Chicago vs Bakersfield

Category-by-Category Breakdown

Index values shown. National average = 100. Lower is cheaper.

💰 Salary Equivalence

To maintain the same standard of living:

See exact take-home pay: Illinois salaries · California salaries

Living in Chicago vs Bakersfield

Housing is typically the biggest factor in any cost-of-living comparison. Chicago has a housing index of 112 while Bakersfield sits at 96 (national average = 100). The median home in Chicago costs $310,000 compared to $310,000 in Bakersfield, a difference of $0. Monthly rent follows a similar pattern: $1,700 in Chicago versus $1,200 in Bakersfield.

Groceries and everyday expenses show a narrower gap: Chicago scores 104 while Bakersfield scores 100. Both cities are close to the national average for grocery costs.

Healthcare costs in Chicago (101) are higher than Bakersfield (99). Both are close to the national average.

Median household income in Chicago is $62,097 compared to $57,548 in Bakersfield. When adjusted for cost of living, income goes further in Bakersfield.

Relocating: Chicago vs Bakersfield

If you are considering a move between Chicago (index: 107) and Bakersfield (index: 101), the 6% cost difference has real implications for your budget. Bakersfield is the more affordable option, but the right choice depends on your income, career opportunities, and lifestyle priorities.

Housing budget reality: Using the 28% rule (spending no more than 28% of gross income on housing), the median household in Chicago can afford $1,449/month, while the median household in Bakersfield can afford $1,343/month. With median homes at $310,000 in Chicago versus $310,000 in Bakersfield, both cities offer reasonable homeownership opportunities at median income.

Renting vs buying: At $1,700/month in Chicago and $1,200/month in Bakersfield, renters save significantly in Bakersfield. The rent-to-own ratio in each city determines whether renting or buying offers better value for your situation.

Income adjustment: A $75,000 salary goes significantly further in Bakersfield. Before accepting a job in either city, use the salary equivalence data above to understand what you would need to earn to maintain your current standard of living.

Reading These Numbers: Chicago (107) vs Bakersfield (101)

The cost of living index uses 100 as the national average. Chicago at 107 is 7% above the US average, while Bakersfield at 101 is 1% above average. Both cities are close to the national average in overall costs.

A 6-point index spread separates Chicago from Bakersfield, a moderate gap that adds up across monthly bills but is manageable with a typical dual-income household budget. The biggest category divergence is housing, where Chicago scores 112 and Bakersfield scores 96. That 16-point gap is the primary driver of the overall cost difference between these two metros. Housing, the largest line item for most households, favors Bakersfield with indices of 96 versus 112. Median home prices of $310,000 in Chicago and $310,000 in Bakersfield underscore this gap. Neither city is cheaper across the board: Chicago has an edge in utilities, while Bakersfield is more affordable for housing and groceries. Your actual savings depend on which categories consume the biggest share of your personal budget.

For renters: With median rents of $1,700/month in Chicago and $1,200/month in Bakersfield, the annual rent difference is approximately $6,000. Over a 5-year period, that compounds to $30,000 in savings by choosing the more affordable city.

For homebuyers: The $0 difference in median home prices between Chicago and Bakersfield translates to roughly $0 per month in mortgage payments at current rates. Factor this into your budget alongside property taxes and insurance, which also vary by location.

🔗 Related Tools

📚 Moving & Relocation Resources

Amazon affiliate links