score wasn’t the worst on the list. But when the state’s full economic portrait comes into view, including its high cost of living and extreme tax burden, the unaffordability balloons, putting savings and attainable housing out of reach for many workers.
Based on these results, housing prices aren’t the only factor determining affordability for homebuyers. As the bottom-ranked states demonstrate, a combination of costs influences whether aspiring homeowners can save and afford a home in this economy.
| Rank | State | Total Score | Income Score | Average Adjusted AGI | Adjusted Median Household Income | Adjusted Per Capita Income | Housing Affordability Score | Home Price-to-Income Ratio | Effective Propert Tax Rate | Median Home Value | Cost of Living Score | Adjusted COL & Rent Index | Effective Tax Burden | Employment Score | Labor Force Participation Rate | Self-Employment Rate | Unemployment Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Maryland | 66.45 | 60.1 | 914.10 | 993.15 | 507.50 | 66.29 | 4.05 | 0.92% | $419,900 | 74.03 | 0.52 | 14.89% | 68.62 | 67.1% | 0.53 | 4.3% |
| 2 | South Dakota | 64.02 | 42.8 | 963.08 | 828.425 | 447.42 | 76.3 | 3.43 | 1% | $257,400 | 85.8 | 0.49 | 13.65% | 55.68 | 67.2% | 0.46 | 2.3% |
| 3 | Virginia | 63.75 | 60.43 | 994.87 | 938.472 | 510.34 | 70.6 | 4.12 | 0.78% | $383,700 | 66.35 | 0.58 | 14.95% | 55.85 | 65.4% | 0.49 | 3.7% |
| 4 | New Hampshire | 62.55 | 73.41 | 1067.58 | 1006.728 | 536.73 | 54.9 | 4.06 | 1.50% | $402,500 | 66.85 | 0.55 | 15.38% | 53.45 | 66.3% | 0.47 | 3.2% |
| 5 | Iowa | 62.27 | 41.58 | 917.22 | 837.212 | 455.94 | 75.7 | 2.77 | 1.33% | $208,000 | 88.04 | 0.52 | 12.62% | 47.39 | 66.4% | 0.45 | 3.4% |
| 6 | District of Columbia | 61.43 | 100 | 1233.34 | 1009.056 | 710.37 | 41.63 | 6.71 | 0.60% | $737,100 | 19.72 | 0.72 | 19.47% | 75 | 71.6% | 0.57 | 6.5% |
| 7 | Wyoming | 61.23 | 46.35 | 1086.10 | 789.462 | 442.20 | 79.8 | 4.07 | 0.53% | $309,700 | 65.26 | 0.56 | 15.41% | 51.68 | 65.1% | 0.48 | 3.6% |
| 8 | Kansas | 60.77 | 39.7 | 913.85 | 821.376 | 453.16 | 76.86 | 2.92 | 1.21% | $217,200 | 86.75 | 0.49 | 13.38% | 42.28 | 66.1% | 0.45 | 3.9% |
| 9 | Alabama | 60.54 | 20.34 | 826.09 | 716.001 | 403.73 | 92.72 | 3.28 | 0.37% | $209,900 | 87.45 | 0.53 | 12.54% | 45.65 | 58.3% | 0.47 | 2.7% |
| 10 | North Dakota | 60.18 | 35.84 | 930.52 | 779.279 | 441.08 | 79.34 | 3.26 | 0.92% | $249,900 | 75.08 | 0.55 | 14.04% | 53.03 | 68.6% | 0.45 | 2.6% |
| 11 | Nebraska | 59.6 | 41.51 | 923.92 | 833.086 | 454.82 | 69.82 | 3.12 | 1.44% | $238,600 | 81.56 | 0.54 | 13.28% | 49.45 | 68.6% | 0.45 | 3.1% |
| 12 | Minnesota | 59.58 | 44.06 | 893.10 | 867.198 | 469.68 | 71.16 | 3.7 | 1% | $329,300 | 79.87 | 0.52 | 14.04% | 45.19 | 68.1% | 0.46 | 4.5% |
| 13 | Utah | 59.17 | 49.81 | 940.18 | 959.896 | 412.27 | 65.62 | 5.14 | 0.48% | $489,400 | 82.22 | 0.52 | 13.52% | 40.52 | 69.6% | 0.43 | 3.8% |
