Category Archives: Checking Account

How far you live from work, school and other places you frequent can cost you time, money and health. The U.S. Census says that the average commute takes Americans 27.6 minutes each way. Thatâs more than 240 hours annually, if you commute twice every workday in 2021. And now that many people have cut back their commutes by working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, you might be thinking about how to save money by carpooling or biking, or you might consider moving to shorten the commuter distance. In either case, SmartAsset examined the largest cities in America to uncover the worst commutes in 2021. Find out how your commute measures up against them.

We compared data from the 100 largest U.S. cities and ranked the worst commutes by six key metrics: commuters as a percentage of workers, average travel time to work, five-year change in average travel time, percentage of workers with a commute of more than 60 minutes, five-year change in percentage of workers with a commute of over 60 minutes, and transportation as a percentage of income. For details on our data sources and how we put all the information together to create our final rankings, check out the Data and Methodology below.

This is SmartAssetâs second study on the worst commutes in America. Check out the 2020 version here.

Key Findings

California leads the country as the state with the worst commutes. Eight out of the 11 cities on this list are located in the Golden State, averaging 33.6 minutes in travel time to work. Commuters in those cities need twice as long as those with the shortest commute â in Lubbock, Texas, which averages a little more than 16 minutes on a trip to work.
The overwhelming majority of workers in America are commuters. On average, 94.3% of workers in the 100 largest U.S. cities are commuters, based on the most recently available Census data from 2019. Scottsdale, Arizona has the smallest percentage of commuters, but it still has 82.1% of its workers traveling to their jobs. Newark, New Jersey has the highest percentage, with 98% of workers averaging almost 35 minutes commuting.
The Midwest still offers better commutes. Cities in Northeastern, Southern and Western states tend to rank in the worst third of the study for their less-than-ideal commutes. While Chicago, Illinois and Cincinnati, Ohio crack the top 35 cities with the worst commutes, all other Midwestern cities rank in the bottom half of the list for their relatively short commutes.

1. Riverside, CA

Ranked as the worst commuting city in America, Riverside, California takes the greatest toll on its workers in transit, with 18.6% of them averaging more than 60 minutes on a trip to work. And data shows that commutes are getting longer, with a 3.7% five-year increase (2014 to 2019) in workers traveling for more than one hour. Riverside commutes average 33.9 minutes each way, and this travel time has also increased 13.38% over the same five years.

2. Stockton, CA

Ranking second-worst, Stockton, California saw an increase of 18.68% in average travel time over the five-year period from 2014 to 2019. Data shows that 17.8% of workers in this Central Valley city average more than 60 minutes on their commute to work, the fifth-highest percentage for this metric across all 100 cities we studied. The average travel time for residents there is 32.4%, ranking 11^th overall.

3. Hialeah, CA

Commute times in Hialeah, Florida, a Miami suburb, have spiked more than any other city in the study with a 26.81% jump between 2014 and 2019. Hialeah has also seen the biggest percentage 2014-to-2019 increase for workers commuting longer than 60 minutes, a 6.1% uptick. However, it is important to note that the cityâs percentage of commuters is relatively small: With just 91% of all workers traveling to work, this city ranks 90^th out of 100 for this metric in our study.

4. Glendale, AZ

Between 2014 and 2019, the number of workers in Glendale, Arizona with commutes longer than an hour increased 5.6%. This is the second-highest uptick for this metric overall. The percentage of workers with a commute longer than 60 minutes is 12.1%, ranking 16^th-highest out of 100. Data shows that with 94.9% of Glendale workers commuting, they average 31.5 minutes on each trip.

5. Los Angeles, CA

Los Angeles, California has seen a five-year (2014 to 2019) increase of 3.3% in workers commuting longer than 60 minutes, the ninth-biggest jump for this metric in the study. With 93.5% of the workforce commuting, 15.4% of Angeleno workers need more than one hour each way to their jobs, the 11^th-highest percentage for this metric overall. That said, they only spend 7.91% of their income on commuting, ranking 77^th out of 100 for this metric.

6. Oakland, CA

Workers in Oakland, California average 34.4 minutes on each trip to work, the seventh-longest travel time in the study. Oaklanders also rank seventh-highest for the percentage of workers with trips longer than 60 minutes, with 16% of them making treks longer than an hour to the office in 2019. However, Oakland has one of the cheapest commutes, as workers there spend only 5.45% of their income on travel to work, the fourth-lowest rate for this metric overall.

