WalletHub on Best and Worst Cities for Singles

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/15

Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, editing, and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. Lupo discussed the dynamics of dating in the U.S., noting that 46% of adults are unmarried. Dating costs have risen due to inflation and location-based economic factors. Cities like Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Seattle attract singles with fun and recreation, even if economics are challenging. Tinder’s popularity, broadband access, and smartphone usage significantly impact dating opportunities. Economic pressures, particularly in low-income areas, influence dating activity, while wealthier cities face demographic challenges. Cultural and economic trends in thriving metro areas like Seattle, Atlanta, and Las Vegas shape their appeal to singles.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, once again, we are here for the third day in a row with Chip Lupo, a WalletHub analyst. This discussion is a bit more lighthearted compared to the topic of elder abuse we covered last time.

I deal with a lot of human rights abuse issues, which can be quite heavy most of the time. So, it’s refreshing to discuss a lighter topic like this. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of the U.S. adult population is unmarried. This category includes those who have never been married, divorced, or widowed.

This statistic has created interesting American dating and marital landscape dynamics. Additionally, date-related activities have risen in price over the years due to inflation and other economic factors. So, what explains this trend of 46% of adults being unmarried in the United States? And why has dating become so prohibitively expensive?

Lupo: To address the second part of your question, dating has become more expensive primarily due to inflation. Depending on where you live, the cost of living may be higher, contributing to the expense. Whether it’s a trip to the movies, a sporting event, or a museum, factors like travel costs and the overall cost of living play a significant role. This can make dating quite costly, particularly in cities with abundant activities for singles.

The best cities for singles typically balance affordability with fun and recreation. As you mentioned, the unmarried demographic is diverse, encompassing those who have never married and those who are divorced or widowed. What appeals to one segment of this group may not resonate with another.

WalletHub’s research ranks the best cities for singles based on economics, fun and recreation, and dating opportunities. The top cities include Atlanta, Georgia; Las Vegas, Nevada; Seattle, Washington; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Tampa, Florida. These cities rank highly, especially for their fun and recreational offerings, which often outweigh economic considerations.

You’re correct in observing that these cities emphasize fun and recreation, which offsets the financial challenges. The best cities tend to achieve a balance, but fun and recreation often take precedence. For instance, Atlanta and Las Vegas rank first and second in the fun and recreation category. However, Atlanta is slightly more expensive overall.

Dating opportunities. Now, this is an interesting dynamic, especially regarding dating opportunities. That boils down to factors such as, first and foremost, the share of the single population. There are some cities — and we’re talking strictly about cities, not the surrounding metro areas — where this dynamic plays out differently. This limitation negatively affects some high-population cities that are closer to larger urban areas.

Dating opportunities also consider the share of the single population, gender balance, and online dating opportunities. By “online dating opportunities,” we mean the share of households with broadband internet, enabling residents to access dating websites or apps. Mobile dating follows a similar logic and measures the share of residents who own a smartphone.

An interesting metric is Google search traffic for “Tinder.” Tinder is a social media outlet, and this metric measures the percentage of residents in a city who search for Tinder the most. If a city scores relatively high in these two areas, it can offset low economic scores. For instance, you mentioned Seattle, Washington. Its economics rank is 173rd out of 182 cities, yet it ranks 5th in dating opportunities and 9th in fun and recreation. This balance makes a difference.

Let’s look at another example. Last week, I talked to someone in Florida who wanted to know how their cities fare. Miami, Florida, was particularly interesting. It ranks 3rd in “things to do,” yet 176th in economics. It’s a very expensive place to live.

Despite being so expensive, Miami still manages to rank 15th overall. Miami could easily make the top 10 or even the top 5 if it were more affordable.

Jacobsen: When breaking down the weighting of factors, the main categories are economics, fun and recreation, and dating opportunities. The first two categories are each weighted at 25%, while dating opportunities are weighted at 50%. Interestingly, dating opportunities have the fewest subcategories but carry the most weight. These subcategories include the share of the single population, gender balance, online dating opportunities, mobile dating opportunities, and Google search traffic for the term “Tinder.”

Why are those subcategories, such as metrics 31 through 35, given so much weight when considering the overall picture of cities and singles?