| 14 | Indiana | 58.94 | 23.73 | 806.27 | 764.049 | 407.22 | 85.6 | 3.03 | 0.76% | $218,200 | 84.74 | 0.54 | 12.69% | 45.97 | 63.8% | 0.46 | 3.3% |
| 15 | Missouri | 58.69 | 29.41 | 852.47 | 769.833 | 432.22 | 80.95 | 3.26 | 0.89% | $230,300 | 83.79 | 0.52 | 13.25% | 44.1 | 63.1% | 0.47 | 3.9% |
| 16 | Delaware | 58.49 | 40.72 | 856.43 | 863.624 | 461.27 | 77.05 | 4.14 | 0.54% | $352,000 | 77.76 | 0.55 | 13.61% | 38.06 | 62.1% | 0.48 | 5.4% |
| 17 | Wisconsin | 57.9 | 35.37 | 859.05 | 809.98 | 453.39 | 69.07 | 3.44 | 1.32% | $266,500 | 81.36 | 0.55 | 13.08% | 51.48 | 65.3% | 0.47 | 3.4% |
| 18 | Colorado | 57.7 | 57.8 | 971.05 | 925.442 | 510.23 | 59.73 | 5.65 | 0.50% | $539,400 | 64.77 | 0.57 | 15.27% | 47.44 | 68.6% | 0.45 | 3.9% |
| 19 | Vermont | 57.43 | 35.74 | 812.91 | 825.492 | 472.71 | 59.9 | 3.9 | 1.51% | $316,600 | 80.07 | 0.55 | 13.23% | 63.63 | 64.6% | 0.5 | 2.6% |
| 20 | Arkansas | 56.55 | 16.5 | 832.65 | 686.405 | 386.56 | 90.92 | 3.09 | 0.56% | $188,000 | 92.31 | 0.49 | 12.61% | 29.31 | 58.4% | 0.45 | 4.4% |
| 21 | Maine | 56.22 | 25.16 | 778.39 | 759.72 | 444.67 | 71.59 | 3.97 | 0.98% | $296,600 | 82.85 | 0.55 | 12.78% | 53.13 | 61.7% | 0.49 | 3.2% |
| 22 | North Carolina | 56.18 | 29.32 | 870.85 | 756.176 | 432.31 | 78.54 | 3.99 | 0.66% | $288,900 | 72.46 | 0.58 | 13.93% | 46.67 | 62.8% | 0.47 | 3.8% |
| 23 | Georgia | 56.13 | 33.72 | 863.34 | 813.005 | 430.13 | 75.52 | 3.92 | 0.79% | $303,300 | 66.09 | 0.61 | 14.34% | 50.67 | 63.8% | 0.48 | 3.6% |
| 24 | Kentucky | 55.91 | 12.39 | 760.75 | 688.842 | 387.21 | 85.5 | 3.23 | 0.74% | $205,600 | 93.17 | 0.5 | 12.13% | 39.58 | 59.7% | 0.47 | 4.2% |
| 25 | Tennessee | 55.52 | 28.36 | 882.97 | 746.687 | 423.12 | 80.82 | 4.12 | 0.52% | $286,700 | 69.93 | 0.58 | 14.37% | 43.92 | 62.4% | 0.46 | 3.6% |
| 26 | Oklahoma | 55.41 | 19.87 | 815.41 | 725.03 | 397.12 | 85.65 | 3.07 | 0.79% | $199,800 | 84.51 | 0.55 | 12.66% | 34.25 | 61.2% | 0.44 | 3.9% |
| 27 | Ohio | 55.38 | 26.69 | 820.96 | 760.923 | 432.24 | 73.33 | 3.01 | 1.36% | $214,800 | 82.92 | 0.54 | 13.14% | 43.93 | 63.1% | 0.47 | 4.2% |
| 28 | Alaska | 55.25 | 38.35 | 823.42 | 880.175 | 441.79 | 70.63 | 3.8 | 0.94% | $352,900 | 73.59 | 0.59 | 13.53% | 39.19 | 66.3% | 0.45 | 4.7% |
| 29 | Massachusetts | 54.43 | 77.66 | 1131.08 | 993.479 | 553.28 | 49.57 | 5.41 | 1% | $562,100 | 35.31 | 0.7 | 17.34% | 46.01 | 67.0% | 0.47 | 4.8% |
| 30 | Mississippi | 53.88 | 0.99 | 703.15 | 634.505 | 354.63 | 91.91 | 3.01 | 0.58% | $169,800 | 82.32 | 0.61 | 11.63% | 47.76 | 57.4% | 0.5 | 3.7% |
| 31 | Rhode Island | 53.7 | 39.13 | 828.62 | 862.665 | 463.29 | 59.59 | 4.6 | 1.12% | $404,200 | 77 | 0.53 | 14.12% | 43.42 | 65.0% | 0.47 | 4.6% |
| 32 | Pennsylvania | 53.48 | 32.6 | 870.52 | 780.753 | 444.14 | 71.96 | 3.26 | 1.26% | $254,500 | 67.82 | 0.6 | 14.27% | 42.75 | 62.7% | 0.47 | 4.2% |
| 33 | West Virginia | 53.29 | 7.22 | 724.65 | 662.786 | 380.31 | 95.39 | 2.73 | 0.51% | $162,600 | 84.79 | 0.6 | 11.36% | 27.73 | 53.8% | 0.47 | 4.7% |