7. Fremont, CA

Fremont, California has seen a 4.3% increase in five years for workers commuting longer than 60 minutes on each trip, the fifth-highest in the study. Residents there also have the third-longest travel time, averaging 36.4 minutes on each commute, and the second-largest proportion of the workforce commuting longer than one hour, at 20.2%. Fremont workers, however, spend only 5.45% of their income on travel to work, tying for fourth-lowest for this metric.

8. San Jose, CA

Located in the heart of Silicon Valley, San Jose, California has the most affordable transportation on our list. Workers there spend only 5% of their income on travel to work. Despite those relatively low costs, San Jose still ranks as the eighth-worst commuting city on our list. Workers average 31.7 minutes on each commute, and they have seen a 14.44% increase in travel time over the five-year period from 2014 to 2019. Data also shows that San Jose has seen a 4.8% increase over that time period in commuters traveling more than one hour per trip.

9. San Francisco, CA

San Francisco, California averages 34.7 minutes on each commute, the sixth-longest travel time in the study. The Bay Area city also has one of the largest groups of workers commuting the longest, with 15.7% needing more than 60 minutes to commute one way. That said, San Francisco workers have a relatively affordable commute, as residents there spend only 5.45% of their income on travel for work. The city ties for fourth-lowest out of 100 for this metric.

10. New York, NY (tie)

New York City ties with Long Beach, California for the final spot in the 11 cities where residents have the worst commutes. The average travel time for New Yorkers is 41.7 minutes, the longest travel time in our study. New York City also has the highest percentage of workers who travel more than 60 minutes each way, at 27.2%. Despite the duration, the city ranks 16^th-lowest out of 100 for transportation costs, with workers spending less than 8% of their income on commuting.

10. Long Beach, CA (tie)

Long Beach, California ties with New York as the 10^th-worst U.S. city for residentsâ commutes. Residents there have seen a 2.1% increase over the five-year period from 2014 to 2019 in the number of workers traveling more than one hour to work each day. Long Beach has the 12^th-longest commute on our list, averaging 32 minutes for each trip. And 14.9% of the workforce is traveling for longer than 60 minutes during each trip, the 12^th-largest for this metric in the study.

Data and Methodology

To find the cities with the worst commutes, we compared the 100 largest cities in the country across the following metrics:

Commuters as a percentage of workers. Data comes from the Census Bureauâs 2019 1-year American Community Survey.
Average travel time to work in 2019. Data comes from the Census Bureauâs 2019 1-year American Community Survey.
Five-year change in average travel time. Data comes from the Census Bureauâs 2019 and 2014 1-year American Community Surveys.
Percentage of workers with a commute of longer than 60 minutes. Data comes from the Census Bureauâs 2019 1-year American Community Survey.
Five-year change in percentage of workers with a commute of longer than 60 minutes. Data comes from the Census Bureauâs 2019 and 2014 1-year American Community Surveys.
Transportation as a percentage of income. Data comes from the Census Bureauâs 2019 1-year American Community Survey and the March 2020 MIT Living Wage Study.

First, we ranked each city in each metric. We then found each city average ranking, giving all metrics an equal weight except for average travel time, which received a double weight. Next, we ranked the cities based on this average, giving the city with the highest average an index score of 100 and the city with the lowest average an index score of 0.

Tips for Managing Your Money While on the Go

Locate a one-stop shop for expert financial support. Need something to do on a long commute? Think about finding a financial advisor. Finding the right financial advisor that fits your needs doesnât have to be hard. SmartAssetâs free tool matches you with financial advisors in your area in five minutes. If youâre ready to be matched with local advisors that will help you achieve your financial goals, get started now
Take a new route in your budget management. If transportation is eating up a lot of money, consider creating a budget using SmartAssetâs free budget tool.
Plan your road to retirement. Itâs never too early â or too late, for that matter â to start saving as much as you can for retirement. Get ready for your golden years by saving using a 401(k) or other workplace retirement plan.

Questions about our study? Contact [email protected]

Photo credit: Â©iStock.com/simonkr

The post Cities Where Residents Have the Worst Commutes â 2021 Edition appeared first on SmartAsset Blog.

