It's
not you. Really. It's them. Single people, that is. The cities that
ranked poorly for dating may be quite lovely for couples, families,
tourists and retirees. But based on economic and demographic factors, we
found these cities to be far from perfect matches for singles.
For one thing, each city's percentage of unmarried people (i.e., the
dating pool) falls well below the national average of 51.7%. Financial
indicators didn't boost the cities' attractiveness, either. Household
incomes came in far short of the national median of $50,054 and couldn't
cover the spread even in cities with lower than average living costs,
as reported by the Council for Community and Economic Research.
We also factored in education level, keeping in mind that people with
bachelor's degrees are more likely to be gainfully employed. After all,
broke and jobless are hardly attractive qualities. We didn't consider
metropolitan areas with populations under 125,000 people. Finally, we
threw in a date-night tab for each city that shows the typical cost of
two movie tickets, a pizza and a bottle of wine.
Yahoo! Homes is publishing the top five worst cities for singles. To see the rest of the top 10, go to Kiplinger's website.
5. McAllen, Texas
Metro population: 797,810
Percentage of unmarried adults: 46.2%
Cost of living: 14.0% below U.S. average
Median household income: $31,077
Date-night tab: $34.79
The financial situation is bleak for McAllen residents, regardless of
marital status. The metro area's median household income ranks lowest in
the country, and its poverty rate ranks highest with 37.7% of
households living below the poverty line, compared to 15.0% for the
nation. The local unemployment rate comes in at 10.3%.
The scene isn't so appealing for the singles set, either. The area
boasts one of the highest percentages of families, 81.9% of households,
of which 54.9% include kids younger than 18. The nearby Brownsville
metro area posts similarly discouraging economic statistics — the
second-lowest median income in the country and the second-highest
percentage of people living in poverty. Coupled with a below-average
percentage of unmarried households, the numbers add up to a negative
singles scene in South Texas.
4. Punta Gorda, Fla.
Metro population: 160,511
Percentage of unmarried adults: 43.2%
Cost of living: 6.1% below U.S. average
Median household income: $41,190
Date-night tab: $37.54
The worst for singles among our trio of Florida cities, Punta Gorda,
with its quaint historic district and Harborwalk, might be better suited
for a relaxing retirement than an active dating life. The local crowd
comes in as the most senior of our ranked cities with a median age of
56.1 (the national median is 37.3), and 34.9% of the population is 65
and up. Only about four in ten adults are unmarried, the second-lowest
share on our list.
And we don't mean to hate on Florida. Seven Florida cities pulled above-average scores for our singles rankings. Jacksonville, Miami and Tallahassee were our top three in-state cities for singles with unmarried populations of 53.0%, 56.8% and 61.2%, respectively.
3. Medford, Ore.
Metro population: 204,822
Percentage of unmarried adults: 48.4%
Cost of living: 5.9% below U.S. average
Median household income: $39,138
Date-night tab: $41.51
Single people might enjoy visiting Medford and Oregon's Rogue Valley to
take in the scenery and taste the local wines. But living there proves
less attractive.
Not only is the dating pool limited, with less than half of the
population unmarried, the financial situation is not pretty, either.
Median household income is 21.8% lower than the national level, and
living costs fall just 5.9% below the U.S. average. And, with the
unemployment rate at 9.5% as of December 2012 — compared with that
month's national rate of 7.8% — the majority of locals aren't likely to
be getting raises anytime soon. Plus, the date-night tab is the priciest
of any city on this list.
2. Morristown, Tenn.
Metro population: 137,494
Percentage of unmarried adults: 43.6%
Cost of living: 10.0% below U.S. average
Median household income: $35,027
Date-night tab: $38.98
Tennessee didn't fare well in our rankings. Clarksville, Cleveland,
Johnson City and Kingsport were among the 20 worst cities for singles.
But Morristown, where living costs are low but pay is even lower,
trumped them all. The abundance of married folks, at 56.4% of the
population, and families, 70.2% of households, also puts a damper on
singles life. Plus, Morristown's share of bachelor's degree holders is
just 12.7%, far below the national average of 25.8% and the lowest on
this list.
But before you brand us with a bias against Tennessee, allow us to recommend Memphis
for a strong singles setting: 59.5% of the population is unmarried; the
cost of living is 14.4% below the U.S. average; and though the median
household income still falls short of the national level, it's about
$10,000 more than that of Morristown.
1. Yuma, Ariz.
Metro population: 200,870
Percentage of unmarried adults: 43.0%
Cost of living: 4.7% above U.S. average
Median household income: $38,390
Date-night tab: $32.34
Our worst city for singles might be a bad choice for anyone, at least
based on the local job market. As of December 2012, this border town
suffered the nation's worst unemployment rate at 27.3% — a striking
figure that was three and a half times the national average at the time
and moving in the wrong direction. A year earlier, Yuma's jobless rate
was 25.4%.
Piling on to the financial woes of local residents, despite the low
median income, the cost of living actually inches above the national
average. If it's any consolation, our proposed date night in Yuma rings
up the lowest tab of any city on our list. But good luck finding another
singleton to join you for dinner and a movie. Yuma has the lowest
percentage of unmarried adults on this list and the eleventh-lowest in
the nation.