| 34 | Connecticut | 52.98 | 69.35 | 1139.78 | 914.574 | 533.91 | 57.2 | 3.83 | 1.54% | $366,900 | 30.39 | 0.71 | 18.01% | 44.69 | 65.9% | 0.47 | 4.7% |
| 35 | Louisiana | 52.86 | 14.44 | 799.47 | 680.061 | 392.19 | 86.95 | 3.56 | 0.55% | $216,500 | 72.55 | 0.6 | 13.36% | 39.68 | 59.3% | 0.48 | 4.3% |
| 36 | Michigan | 52.4 | 21.47 | 792.41 | 740.832 | 414.10 | 75.07 | 3.18 | 1.19% | $231,600 | 84.54 | 0.52 | 13.24% | 32.68 | 61.3% | 0.46 | 5.0% |
| 37 | South Carolina | 52.21 | 19.21 | 799.42 | 718.51 | 406.66 | 85.09 | 3.74 | 0.49% | $259,000 | 74.29 | 0.59 | 13.30% | 30.29 | 60.5% | 0.46 | 5.0% |
| 38 | Montana | 52.17 | 24.37 | 830.21 | 737.111 | 424.03 | 68.25 | 5.18 | 0.61% | $375,800 | 78.32 | 0.55 | 13.52% | 43.6 | 62.9% | 0.46 | 3.6% |
| 39 | Idaho | 52.08 | 27.79 | 851.30 | 790.723 | 395.89 | 67.28 | 5.38 | 0.50% | $418,600 | 85.62 | 0.52 | 12.93% | 32.15 | 63.0% | 0.43 | 3.7% |
| 40 | New Mexico | 51.58 | 5.49 | 687.01 | 670.452 | 379.06 | 81.88 | 3.87 | 0.63% | $248,100 | 93.82 | 0.5 | 12.07% | 33.03 | 57.8% | 0.47 | 4.7% |
| 41 | Washington | 50.88 | 57.37 | 1020.24 | 903.269 | 494.65 | 52.64 | 5.75 | 0.75% | $564,600 | 56.97 | 0.62 | 15.63% | 32.4 | 64.5% | 0.45 | 5.1% |
| 42 | Texas | 50.33 | 37.27 | 944.96 | 808.001 | 419.59 | 65.5 | 3.62 | 1.40% | $283,800 | 66.29 | 0.55 | 15.57% | 31.2 | 65.3% | 0.43 | 4.3% |
| 43 | Arizona | 50.16 | 27.74 | 832.39 | 782.168 | 415.74 | 71.53 | 4.93 | 0.48% | $394,500 | 78.14 | 0.53 | 13.98% | 23.76 | 60.6% | 0.43 | 4.6% |
| 44 | Illinois | 49.39 | 41.7 | 937.50 | 822.701 | 457.83 | 59.16 | 3.16 | 1.88% | $263,300 | 56.02 | 0.63 | 15.43% | 39.63 | 65.0% | 0.46 | 5.0% |
| 45 | New Jersey | 47.56 | 57.04 | 979.87 | 933.272 | 488.94 | 42.46 | 4.39 | 1.88% | $454,400 | 48.43 | 0.63 | 16.69% | 40.1 | 66.4% | 0.46 | 5.1% |
| 46 | Florida | 47.04 | 29.6 | 968.50 | 716.446 | 409.39 | 67.7 | 4.81 | 0.78% | $359,000 | 57.16 | 0.56 | 16.83% | 32.11 | 59.8% | 0.46 | 4.6% |
| 47 | Nevada | 47.03 | 33.66 | 937.12 | 780.467 | 412.41 | 65.37 | 5.56 | 0.50% | $435,400 | 66.35 | 0.55 | 15.43% | 20.26 | 63.2% | 0.42 | 5.3% |
| 48 | Oregon | 46.65 | 30.3 | 822.25 | 795.484 | 437.09 | 55.67 | 5.75 | 0.81% | $477,600 | 74.12 | 0.58 | 13.57% | 30.19 | 62.3% | 0.45 | 5.2% |
| 49 | Hawaii | 44.05 | 33.71 | 753.32 | 904.723 | 414.61 | 33.33 | 8.36 | 0.29% | $839,100 | 52.59 | 0.75 | 13.49% | 67.07 | 63.7% | 0.51 | 2.3% |
| 50 | California | 39.61 | 49.06 | 970.84 | 894.271 | 446.70 | 35.48 | 7.41 | 0.70% | $734,700 | 42.16 | 0.68 | 16.77% | 29.06 | 63.8% | 0.45 | 5.4% |
| 51 | New York | 37.33 | 37.59 | 939.71 | 775.424 | 457.39 | 52.92 | 4.93 | 1.30% | $423,800 | 10.92 | 0.87 | 17.70% | 39.98 | 62.7% | 0.47 | 4.6% |
Affordability Gaps Are Growing Across the Country
Depending on where you live, the path to homeownership can look dramatically different. The answer lies in each state’s economic profile.