Source: smartasset.com

Most Fitness-Friendly Places for 2021

January 25, 2021

Stella Mason

Though the COVID-19 crisis has resulted in widespread fitness center closures, many Americans still want to stay as healthy as possible. Depending on the level of services and equipment required, staying active can affect peopleâs budgets in a variety of ways. For now, virtual exercise classes and home gyms are the route most people are taking. Eventually, though, gyms will reopen at full capacity, and everyone will be able to reestablish his or her normal workout routine. When that happens, some places will be more conducive to jumping into a full-on fitness frenzy, and SmartAsset crunched the numbers to find where they are.

To locate the most fitness-friendly places for 2021, we compared 301 metropolitan areas across the following metrics: percentage of residents who walk or bike to work, fitness professionals per 10,000 workers, fitness establishments per 10,000 establishments, the percentage of restaurants that are fast-food establishments and the average wage of personal trainers. For details on our data sources and how we put all the information together to create our final rankings, check out the Data and Methodology section below.

This is SmartAssetâs seventh annual study on the most fitness-friendly places in the U.S. Read the previous version here.

Key Findings

Western and Midwestern metro areas populate the top. For the second straight year, cities in the Midwest and West dominate the top 10 of this list. Six metro areas are in the West and three are in the Midwest. Western metro areas do well in terms of fitness establishments per 10,000 establishments â all rank within the top 8% of study for this metric â and they also rank within the top 14% of the study for the percentage of residents who walk or bike to work. Only one metro area in the top 10 is not in either of these regions â Ithaca, New York.
Fitness-friendly cities are light on the drive-thrus. On average, across the 301 metro areas in our study, fast-food establishments represent 45% of all restaurants. Though fast food is popular, convenient and inexpensive, it tends to be relatively high in calories and low in nutritional value â making it tougher to be healthy if you eat a lot of it, regardless of your exercise levels. In the top 10 of this study, all but three metro areas have fewer than 40% of their restaurants serving fast food, so there is less temptation to go for an easy-but-unhealthy meal that can ruin all your hard work. The metro area with the lowest percentage of restaurants that are fast food is Wenatchee, Washington, where it is just 27%.

1. Missoula, MT

The Missoula, Montana metro area is the most fitness-friendly place in the U.S. for 2021. There are 131 fitness establishments â including places like gyms and sporting goods stores â per 10,000 total establishments in Missoula, the third-highest rate for this metric in the study. There are also plenty of fitness professionals living in Missoula, 59 per 10,000 workers, placing it sixth-best for this metric. Residents in Missoula also get plenty of exercise simply by walking or biking to work: 7.1% of residents choose to do so, the 17^th-highest rate for this metric across the 301 areas we studied.

2. La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN

The La Crosse, Wisconsin metro area, which also includes parts of Minnesota, has 130 fitness establishments for every 10,000 total establishments, the fourth-highest rate for this metric. The metro area finishes in the top quartile for three other metrics as well, ranking 28^th for fitness professionals per 10,000 workers (with 42), 33^rd for the percentage of residents who walk or bike to work (at 5.2%) and 64^th for the percentage of restaurants that are fast-food establishments (around 39%).

3. Bend, OR

The Bend, Oregon metro area cracks the top 10 for two of our metrics. It places fourth in terms of fitness professionals per 10,000 workers with 61, and seventh for fitness establishments per 10,0000 total establishments, at 116. Bend can be a bit pricey of a place to stay in shape, though. The average hourly wage of personal trainers is $18.72, placing Bend at 176^th out of 301 for this metric.

4. Ann Arbor, MI

There are 67 fitness professionals per 10,000 workers in the Ann Arbor, Michigan metro area, the second-highest rate for this metric of the 301 metro areas we analyzed. For their commutes, 7.4% of residents walk or bike to work, the 15^th-highest percentage in this study. There are also plenty of fitness establishments in the metro area if you prefer to work out in a dedicated space: At 112 per 10,000 residents, this is the 10^th-highest rate of the 301 places we analyzed.

5. Bloomington, IN

Folks in the Bloomington, Indiana metro area might have more of an opportunity to get a workout in during their commute, with 8.0% of residents walking or biking to work, the eighth-highest rate in the study for this metric. Bloomington has two other metrics for which it finishes in the top fifth of the 301 metro areas of the study â fitness establishments per 10,000 total establishments (ranking 48^th-highest, with 93) and average wage of personal trainers (ranking 49^th-lowest, which makes it cheaper for the consumer, at $14.53).

6. Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA

The metro area around Santa Cruz, California finishes ninth overall for its relatively low percentage of restaurants that specialize in fast food, at 33%. Santa Cruz also comes in 12^th for the percentage of residents who walk or bike to work, at 7.5%. If youâre looking for help getting in shape, though, itâll cost you. The average wage of a personal trainer in the area is a steep $20.59, ranking in the bottom third of this study.

7. Flagstaff, AZ

Flagstaff, Arizona has the third highest percentage of residents who walk or bike to work we saw in this study, at 11.5%. There are also 109 fitness establishments per 10,000 total establishments, the 14^th-highest rate we observed. Flagstaff is hurt, though, by its price: The average wage of a personal trainer in this metro area is $22.27, in the bottom sixth of this study.

8. Fort Collins, CO

Fort Collins is the first of two metro areas in Colorado to rank in the top 10 of this study, and it gets there on the strength of having 113 fitness establishments per 10,000 total establishments, ranking ninth of 301 metro areas for this metric. It also scores in the top 15% of the study for the percentage of residents who walk or bike to work (5.2%) and fitness professionals per 10,000 workers (46).

9. Boulder, CO

Boulder is the second Colorado metro area in the top 10, and it has two metrics for which it finishes in the top 15 out of 301 in the study overall. It comes in 11^th for fitness professionals per 10,000 workers, at 53, and 12^th for the percentage of residents who walk or bike to work, at 7.5%. Its final ranking is dragged down a bit due to its bottom-10 finish for the average hourly wage for personal trainers, at a pricey $27.25. However, it still ranks in the top 20 of the study for fitness establishments per 10,000 establishments, at 105.

10. Ithaca, NY

A whopping 14.5% of residents of Ithaca, New York walk or bike to work, the second-highest percentage in this study for this metric. Ithaca finishes eighth in terms of fitness establishments per 10,000 total establishments with 114. It is very expensive to get help with fitness in Ithaca, though. The average hourly wage for a personal trainer is $29.30, finishing third-worst out of 301 metro areas in this study for its high cost.

Data and Methodology

To find the most fitness-friendly places in the country for 2021, we examined data for 301 metro areas across the following five metrics:

Percentage of residents who walk or bike to work. Data comes from the Census Bureauâs 2019 1-year American Community Survey.
Concentration of fitness professionals. This is the number of fitness professionals per 10,000 workers. Our list of fitness professionals includes dietitians and nutritionists, recreational therapists, athletic trainers as well as fitness trainers and aerobics instructors. Data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics and is for May 2019.
Concentration of fitness establishments. This is the number of fitness establishments per 10,000 establishments. Our list of fitness establishments includes sporting goods stores and fitness and recreational sports centers. Data comes from the Census Bureauâs 2018 Metro Area Business Patterns Survey.
Concentration of fast-food restaurants. This is the percentage of restaurants that are limited-service establishments. Data comes from the Census Bureauâs 2018 Metro Area Business Patterns Survey.
Average hourly wage of personal trainers. Given the limited availability of direct data about the cost to consumers for personal training services, this metric acts as a proxy to indicate the relative affordability of hiring a personal trainer in a given metro area. Data comes from the BLS and is for May 2019.

First, we ranked each metro area in each metric. Then we found each placeâs average ranking, giving all metrics a full weight except for concentration of fast-food restaurants and average hourly wage of personal trainers, each of which received a half weight. Using this average ranking, we created our final score. The metro area with the highest average ranking received a score of 100, and the metro area with the lowest average ranking received a score of 0.

Tips for a Fit and Financially Secure Life

Find the right financial fit. No matter what your fitness goals are, financially you want to make sure you are secure, and a financial advisor can help. Finding the right financial advisor doesnât have to be hard. SmartAssetâs free tool matches you with financial advisors in your area in five minutes. If youâre ready to be matched with local advisors that will help you achieve your financial goals, get started now.
Consider the health of your budget. If you live somewhere where fitness is expensive, make a budget so that you can work the price into your monthly spending.
Making bigger money moves? If youâre considering moving to one of the places we listed above, use SmartAssetâs tool to find out how much house you can afford before you make the big move.

Questions about our study? Contact [email protected]

Photo credit: Â©iStock.com/PeopleImages

The post Most Fitness-Friendly Places for 2021 appeared first on SmartAsset Blog.

