The places that are ranked poor for the unmarried may be quite lovely for couples, families or retirees. But based on economic and demographic factors, we found these cities to be far from perfect matches for resident bachelors and bachelorettes. How did we come up with our list of the worst cities for singles? We started by looking for metropolitan areas with more than , people.
Then we penalized places with small populations of singles, including the never-married, divorced and widowed. The share of unmarried residents in each of these bottom 10 cities is well shy of the national average. Although many of these areas boast below-average living costs, paychecks typically are way below average too. On the bright side, we scoured our rankings for areas near these 10 cities that might serve as suitable alternatives.
Take a look. With the second-highest percentage of married people on this list, Yuma ranks worst for singles for the second year in a row.
As of December , this border town suffered a Piling on to the financial woes of local residents, the cost of living actually inches above the national average, despite the low median income.
A better bet for Arizona-bound bachelors and bachelorettes might be Flagstaff. In addition to Kingsport, the smaller Tennessee metro areas of Morristown and Cleveland also scored low marks for singles. The married crowd will find more company in these parts, with Kingsport boasting But before you brand us with a bias against Tennessee, allow us to recommend Memphis for a strong singles setting: The cost of living is The numbers add up to a negative singles scene in South Texas.