Cost of living and housing costs are becoming increasingly varied across states. While some states can balance high incomes with lower living expenses, others struggle to ease financial pressures for residents despite having strong earnings.
This disparity couldn’t be more evident in the almost 30-point gap between the top-ranked state, Maryland, and the bottom-ranked state, New York. Maryland’s high incomes help keep pace with higher living costs, making it easier for residents to save for a home than in many other high-cost states.
New York, while a high-earning state, struggles to do the same, leaving homeownership off the table for many people.
Geography plays an increasingly important role in determining whether Americans can realistically save for a home. States with affordable housing and high incomes are better positioned to help aspiring homebuyers achieve their goals.
For media inquiries, please reach out to catherine@cardrates.com.
Methodology
The ‘Best States to Afford a Down Payment’ study evaluates the economic conditions across U.S. states to determine the most favorable environments for Americans aiming to save for a home down payment. The research utilizes a comprehensive set of metrics that reflect income levels, housing affordability, cost of living, and employment opportunities. By analyzing these factors, the study aims to provide insights into which states offer the best financial conditions for residents, who often face unique challenges in achieving homeownership.
Data & Sources
The data for this study are sourced from reputable organizations, including the IRS Statistics of Income, the U.S. Census Bureau, the Tax Foundation, Numbeo, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The metrics are carefully selected to ensure they accurately reflect the economic realities across different states, thus enhancing the reliability of the study’s findings.
Scoring Approach
The scoring approach for this study involves assigning points to various metrics that reflect the economic conditions for residents in each state. Metrics are weighted according to their importance in determining affordability and financial stability, with a higher score indicating a more favorable environment for saving for a down payment. States are ranked based on their cumulative scores across all metrics. Two metrics use state fallback filling (national median) for missing state values.
Caveats
While this study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis, there are inherent limitations in the data and methodology. For instance, certain metrics rely on estimates or may not capture the full spectrum of buyer experiences across different demographics. Additionally, state fallbacks were employed for some metrics to ensure all states were represented, which may influence the precision of the rankings. Users should consider these factors when interpreting the results.
Evaluated: 50 states and the District of Columbia
Sources Used: 5
Scoring Process
Each selected metric is pulled for all eligible states and transformed to a standardized 0-100 scale. Directionality is applied per metric (higher-is-better or lower-is-better). Optional divide-by metrics are computed as ratio values before normalization. Section scores are calculated as weighted averages of their component metrics. Final scores are computed as weighted averages of section scores using section point allocations.
Data Sources: IRS Statistics of Income, U.S. Census Bureau, Tax Foundation, Numbeo, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Section and Metric Weights
Income (30 pts · 3 metrics)
The Income section evaluates the earning environment in each state using income measures adjusted for local purchasing power. These metrics provide insight into residents’ ability to generate income and build savings. Higher adjusted income levels generally indicate greater financial flexibility, enabling residents to dedicate more resources toward a home down payment. As a result, this section helps assess how earning power may influence homeownership opportunities across states.
Adjusted Average AGI
The Average Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) measures the mean income reported by taxpayers, adjusted for various deductions. This metric is used to understand the financial landscape for Americans, as higher AGI indicates greater earning potential, which directly impacts their ability to save for a down payment. The interpretation of this metric is influenced by the Regional Price Parity (RPP), which adjusts income figures based on local cost of living; thus, a higher AGI in a high RPP area may not equate to greater purchasing power.