Source: smartasset.com

Most Livable Mid-Sized Cities â 2020 Edition

January 7, 2021

Stella Mason

Apartment Life Checking Account Mortgage No Comments

For Americans seeking a more affordable and less crowded alternative to the bustle of a big city but not interested in very small towns, a mid-sized city might be the best place to put down roots. But not all of them are equally suited to meet the needs of their inhabitants. Thatâs why SmartAsset crunched the numbers on a variety of financial factors to find the mid-sized cities that are the most livable.

To do so, SmartAsset considered data for 227 cities across the following eight metrics: Gini coefficient, four-year home value change, median monthly housing costs, poverty rate, median household income, July 2020 unemployment rate, percentage of residents without health insurance and average commute time. For details on our data sources and how we put all the information together to create our final rankings, check out the Data and Methodology section below.

This is SmartAssetâs fourth study on the most livable mid-sized cities. Check out the 2019 edition here.

Key Findings

Unemployment is on par with the national average. The average unemployment rate for the mid-sized cities in our study was 10.7% in July 2020, just slightly higher than the national unemployment rate of 10.2%. A few cities we analyzed, though, have significantly lower unemployment rates. In Meridian, Idaho, the unemployment rate was just 5.0%, part of the reason it ranks fourth overall. The lowest unemployment rate we found was 3.6% in Provo, Utah.
Some consistency in the most livable mid-sized cities year over year. Exactly half of the cities in the top 10 of this yearâs study were also in the top 10 last year: Rochester, Minnesota; Overland Park, Kansas; Meridian, Idaho; Centennial, Colorado and Arvada, Colorado. This suggests that while there is some consistency, some of the numbers that varied widely year-to-year, like unemployment and poverty rate, may have had a big impact in the reordering of this list.

1. Rochester, MN

Rochester, Minnesota has an average commute time of just 16.2 minutes â the fifth-lowest in the study â so you donât need to worry about adding on an extra few hours to your work day that youâll have to spend in the car. The city had an unemployment rate of 7.0% in July 2020, the 31^st-lowest of the total 227 cities we studied. It also ranked 42^nd for its relatively low poverty rate, which comes in at 7.4%.

2. Olathe, KS

Olathe, Kansas ranks 12^th-best for the Gini coefficient, a metric that measures income inequality. Olathe has a poverty rate of 6.3%, 24^th-best among the 227 cities we analyzed. The cityâs July 2020 unemployment rate is tied for 19^th-lowest, at 6.6%. Median household income in Olathe ranks 34^th overall and is third-highest in the top 10, at almost $94,300.

3. Overland Park, KS

Overland Park, Kansas ranks within the top 20% of study for four of the eight metrics we considered. The poverty rate in the city is 3.8%, eighth-lowest in the study. Overland Park is tied for 19^th in terms of July 2020 unemployment rate, coming in at 6.6%. The city also places 31^st for the percentage of residents without health insurance, at 5.2%. Furthermore, the median household income in Overland Park is 39^th-highest out of 227, at $91,518.

4. Meridian, ID

Meridian, Idaho saw home values increase by 55.61% from 2015 to 2019, the ninth-highest jump in the study and the highest in the top 10. The July 2020 unemployment rate in the city was a low 5.0%, the second-best rate of all 227 cities that qualified for this study. Meridianâs Gini coefficient is the 14^th-best, implying relatively low levels of income inequality.

5. Centennial, CO

Centennial, Colorado is the first of two cities in the Rocky Mountain State to crack the top 10. Centennialâs poverty rate is 3.0%, the second-lowest in the study. Centennial also has the 14^th-highest median household income of all 227 cities we analyzed, $111,257. The city ranks 11^th in terms of the percentage of residents without health insurance, with just 3.9% of people in Centennial being uninsured.

6. Arvada, CO

The second Colorado city in the top 10 of this study is Arvada, where home values have risen 46.18% over the four-year period from 2015 to 2019 â the 25^th-highest jump in the study and third-highest in the top 10. While Arvada doesnât fare as well in terms of commute, coming in 155^th out of 227 with an average commute time of 29 minutes, the cityâs unemployment rate in July 2020 was a relatively low 7.2%, ranking 32^nd out of 227.

