Global Work-Life Balance City Index 2024

Data on overworking, state support, legislation, and livability reveal a ranking of cities based on their success in enhancing a healthy work-life balance for their local populations.
See rankings
At Blueground, we’re experts in helping top employees relocate to new cities, so we know that most high performers focus on working smarter rather than harder.

To explore this topic further, we conducted a study to determine the cities whose residents have the most well-rounded work-life balance. This included not just the level of work intensity in that city, but also the area’s livability and the well-being and rights of its inhabitants.

This index is not designed to be a city livability index, nor is it intended to highlight the best cities to work in; instead, it aims to be a guideline for cities to benchmark their ability to support the fulfillment of residents’ lives by improving the aspects of life that help relieve work-related stress and intensity. We first evaluated the working climate in the United States. Then, an international study was conducted to understand how the U.S. performs worldwide, including cities abroad known for attracting professionals and families for their work opportunities and diverse lifestyle offerings. For this first installment of an ongoing study, we selected a shortlist of in-demand metropolises across the globe with sufficient, reliable, and relevant datasets. In future iterations, we aim to expand this study by including a larger selection of cities as data becomes more widely available.

First, we assessed each city’s overall work-life score based on a series of factors related to the amount of time a person dedicates to their job. That includes total working hours, time spent commuting, and vacation days taken. Next, we wanted to find out to what extent residents receive equal treatment, evaluating their access to state-funded health and welfare programs, as well as institutional support for gender equality and friendliness toward the LGBT+ community. We then determined each city’s livability score by examining citizens’ overall happiness, safety, and access to wellness and leisure venues. This allowed us to assess whether the city’s residents can enjoy their environment after office hours.

The result is an index of 16 factors analyzing 50 cities in the U.S., followed by a global ranking of 30 notable U.S. cities and 45 international cities that recognize the importance of a work-life balance. These metropolises encourage work-life balance both directly and indirectly through policies and urban infrastructure.

How to interpret this data

Index Results
Baseline Index
Score
Work Hard, Play Hard Index
Score
Work Life Separation Index
Score
Work Intensity
Overworked Population
{{pageData.isUs ? 'Score' : $t('workLifeBalance.score')}}
Minimum Vacations Offered
Days
Vacations Taken
Days
Economic Opportunities
Score
Paid Parental Leave
Days
Right to Disconnect
S=Strong, M=Moderate, RW=Remote Workers, W=Weak
City Livability
Affordability
Score
Housing
Score
Happiness, Culture & Leisure
Score
City Safety
Score
Outdoor Spaces
Score
Air Quality
Score
Wellness and Fitness
Score
Society & Institutions
Healthcare Access and Quality
Score
Access to Mental Healthcare
Score
Inclusivity & Tolerance
Score
Gender Gap Index
Score
The final ranking, from highest to lowest, reveals the health of a city’s work-life balance. Each individual column is filterable, with the full methodology of how each factor was evaluated located at the bottom of the page.

Methodology

The Global Work-Life Balance City Index 2024 uses data to identify the best cities for work-life balance based on Work Intensity, Society and Institutions, and City Liveability. The study considers 75 cities internationally, covering a range of indicators to highlight the most and least overworked cities around the world.

City Selection

The city selection consists of 75 global cities that were shortlisted for inclusion after reviewing 350 labor markets for data availability and relevance. 30 US notable cities were selected from the US Work-Life Balance City Index 2024 and expanded with 45 international economic hubs.

Data Collection

The data for this study was sourced from international organizations, NGO reports, open access datasets, public surveys and crowdsourcing platforms. Missing data at the city level were inferred from material gathered from municipal statistical departments and press releases.

Factors & Scoring

The study was divided into three categories: Work Intensity, Society and Institutions, and City Liveability.
  1. Work Intensity
    • Overworked Population (%)
    • Minimum Vacations Offered (Days)
    • Vacations Taken (Days)
    • Economic Opportunities (Score)
    • Paid Parental Leave (Days)
    • Right to Disconnect ({{$t('workLifeBalance.category')}})
  2. City Livability
    • Affordability (Score)
    • Housing (Score)
    • Happiness, Culture & Leisure (Score)
    • City Safety (Score)
    • Outdoor Spaces (Score)
    • Air Quality (Score)
    • Wellness and Fitness (Score)
  3. Society & Institutions
    • Healthcare Access and Quality (Score)
    • Access to Mental Healthcare (Score)
    • Inclusivity & Tolerance (Score)
    • Gender Gap Index (Score)

We used multiple indicators as components when scoring each factor. The underlying indicators were first standardized using a Z-Score [z = (x-μ)/σ; μ=indicator mean; σ=indicator standard deviation] normalization procedure. The final score was computed as a weighted average of the component Z-Scores, and the resulting score normalized to a scale of 50 to 100 using min-max normalization [(value - min)/(max-min)*50+50]. We chose a minimum score of 50 for the scale to emphasize that the minimum score does not imply the absence of the infrastructures under analysis, as the position is relative to that of other cities in the ranking.