Adjusted Median Household Income
Adjusted Median Household Income reflects the middle income level of households in a given area, providing insight into the economic conditions faced by Americans. This metric is particularly relevant as it indicates the typical income level that workers can expect, influencing their ability to afford housing. When adjusted for Regional Price Parity, the interpretation of this metric becomes more nuanced; a higher median income in a high-cost area may not translate to better affordability for housing, impacting down payment capabilities.
Adjusted Per Capita Income
Adjusted Per Capita Income measures the average income earned per person in a specific area, which is vital for assessing the economic viability of Americans aiming to save for a down payment. This metric matters because it provides a clearer picture of individual earning potential compared to household income metrics. The Regional Price Parity adjustment allows for a more accurate interpretation of purchasing power; thus, a higher per capita income in a region with high living costs may not significantly enhance affordability for housing.
Housing Affordability (30 pts · 3 metrics)
The ‘Housing Affordability’ section assesses the conditions under which residents can afford to purchase homes in different states. It includes metrics such as median home value, property taxes, and housing costs, which are critical for understanding the financial barriers to homeownership. By evaluating these factors, the study highlights states where housing is more accessible, thereby enabling Americans to save effectively for down payments. This section is vital for identifying the relative affordability of housing markets across the U.S.
Home Price-to-Income Ratio
This metric compares a state’s median home value to its median household income. The metric measures how affordable homes are relative to local earning power. Lower ratios indicate that homes are more attainable for prospective buyers, while higher ratios suggest home prices are growing faster than incomes, creating greater barriers to homeownership.
Effective Property Tax Rate
Property taxes are an ongoing cost of homeownership and can significantly affect long-term affordability. Lower property tax rates leave residents with more disposable income to save and manage housing expenses, making states with lower rates more favorable in the rankings.
Median Home Value
The Median Home Value metric measures the typical value of owner-occupied homes in a state. Lower home values generally reduce the amount prospective buyers need to save for a down payment, making homeownership more attainable.
Cost of Living (20 pts · 2 metrics)
The ‘Cost of Living’ section evaluates the overall expenses associated with living in each state, including housing, food, transportation, and other essentials. By examining the cost of living alongside rent indices, this section provides a comprehensive view of the economic pressures faced by residents in different states, allowing for a clearer comparison of affordability.
Adjusted Cost of Living & Rent Index
This metric measures the combined cost of consumer goods, services and rent, adjusted for Regional Price Parity (RPP) to better reflect relative living expenses across states. Lower values indicate a more affordable cost of living, leaving residents with greater potential to save for a home down payment. For 10 states with unavailable data, the national median was used as a fallback value.
Effective Tax Burden
This metric measures the average share of income residents pay in state and local taxes. Lower tax burdens leave households with more disposable income to cover everyday expenses and save toward a home down payment, making states with lower effective tax rates more favorable in the rankings.
Employment Opportunities (20 pts · 3 metrics)
The Employment Opportunities section evaluates the overall strength and diversity of each state’s labor market using labor force participation, self-employment and unemployment rates. Together, these metrics provide insight into workforce participation, employment stability and the prevalence of independent work. States with stronger labor market conditions are generally better positioned to support income generation and long-term savings, helping residents build toward a home down payment.
Labor Force Participation Rate
This metric measures the percentage of the civilian population aged 16 and older that is either employed or actively seeking work. Higher participation rates generally reflect a more active labor market and greater workforce engagement, contributing to stronger economic conditions. States with higher labor force participation received higher scores.
Self-Employment Rate
This metric measures the share of the civilian labor force that is self-employed. A higher self-employment rate reflects a greater prevalence of entrepreneurship and independent work, providing insight into the diversity of a state’s labor market. States with higher self-employment rates received higher scores.
Unemployment Rate
This metric measures the percentage of the civilian labor force that is unemployed and actively seeking work. Lower unemployment rates generally indicate stronger labor market conditions and greater employment stability. States with lower unemployment rates received higher scores.
Notes: Each metric was normalized to a 0–100 scale, with directionality applied so that more favorable values received higher scores. Income metrics were adjusted using Regional Price Parity (RPP) to account for differences in purchasing power across states. The Self-Employment Rate was calculated as self-employed workers divided by the civilian labor force, while the Home Price-to-Income Ratio was calculated as median home value divided by median household income.
