California is a pricey place to live, but the way money is spent is not universal. My trusty spreadsheet reviewed curious consumption data created by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These stats track household demographics and average consumer spending in 2022 and 2023 within 22 U.S. regions – i ncluding three in California. These figures give us insight into where a family’s dollars go and how that differs by geography. And it’s no news flash that Californians make more than the typical American. By this math, the average annual household income before taxes was $154,992 for the Bay Area, $124,346 in the region surrounding Los Angeles, and $122,832 in San Diego. Nationally, it’s $97,911. However, note a significant difference in how many paychecks it takes to create that family cash flow. Contemplate that roughly 50% of households around L.A. have two earners, 40% in San Diego, and 30% in San Francisco and nationally. These lofty incomes are a key reason Californians can spend more than the typical American. The report says typical expenses ran $110,886 a year in the Bay Area in 2022-23, $91,204 in San Diego, and $86,077 around L.A. vs. $75,172 nationally. The report offered no local-level detail on the gap between what’s earned and what’s spent – but it’s likely taxes and savings. The most intriguing theme within these numbers was how differently households spend by geography. Let’s eat out Think about the various slices of a household’s expenses. It’s no surprise that housing takes a big bite of Californians’ bills. It’s 38% of total expenses in the Bay Area and San Diego, and 37% around L.A. Nationally, it’s only 33%. But it’s how Californians spend outside of housing costs that speaks to varied lifestyles across the state. First, contemplate food spending. It doesn’t vary much geographically as it’s 14% of of total expenses around L.A. and 13% in the Bay Area, San Diego and nationally. Where there’s an interesting divide is how much we spend on dining out. Around L.A., it’s 48% of food costs, but only 44% in the Bay Area and 39% in San Diego and nationally. Could family sizes influence this? There are 2.7 people in a typical household around L.A. vs. 2.5 in San Diego, the Bay Area’s 2.3 and 2.4 nationally. Add to that the many two-income households around L.A., and you see why they’re OK letting somebody else do the cooking. What drives spending Next, peek at contrasts in the dollars going toward transportation. It’s just 14% of consumer spending in the Bay Area vs. 16% around L.A. and San Diego and 17% nationally. Is the gap due to the Bay Area’s urban living and extensive mass transit system? “Public and other transportation” adds up to 14% of Bay Area transportation expenses vs. 10% in San Diego, 9% around L.A. and 8% nationally. Or might it be about car ownership? The typical Bay Area household owns just 1.6 vehicles compared with 1.8 around L.A. and San Diego and 1.9 nationally. Healthy spending A bit of good news in the report showed healthcare expenses are a modest share of the common California budget. Staying healthy accounted for 6% of spending in the three California markets – well below the nation’s 8%. While everyone complains about doctor bills, California is known as one of the cheapest states for medical care. What’s in your wallet? When it comes to discretionary spending, Californians seem thrifty. Californians don’t spend much on fun. Entertainment is 4.2% of San Diego spending, 3.9% around L.A. and 3.4% in the Bay Area. Those trail the nation’s 4.7% slice. Is this because there’s free great weather and so much natural beauty? And what’s labeled “cash contributions” – donations to others such as charity, alimony or child support paid – accounted for only 1.7% of spending around L.A., 2.5% in San Diego, and 3.5% in the Bay Area. Nationally? 3.4%. Perhaps Californians don’t have much left after paying for life’s necessities. Jonathan Lansner is business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com Related Articles What Southern California city attracts the fewest millennials? ...read more read less