7. Hillsboro, OR

Hillsboro, Oregon has the 17^th-best Gini coefficient in this study, indicating relatively low levels of inequality. Hillsboro ranks within the top 50 of the study for median household income ($86,038) and the percentage of residents without health insurance (5.6%). It also ranks within the top 60, or roughly the top quartile of the study, for its relatively high 2015-2019 change in home value and its relatively low poverty rate.

8. Santa Clara, CA

Santa Clara, California has a median household income of $147,507, the third-highest in the study and highest in the top 10. That said, it ranks near the bottom of the study for its relatively high median monthly housing costs, at $2,629. Home values have gone up quickly in Santa Clara, increasing by 47.65% over the past four years, the 18^th-highest jump across all 227 the cities we analyzed. The city also ranks 10^th out of 227 for its relatively low poverty rate and 14^th of 227 for its relatively low percentage of residents without health insurance.

9. Round Rock, TX

Round Rock, Texas has the 15^th-lowest July 2020 unemployment rate in the study, at 6.2%. It also has the 23^rd-best Gini coefficient and the 20^th-lowest poverty rate, at 6.0%. Round Rock does rank in the bottom half of the study for its fairly high percentage of residents who are without health insurance, at 10.4%, but it ranks within the top 50 of the total 227 cities for median household income ($86,145) and 2015-2019 change in home value (40.76%).

10. Sparks, NV

The final city in the top 10 is Sparks, Nevada, where home value increased by 44.85% from 2015 to 2019, the 30^th-highest increase for this metric in the study. Sparks ranks 50^th-best for its July 2020 unemployment rate overall, 8.1%. While Sparks ranks within the bottom half of the study for median monthly housing costs, which amount to $1,354, the city has a Gini coefficient of approximately 0.39, indicating relatively low income inequality.

Data and Methodology

To find the most livable mid-sized cities, SmartAsset first compiled a list of all the cities with at least 100,000 residents, excluding the 100 most populous cities. Note: Some cities that have appeared in past studies may not be in this yearâs version because of shifting population totals. We compared all of the cities across the following eight metrics:

Gini coefficient. This is a statistical measurement of income inequality. A Gini coefficient of zero indicates total equality of wealth distribution, while a coefficient of one indicates total inequality of wealth distribution across groups. Data comes from the U.S. Census Bureauâs 2019 1-Year American Community Survey.
Median home value change. This is the percentage change in median home values from 2015 through 2019. Data comes from the U.S. Census Bureauâs 2015 and 2019 1-year American Community Surveys.
Median monthly housing costs. Data comes from the U.S. Census Bureauâs 2019 1-year American Community Survey.
Percentage of residents below the poverty line. Data comes from the U.S. Census Bureauâs 2019 1-year American Community Survey.
Median household income. Data comes from the U.S. Census Bureauâs 2019 1-year American Community Survey.
Unemployment rate. Data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is for July 2020.
Percentage of residents without health insurance. Data comes from the U.S. Census Bureauâs 2019 1-year American Community Survey.
Average commute time. Data comes from the U.S. Census Bureauâs 2019 1-year American Community Survey.

First, we ranked each city in every metric. We then found each cityâs average ranking, giving each metric an equal weighting. We used this average ranking to determine a final score. The city with the best average ranking received a score of 100, and the city with the worst average ranking received a score of 0.

Tips for Managing Your Money

Seek professional financial advice. Regardless of where you live, if you want to make your money work harder for you, consider finding a financial advisor. Finding a financial advisor doesnât have to be hard. SmartAssetâs free tool connects you with financial advisors in your area in five minutes. If youâre ready to be matched with local advisors, get started now.
Look into the future of your mortgage payments. If youâre considering moving to one of these mid-sized cities, use SmartAssetâs mortgage calculator to see what youâll be paying each month before your deal is even finalized.
Take every advantage that helps you save more towards retirement. Some people move to smaller cities to relax after theyâve retired. To make sure youâre able to afford that, start thinking about retirement early, and use a 401(k) or other workplace retirement plan if that is available to you.

Questions about our study? Contact [email protected]

The post Most Livable Mid-Sized Cities â 2020 Edition appeared first on SmartAsset Blog.

Source: smartasset.com

Alarm Auto Moto

Alarms, and Vehicle Security For RVs, Limos, and Automobiles

Category Archives: Checking Account

Most Livable Mid-Sized Cities â 2020 Edition