Index Results

The final index was calculated from the weighted sum of the normalized factor scores, and in turn normalized to present an index score between 50 and 100.

Baseline Index (Score)

The Baseline Index offers a holistic city ranking that takes into account a healthy work culture for both men and women, and what the city offers during leisure time.
However, the interpretation of work-life balance may vary across regions and communities. Consequently, two alternate perspectives on work-life balance are provided.

Work Hard, Play Hard Index (Score)

One common perspective is to view work-life balance as a distinct separation between professional and familial obligations, taking into account gender disparities in unpaid labor. Therefore, the Work Hard, Play Hard Index emphasizes a cultural respect for holidays, new regulations limiting employers from contacting employees off-hours as well as paid parental leave.

Work Life Separation Index (Score)

Conversely, young professionals at the beginning of their careers may perceive such benefits as non-essential luxuries, prioritizing job opportunities in cities with abundant urban attractions where they can “let off steam”. Therefore, the Work-Life Separation Index emphasizes economic opportunities and a high score for the nightlife and restaurant components of the Happiness, Culture & Leisure factor.
The two alternate scoring methodologies result in significantly divergent indices. The Work-Life Separation Index is intended to resonate among younger workers, potentially embodying a nomadic lifestyle facilitated by digital technologies. Conversely, the Work-Life Separation Index will hold greater relevance for workers who must balance professional obligations with familial responsibilities.

Detailed factor Notes

Below you can find a detailed description of each factor within the study and the sources used:

Work Intensity

Overworked Population (%)

The percentage of full-time employees working over 48 hours per week in each city. Based on national data, with city data modeled using average weekly working hours to establish the distribution of city data points within each country. A higher percentage reflects a city with a greater amount of its population working overtime.

Sources: Eurostat; US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS); International labor Organization (ILO)

Minimum Vacations Offered (Days)

Paid time off is not regulated on a federal or state level (with exceptions for parental leave, see below) and is left for contract negotiation. Based on BLS workforce surveys, the average paid time off in the US is 11 days after 1 year. In the private sector, we used this as a representative estimate for all cities.

Sources: Eurostat; International labor Organization (ILO); national labor departments; Thomson Reuters

Vacations Taken (Days)

The average number of paid vacation days taken by full-time employees in a single year.

Sources: proprietary survey data; UBS; US Travel Association

Economic Opportunities (Score)

A composite metric reflecting the availability of employment opportunities and the anticipated level of compensation. Employment opportunities are based on unemployment statistics reported by municipal statistical departments in 2023, while compensation expectations are derived from Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and average income using a Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) basis. Higher scores indicate cities with lower unemployment rates and enhanced purchasing power.

Sources: Municipal statistical departments, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Paid Parental Leave (Days)

The number of paid family leave days afforded to employees by law in each city.

Sources: International labor Organization (ILO); Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); local government websites

Right to Disconnect ({{$t('workLifeBalance.category')}})

As a result of the proliferation of digital connectivity and the transition towards remote working arrangements, employees often experience pressure to maintain constant connectivity. This phenomenon has led to concerns regarding work-life balance. In response to this issue, a growing number of countries have implemented or clarified regulations that aim to establish the right to disconnect after designated work hours for employees.
Strong - S (Score: 100):
Explicit legislation grants all employees the unequivocal right to decline contact and expectations from employers beyond their designated work hours. Exceptions may be mutually agreed upon by employers and employees and must be explicitly stated within the employment contract.
Moderate - M (Score: 70):
Regulatory measures have been clarified to require employment contracts to address the availability of employees outside of work hours and the circumstances under which overtime will or will not be applicable. In Nordic European countries, de facto regulation is achieved through collective bargaining to attain similar outcomes.
Remote Workers Only - RW (Score: 50):
Legislation has been clarified specifically for remote workers, mandating that employers implement adequate processes to monitor working hours, respect rest periods, and acknowledge overtime.
Weak - W (Score: 10):
No specific legislation addresses contact and expectations after work hours, aside from provisions related to overtime and rest periods.

Sources: Government websites

City Livability

Affordability (Score)

A score that reflects monthly living costs (excluding rent and utilities) as a proportion of the average household income after tax. Monthly costs include groceries, internet connection, leisure activities, clothes and dining out. A higher score indicates a higher level of remaining monthly income after accounting for these deductions.

