An analysis of rent-to-income ratios across 52 major US cities reveals a stark geographic split – with Oklahoma and the Midwest offering breathing room that coastal and Sun Belt markets increasingly cannot.
Raw rental prices tell an incomplete story. A $4,500 apartment in a city where average workers earn $9,000 a month represents a very different burden from a $3,400 apartment in a city where average earnings sit closer to $4,800. It is the ratio that matters – and a new study examining that ratio across America’s most populous cities reveals just how dramatically housing affordability varies depending on where you live.
The analysis, conducted by Three Movers, a national moving and relocation company, compared average one-bedroom rents in city centres against average monthly earnings for full-time workers, drawing on Numbeo rental data from January 2026 and US Census income figures. The results map an affordability landscape that is reshaping where Americans choose to live.
The Least Affordable Markets
Boston emerges as the most strained rental market in the country by this measure – and by a significant margin. The average one-bedroom apartment in the city centre costs $3,429 per month, set against average monthly earnings of $4,806. That translates to a rent burden of 71 percent, leaving the typical Boston renter with less than $1,400 to cover all other living costs, savings, and debt repayments after housing.
“Boston’s ratio is alarming because it leaves renters with almost no financial cushion,” said Chris Townsend, Marketing Manager at Three Movers. “When housing takes up that much of your income, you’re one emergency away from a serious financial crisis.”
New York City ranks second at just under 50 percent, though the picture there is more nuanced. Renters pay considerably more in absolute terms – $4,513 per month on average – but the city’s higher earnings base, averaging $9,027 monthly, provides more room to absorb the cost. The burden is substantial, but the financial architecture is different from Boston’s.
Colorado appears twice in the top ten, underlining its emergence as an affordability trouble spot. Aurora ranks third at 48.8 percent, where monthly rent of $1,933 consumes nearly half of average earnings of $3,962. Denver follows in tenth place at 34.8 percent. Both cities have seen significant population growth in recent years, with demand running ahead of wage increases.
Florida adds two further entries. Miami renters allocate 44.3 percent of income to housing, while Tampa renters commit 38.7 percent – figures that reflect the state’s sustained appeal as a relocation destination for workers and retirees alike, without a commensurate rise in wages.
The Most Affordable Markets
At the other end of the spectrum, Oklahoma dominates the affordability rankings in a way that is likely to surprise many observers. Oklahoma City renters spend just 12.4 percent of monthly income on housing, paying $1,163 in rent while earning an average of $9,392 – a combination that leaves substantial room for saving, investing, or meeting other financial goals. Tulsa ranks second at 12.6 percent, with nearly identical income figures and only marginally higher rent.
Omaha, Nebraska, rounds out the top three at 12.6 percent, notable for having the highest average monthly income among the most affordable cities at $11,479, against a rent of $1,449.
“These markets offer something increasingly rare: housing that doesn’t dominate your entire financial picture,” Townsend said. “When rent takes up only 12 to 15 percent of income, families can build savings, pay down debt, or invest in their futures.”
The remainder of the most affordable list is drawn almost entirely from the South and Midwest. Memphis ranks fourth at 15 percent, El Paso fifth at 16.3 percent, and Kansas City sixth at 16.4 percent. Las Vegas offers a notable result in seventh place: despite its profile as a major tourism hub, renters there spend just 16.8 percent of income on housing, supported by average monthly earnings of $9,458 – suggesting the city’s economy has diversified meaningfully beyond its hospitality base.
Albuquerque, Louisville, and Tucson complete the top ten most affordable cities. Even Tucson’s ratio of 21.5 percent – the highest among the most affordable markets – represents less than a third of the burden faced by renters in Boston.
A Divide That Is Reshaping Migration
Townsend says the rent-to-income gap is producing measurable shifts in where Americans are choosing to relocate, a trend that Three Movers has observed directly through client patterns.
“We’ve noticed more clients relocating from high-cost metros to affordable markets where their paychecks stretch further,” he said. “When someone in Boston realises they could pay one-sixth the income share on rent in Oklahoma City, that’s a powerful incentive to consider moving.”
The implications extend beyond individual households. Cities where rent absorbs more than 40 percent of income face structural challenges in retaining middle-income workers, while affordable markets are positioned to attract the families and talent that high-cost cities are losing.
For anyone weighing a relocation decision, Townsend’s advice is to look beyond headline rent figures. “Looking at income ratios provides a clearer picture of where you can actually thrive financially – not just survive,” he said. By that measure, the most expensive-looking cities are not always the most burdensome, and some of the country’s most liveable rental markets are in places that rarely appear in the national conversation about housing affordability.