Housing Affordability · United States · Updated May 2026
Least affordable US states — price-to-income ratio
The price-to-income ratio divides median home value by median household income. A higher ratio means less affordable. Hawaii is the least affordable at 8.4×. Data: ACS 5-Year 2024.
The national median price-to-income ratio is 3.9×. Every state on this list sits above that line — the gap between Hawaii and the median shows how far out of reach homeownership has moved here compared with a typical US market.
These rankings use the 2024 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, covering the period 2020–2024. Median home value and median household income are measured at the state level. The ratio is computed as median home value ÷ median household income.
All 50 states + DC ranked
Least affordable states — complete ranking
The least affordable states are overwhelmingly in the West and Northeast, where demand has outpaced income growth for decades. Hawaii (8.4×), California (7.4×), Oregon (5.8×) lead the least affordable tier. Midwestern and Southern states consistently offer better value relative to local incomes.
A ratio below 3× is generally considered affordable by housing economists. Between 3× and 5× indicates a strained market. Above 5× — the level seen in Hawaii, California, and Massachusetts — represents a severe affordability crisis where homeownership is effectively out of reach for median-income households without substantial outside assistance. The ten states above range from 5.2× up to 8.4× — every one has already crossed past the 5× crisis threshold, a materially different buying environment from the states clustering near the 3× line at the other end of this ranking.
Methodology
How the price-to-income ratio is calculated
The price-to-income ratio is calculated by dividing the median home value by the median household income for each state. Both figures come from the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2024 release (covering survey years 2020–2024).
Unaffordable states share one consistent, data-backed pattern: median home value has climbed well past median household income. This site tracks ACS home values and incomes, not zoning, land supply, or migration flows — it can measure that gap but not attribute it to a specific driver. Treat any explanation for why a given state became unaffordable as informed speculation, not something this dataset confirms.
Limitations: the ratio uses state-level medians, which can mask significant variation within states. A state like California has affordable inland counties alongside severely unaffordable coastal metros. For county-level data, use the interactive map.
Data source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2024). Supplemented with FHFA House Price Index for county-level trend data.
Common questions
FAQ — least affordable states
What is the least affordable state to buy a home?
Hawaii is the least affordable state with a price-to-income ratio of 8.4×. Other severely unaffordable states include California (7.4×), District of Columbia (6.7×), Oregon (5.8×).
Which states are hardest for first-time homebuyers?
The hardest states for first-time buyers are Hawaii, California, District of Columbia, Oregon, Washington — all with ratios well above the national median of 3.9×. Qualifying for a conventional mortgage in these markets typically requires an income well above the local median, a much larger down payment, or both.
What is a good price-to-income ratio when buying a home?
At or below 3× is considered affordable. Between 3–5× is strained. Above 5× — the level all ten states above have reached — is a severe affordability crisis. The national median is 3.9×.
Are Western and Northeastern states the least affordable in the US?
Yes. Hawaii, California, and Massachusetts consistently rank among the least affordable, with price-to-income ratios well above the national median. This site's data shows the gap but doesn't track the underlying drivers — migration, zoning, income distribution within a state — so it can confirm that the gap exists, not why.