Financial advisors are continuously urging American consumers to save, but the ability to save greatly depends on where poeple live, according to a new study.
Bankrate.com has taken a look at the top 50 U.S. metro areas and found that there are wide variations in how easy it is for residents in each area to put money aside for emergencies and other needs.
"People living in areas with high housing costs could forgo all nonessential expenses for three years, religiously saving their extra dollars month after month, and still not accumulate enough cash for their recommended emergency fund," the report stated.
For some residents in areas with the highest cost of living—San Francisco being one example—saving money is virtually impossible, the study concluded.
Yet residents in areas of the nation with lower costs have an easier time, according to Bankrate.com.
The study found that in the best metro areas for saving, the average resident could build up a six-month emergency savings fund over the course of about a year.
Housing costs, including property taxes, mortgage payments and home insurance, often have a significant impact on residents' ability to save, according to the report. While experts recommend that consumer spend no more than a third of their pretax dollars on such costs, many people making the median salary in some metro areas spend more than 50 percent, the report said.
This is why many of the metro areas considered the best for saving money are notable for their low housing costs.
The following metro areas, in ascending order, were deemed the best for saving money:
10. Louisville, Ky.
Annual savings potential: $13,405
Six-month emergency fund: $16,657
Months to build up fund: 14.9
