On a per capita basis, folks in Bridgeport, Conn., and San Jose, Calif., seem to have ample cash in their pockets after paying for living expenses. On the flip side, it’s a different ball game for people in McAllen, Texas, and New Haven, Conn.

A new report from Clever Real Estate that examined the levels of disposable income in the 75 largest U.S. metro areas found that on a per capita basis residents in six locations have negative disposable income after paying for living expenses. Those ranged from McAllen, where living expenses exceeded take-home pay by $230.68, to San Antonio, where that figure was $1.31.

In ascending order, the other four metro areas in this category were New Haven, Riverside, Calif., New York City and Orlando.

Bridgeport was tops in per capita disposable income with $1,683.24, followed by San Jose at $1,296.88. The rest of the top five consisted of Tulsa, Okla.; Raleigh, N.C.; and Charlotte, N.C.

The average American has a little more than $136 in disposable income after paying for living expenses, according to Clever Real Estate, an online platform that pre-negotiates rates and rebates with real estate agents and home buyers/sellers.

The data was calculated using two paychecks per month, or 26 paychecks in a year, minus taxes and living expenses that include housing, utilities, health, groceries, and non-recreational goods and services.

“It’s reasonable to expect residents in places like San Francisco, where the cost of living is 225% of the national average, to struggle paycheck to paycheck due to exorbitant living expenses,” said Francesca Ortegren, a research associate at the company and author of the report. “How can people in these areas possibly build emergency funds or save for retirement? The truth is, people in these high-cost cities are finding ways to manage their expenses.”

Indeed, while residents of the Big Apple have negative levels of disposable income on a per capita basis, pricey Silicon Valley metro areas San Jose and San Francisco, along with other high-cost areas such as Seattle, Boston and Washington, D.C., rank 17th or better among those with the most discretionary income.

“Living in an area where rents are high (e.g. San Francisco) doesn’t necessarily mean residents are unable to save; many residents make lifestyle changes to save more than the average American,” Ortegren wrote in the report. “People are more likely to live with roommates in places with higher rents to afford the high costs of living.”

Among the factoids in the report:

The average American spends nearly 60% of their income on living expenses; only 13 of the 75 most-populous metro areas spend less than 80%.

About 14% of income is allocated toward housing and utilities (per person).

The largest share of per capita spending goes toward housing and utilities ($403), followed by miscellaneous goods and services (including home, auto, health and other insurance, $348); transportation ($224); health care (not including insurance, $160); and groceries ($137).

6% of metro residents live in poverty despite being employed.

Southern residents are more likely to live below 125% of the poverty level.

The upshot of this report is that people who lack disposable income will have a hard time saving for retirement.