A cost of living comparison using tax-adjusted purchasing power data.
This is one of the comparisons where the numbers actually line up the way people hope. Nashville is slightly cheaper than Chicago on cost of living (114 vs 118), and Tennessee has no state income tax versus Illinois's 4.95% flat rate. Both factors move in the same direction. On a $100,000 salary, your purchasing power in Nashville is equivalent to about $87,700 in national purchasing terms — compared to $80,300 in Chicago. That's roughly $7,400 more in real annual spending power, and the advantage only grows at higher incomes because it's being driven in part by the tax difference.
| Category | Chicago | Nashville | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall COL Index | 118 | 114 | −3.4% |
| Median 1BR Rent | ~$1,700/mo | ~$1,600/mo | −6% |
| State Income Tax | 5.2% | 0% | −5.2 pp |
At $60,000: keeping that salary in Nashville gives you equivalent purchasing power of about $52,600 — compared to $48,200 in Chicago. That's around $4,400 more annually. At $100,000: the gap widens to about $7,400 per year in Nashville's favor ($87,700 vs $80,300). The tax savings alone at $100k amount to roughly $5,200 in cash you keep. Combine that with Nashville's modestly lower cost of living and it adds up to a real, measurable improvement in take-home quality of life.
One thing worth knowing: Nashville's cost of living has risen considerably over the past decade. The 114 index reflects recent conditions, not the "cheap southern city" reputation from 2015. Rent in particular has been climbing as the city has grown fast. The advantage over Chicago is real but not enormous on the COL side — the bigger win is the tax piece.
The financial case is legitimately solid here, especially for anyone earning above $80,000. The combination of no state income tax and lower overall costs is rare — most Sun Belt cities with low taxes have seen their cost of living rise to offset the advantage. Nashville does have the same growth pressure, but it hasn't fully closed the gap yet. If you're a remote worker or in a field where Nashville has strong job presence (healthcare, music industry, financial services, logistics), this is a move that makes sense on the numbers and can also make sense on lifestyle. The city is younger and faster-growing than Chicago, with a different energy — but not so different that it's a culture shock for most Midwesterners.
The honest tradeoff: Chicago has better public transit, more established cultural institutions, and a larger overall job market in most industries. Nashville requires a car. If you're accustomed to living car-free or car-light in Chicago, factor in the cost of vehicle ownership when running your numbers.
Healthcare dominates Nashville's economy — HCA Healthcare and a cluster of hospital systems make it one of the largest healthcare employer hubs in the country. Financial services have a real presence too, with companies like Asurion and AllianceBernstein operating there. The tech sector is smaller than coastal markets but growing. For remote workers the comparison is purely financial. For people making a job-dependent move, healthcare professionals will find strong options; other industries require more research into specific hiring conditions.
Enter your income and compare Chicago vs Nashville. Get your exact tax-adjusted purchasing power in seconds.
Compare Chicago vs Nashville →