Lupo: Dating opportunities are the most critical criteria for single people seeking a significant other. Single individuals want to know if they’re in an environment surrounded by like-minded, single people. For example, if you’re single and living in a place like Scottsdale, Arizona — I’m just throwing this out there — or any other city known as a retirement haven, it might not be ideal if you’re in your twenties and surrounded by an older single population.

This is why dating opportunities are so important. They directly influence whether a city attracts singles looking for meaningful connections.

JWhat chance do I have of meeting someone in my city based on gender balance and the shared single population? And, of course, factors like internet and phone access—would I be able to join certain dating sites? Would those sites be accessible? 

Jacobsen: It seems like these factors weigh more heavily than the others. Also, using Tinder as a search metric is particularly interesting since so many dating apps are available. Why was Tinder chosen, and were other apps considered for inclusion in that metric?

Lupo: Well, I can’t say for sure, Scott, but from what I understand, Tinder is considered the gold standard for social media among singles. I assume it’s the most interactive, though that’s a guess. Its metrics carry double weight in the analysis, so there must be something significant about it.

Jacobsen: Let me clarify for the audience. There are no financial conflicts of interest regarding this research, correct?

Lupo: Correct.

Jacobsen: Is there a point where economics becomes an overwhelming factor in dating opportunities? The top-ranked cities for singles don’t always do well in economics. However, they still provide plenty of opportunities. People are taking advantage of these opportunities despite the economic challenges. Do you notice a point in the statistics where economics significantly affects how willing people are to use dating apps or go on dates?

Lupo: There is such a point, but it’s more reflective of the overall economics of the city. For instance, a city like Tampa, Florida, has a relatively strong economy and an economics rank of 110. In contrast, Portland, Oregon, ranks 150. If you’re in a low-income city or state, the breaking point for economic pressure comes sooner than in a place with higher income or strong 

Even in cities like New York City or Washington, D.C.—which have extremely high living costs—higher wages can sometimes offset the economic challenges. Washington, D.C., for example, ranks 179th in economics, but because it’s a world health hub with relatively high incomes, some of those pressures are mitigated. However, if you’re single, a student, or earning a lower income, the breaking point could still come much sooner in high-cost cities like D.C.

Jacobsen: Why do we find that people still aren’t going on dates in some wealthy cities?

Lupo: That’s an interesting question. Even in rich cities, economic pressures still exist for certain demographics, especially students or young professionals who aren’t yet earning high wages. Social and cultural factors also play a role in influencing whether people feel comfortable or inclined to date actively.

Again, it depends on the environment and how you define “single.” Someone who is divorced, for instance, might be more eager to get back into the dating scene, especially in places like Washington, D.C., or New York City. If for no other reason, perhaps to keep up appearances.

That would be my guess as well. By the way, I just checked—New York City ranks dead last in economics at 182nd but ranks 4th in fun and recreation. So, there’s a balance there. Folks in New York have to decide: there’s much to do here, but at what point does affordability limit those opportunities?

Jacobsen: Right. I’ve used Tinder before, and New York might have one of the biggest user bases for the app. People find a way regardless of the cost. Are there any cultural consistencies between Seattle, Atlanta, and Las Vegas?

Lupo: Cultural? Well, one consistency is that these three cities are thriving metro areas. Their populations have exploded over the last 10 years, making them up-and-coming hubs that continue to grow. Economically, at least for Atlanta and Seattle, there’s solid job growth. I don’t know about Las Vegas beyond the gaming industry.

Still, these cities share a common thread. People flocking to them from other areas are attracted by opportunities and quality of life. While the economic rankings differ—Seattle ranks 103rd, and Las Vegas is 140th—they all have plenty of things to do. These sprawling urban areas offer various activities, making them attractive for singles and families.

Jacobsen: Hey, Chip, I appreciate your time today.

Lupo: Oh, glad to be here! It’s always a pleasure.

Jacobsen: Thank you. I appreciate your insights. I’ll keep an eye on my emails, and if I come across anything else of interest, I’ll reach out so we can talk again.

Lupo: Absolutely. Thank you so much. Take care.

Jacobsen: Bye.

Lupo: Thank you.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.