Australia and Englands Cities: Cost of Living Compared

….and some other cities too.

In my category “Cost of Living – Australia” I have looked at the costs of a wide range of essential items ranging from electrical goods to groceries, from houses to ambulance fees and from toys to booze.

At the start of the exercise I suggested that there wouldn’t be too much difference between the cost of living in Australia and England, and so far that seems to have been the case.

I recently became aware of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Worldwide Cost of Living ranking report which I believe comes out every other year. As you can imagine, the economist’s resources are probably greater than those available to me here at BobInOz, so it is possible their figures may be more accurate or factual than mine.

Well, they do have over 100 in house editors and economists and over 700 global contributors.

So what do they make of it?

Firstly, let me explain that this survey compares prices and products in 140 cities around the world. As its benchmark city, it uses New York and whatever it costs to buy those products in New York is deemed to be 100 points.

So that we might get our bearings, let me tell you that New York, along with Chicago, Los Angeles and Hamburg, all scored 100 points and are sitting in at joint 23rd.

How did our Australian and UK cities fare?

London is 27th (8) with 99 points
Sydney is 35th (17) with 92 points
Melbourne is 39th (24) with 89 points
Brisbane and Perth are joint 57th (35) on 80 points
Manchester is 70th (49) with 76
Adelaide is 72nd (48) with 74

Close to the UK but not quite, is Dublin in 13th with 108.

The top three worldwide, for those who would like to know, are Tokyo on 152 and Osaka Kobe on 145, both in Japan, with Paris in third on 132.

What does this all mean? I really don’t know. But I see nothing here to make me change my mind about my own finger in the air assessment of “not much in it”. There is certainly no evidence that Australia is more expensive than England.

London/Sydney/Melbourne, not much in it.
Manchester/Brisbane/Perth/Adelaide, not much in it.

And we’re all cheaper than New York.

What is interesting is the way that the recent financial turmoil in the exchange rate markets has affected this table. The figures in brackets next to each cities current position in my list above reflects where they would have been prior to the meltdown of October 2008. You see, the survey took place in September 2008 and was adjusted in February 2009 to reflect the huge changes in exchange rates.

So, accordingly, most US cities have gone up the index because of the strong USD. New York, Chicago and Los Angeles for example, would have been 39th instead of 23rd.

And each and every city within the UK and Australia is now cheaper than it was before then.

Doesn’t feel like it, does it?

I don’t really get it. I understand the weak British pound would make UK cities cheaper to live in, but I thought the Aussie dollar has gone from strength to strength since that crash.

But then the cent dropped. These figures were adjusted in February this year. Since then the Aussie dollar has continued its strong performance, gaining somewhere around 25% against the US dollar.

So a survey taken in September 2008, adjusted in February 2009 is out of date today. Complicated isn’t it?

I’m sticking with “there’s not much in it”. But the GBP is in desperate need of a reverse if I am going to continue to be able to say that.

My thanks to The Economist for helping out.