Another "most expensive" cities list
Mar 5th, 2007, 09:37 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 12,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another "most expensive" cities list
http://tinyurl.com/34oykk
Supposedly Oslo is #1 (no surprise there), but Paris at #2 certainly is a surprise. Copenhagen is #3, and London is #4.
Having been to all four cities, I would order them as Oslo, Copenhagen, London, Paris (and Paris would not be #4 either). Of course it really depends on what items are being sampled for price - this index can easily be distorted that way.
Even with Tehran being ranked as the cheapest city, I don't plan to visit anytime soon!
Supposedly Oslo is #1 (no surprise there), but Paris at #2 certainly is a surprise. Copenhagen is #3, and London is #4.
Having been to all four cities, I would order them as Oslo, Copenhagen, London, Paris (and Paris would not be #4 either). Of course it really depends on what items are being sampled for price - this index can easily be distorted that way.
Even with Tehran being ranked as the cheapest city, I don't plan to visit anytime soon!
Mar 5th, 2007, 10:23 PM
#2
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost of living indices vary according to what question's being asked.
This article refers to the database a sister company of The Economist runs to advise expatriates and relocators. Its weightings are geared to what an Anglo-Saxon family would be spending money on if they lived there to work in a conventional organisation - including,if I remember rightly, property tax and the like.
That doesn't reflect the relative costs of being a visitor, which is why Paris comes out pricier than London - accurately if you're an expatriate at Morgan Stanley, but clearly not the case if you're sightseeing for three days.
This article refers to the database a sister company of The Economist runs to advise expatriates and relocators. Its weightings are geared to what an Anglo-Saxon family would be spending money on if they lived there to work in a conventional organisation - including,if I remember rightly, property tax and the like.
That doesn't reflect the relative costs of being a visitor, which is why Paris comes out pricier than London - accurately if you're an expatriate at Morgan Stanley, but clearly not the case if you're sightseeing for three days.
Mar 5th, 2007, 10:40 PM
#3
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
Not sure why you think Paris is a surprise. It is pretty expensive to get a hotel, going out to eat is not that cheap etc. I went to Paris last year and I went to a place where I had to pay 10 € for a glass of beer. I think most capitals and big cities are expensive.
Regards
Gard
http://gardkarlsen.com - trip reports and pictures
Not sure why you think Paris is a surprise. It is pretty expensive to get a hotel, going out to eat is not that cheap etc. I went to Paris last year and I went to a place where I had to pay 10 € for a glass of beer. I think most capitals and big cities are expensive.
Regards
Gard
http://gardkarlsen.com - trip reports and pictures
Mar 5th, 2007, 11:19 PM
#4
These lists are always comparing incomparable things and assuming that one wants exactly the same products and lifestyle in each city.
Gard, you can pay 10€ for a beer in Paris or buy one for 0.30€ at the supermarket. It's your choice.
Gard, you can pay 10€ for a beer in Paris or buy one for 0.30€ at the supermarket. It's your choice.
Mar 6th, 2007, 12:21 AM
#5
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>>>>
Its weightings are geared to what an Anglo-Saxon family would be spending money on if they lived there to work in a conventional organisation
>>>>>>
no, this is all about someone earning and spending in US dollar. notice nyc is the base city....meaning that all city costs are relative to nyc costs (which are in USD, of course). the exchange rate has a big part in what costs are RELATIVE to nyc. it has nothing to do with someone earning in £ and working in paris. it is a useless measure unless your personal base currency is USD and you are travelling to these cities.
Its weightings are geared to what an Anglo-Saxon family would be spending money on if they lived there to work in a conventional organisation
>>>>>>
no, this is all about someone earning and spending in US dollar. notice nyc is the base city....meaning that all city costs are relative to nyc costs (which are in USD, of course). the exchange rate has a big part in what costs are RELATIVE to nyc. it has nothing to do with someone earning in £ and working in paris. it is a useless measure unless your personal base currency is USD and you are travelling to these cities.
Mar 6th, 2007, 12:37 AM
#6
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, Tehran might be worth a visit.
It is a modern city with gardens, museums, libraries etc.
Remember that Persia was a cradle of civilisation.
Perhaps we should all go while all that beauty remains.
It is a modern city with gardens, museums, libraries etc.
Remember that Persia was a cradle of civilisation.
Perhaps we should all go while all that beauty remains.
Mar 6th, 2007, 06:23 AM
#11
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willtravel, thanks for the link, it was interesting.
You are right, the basket of goods used might not reflect the basket of goods used by the typical tourist.
Also, I wonder if the survey compared 'list' or 'rack rate' prices, as opposed to costs actually realized in the field. (My guess is the former, since it would be a more definitive index.) In other words, if the pricing and marketing techniques commonly used by vendors in various cities varies considerably, then the comparison is less valid.
Example: some cities might have hotels that market extensively through third parties at lower prices, but the third parties weren't surveyed. Or, the average cost of 100 ml of toothpaste in my local drugstore might be $1.00, but there's always one brand or size on sale for less than a penny a ml, so what one would actually spend, is not reflected in the average price of toothpaste.
You are right, the basket of goods used might not reflect the basket of goods used by the typical tourist.
Also, I wonder if the survey compared 'list' or 'rack rate' prices, as opposed to costs actually realized in the field. (My guess is the former, since it would be a more definitive index.) In other words, if the pricing and marketing techniques commonly used by vendors in various cities varies considerably, then the comparison is less valid.
Example: some cities might have hotels that market extensively through third parties at lower prices, but the third parties weren't surveyed. Or, the average cost of 100 ml of toothpaste in my local drugstore might be $1.00, but there's always one brand or size on sale for less than a penny a ml, so what one would actually spend, is not reflected in the average price of toothpaste.
Mar 6th, 2007, 06:47 AM
#13
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw that list of the “most expensive cities.”
I don’t buy it, particularly the ”finding” that Paris is more expensive than New York City.
I’ve been to Paris (and am going again in May) and I can get a decent hotel room much easier, for less (and without the bedbugs) in Paris than I can in New York City. (When I’m referring to New York City, I’m referring to Manhattan. Who wants to stay in Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, or Staten Island? Yet I’m wondering if this so-called study factored those boroughs into the costs, thereby lowering the average expense of touring ”New York City.”)
If Paris and other European cities have become more expensive for Americans in the past few years, it’s because the dollar sucks against the euro. And for that, and many other things, you can blame that idiot in the White House.
I don’t buy it, particularly the ”finding” that Paris is more expensive than New York City.
I’ve been to Paris (and am going again in May) and I can get a decent hotel room much easier, for less (and without the bedbugs) in Paris than I can in New York City. (When I’m referring to New York City, I’m referring to Manhattan. Who wants to stay in Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, or Staten Island? Yet I’m wondering if this so-called study factored those boroughs into the costs, thereby lowering the average expense of touring ”New York City.”)
If Paris and other European cities have become more expensive for Americans in the past few years, it’s because the dollar sucks against the euro. And for that, and many other things, you can blame that idiot in the White House.
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hagan
Europe
18
Feb 12th, 2007 10:17 AM