Sources: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); crowd-sourced price comparison platforms

Housing (Score)

A score that reflects monthly rent and utilities as a share of average household income after tax. A higher score indicates a higher level of remaining monthly income after accounting for these deductions.

Sources: Rental listing websites; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

Happiness, Culture & Leisure (Score)

The combined scores of both the ‘Happiness’ and ‘Culture & Leisure’ factors, as detailed below:
Happiness:
The score includes the average perceived level of happiness at a city level. In the rare absence of city-level data, national data was used. The score is calculated from survey responses evaluating the perceived happiness with one’s own life, and the degree of positive and negative effects a respondent experiences. A higher score reflects higher degrees of self-perceived happiness.

Sources: Sustainable Development Solutions Network; Wallethub

Culture & Leisure:
The score indicates the vibrancy and variety of cultural and lifestyle offerings in a city. It combines cultural city rankings, the number of people employed in the cultural and creative industries, and the number of leisure facilities and activities available per capita, including sports stadiums, parks, shops, entertainment. Cities with an exceptional number of activities were given supplementary points. The underlying Nightlife and Restaurant indicators include quality scores based on review and rankings websites. A higher score reflects a greater cultural and leisure activities offering.

Sources: US Bureau of Economic Analysis; European Commission; TimeOut; Wallethub; OSM; TripAdvisor; Michelin Guide

City Safety (Score)

A city's degree of safety in more than a dozen key areas, including environmental, social and infrastructural security. Indicators include statistics on injuries and fatalities, damage caused at an economic level, public opinion data, and data on the vulnerability of a location to particular hazards. A higher score reflects a safer city.

Sources: Germanwatch; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; Economist Intelligence Unit; Eurostat; Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre; Igarape Institute; Vision of Humanity; World Health Organization (WHO)

Outdoor Spaces (Score)

The prevalence and accessibility of a city’s urban green infrastructure as a score, including its proximity to residents and the percentage of land allocated to green space. Data on weather and daylight conditions that could affect the use of public outdoor spaces was also incorporated. This includes average temperatures, the annual number of rainy days, annual sunshine hours, and cloudlessness.
Significant weighting is placed on the green spaces indicator, as the existence of favorable weather alone is not a condition for a good score in this section. Data was collected at a city level. A higher score reflects a greater urban green infrastructure, and better environmental conditions for outdoor life.

Sources: United States Forest Service; The Trust for Public Land; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); European Environmental Agency; WeatherSpark

Air Quality (Score)

Annual median particulate matter (PM2.5/PM10) pollution for the year 2024, represented as a score. Daily average data was taken across all days of a single year, with the median pollution level representing the overall score. Data was taken at a city level. A higher score reflects greater air quality.

Sources: World Air Quality Index (aqicn.org); World Health Organization (WHO)

Wellness and Fitness (Score)

The general state of a community’s physical fitness and health as represented by the population’s average life expectancy, and levels of inactivity, obesity, and the number of fitness studios and gyms per capita. National data was used for life expectancy at birth, while US cities use city-level data. Adult obesity rates and the prevalence of physical inactivity were taken nationally, with US cities using state level data. Data on the number of gyms per capita is taken at a city level. A higher score reflects a better state of a community’s physical fitness and health.

Sources: World Health Organization (WHO); US Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Opportunity Insights; The State of Childhood Obesity; OpenStreetMaps (OSM) Overpass Turbo API

Society & Institutions

Healthcare Access and Quality (Score)

A score that rates a city’s healthcare system based on accessibility, quality of care and satisfaction. Country-level data was obtained from the Universal Health Coverage (UHC) index for access and quality indicators, while US cities data incorporates state-level data from the Health Access and Quality (HAQ) study. Additional data was taken from healthcare access indices developed by the World Health Organization and the European Commission. Satisfaction survey results were taken at a city level. A higher score reflects greater accessibility, quality of care and user rating for each city's healthcare infrastructure.

Sources: The Lancet; European Commission; World Health Organization (WHO)

Access to Mental Healthcare (Score)

A score that reflects the accessibility and effectiveness of governments’ implementation of mental health policies catering for individuals with mental health illnesses. This factor uses national data on governance, access to treatment and the environment necessary for treatment. It also incorporates suicide rates and city-level survey data on healthcare quality. A higher score reflects a more effective and accessible mental healthcare network.

Sources: EIU; Institute for Health and Metrics Evaluation; World Health Organization (WHO); Mental Health America; Dartmouth Institute; local statistics departments

Inclusivity & Tolerance (Score)

The score examines the extent of equality and protection with an emphasis on employment rights, legislation, access to healthcare, as well as political representation for the LGBT+ community. The percentage of the population identifying as LGBT+ was also included, as environments in which a higher number of citizens feel comfortable openly identifying as a minority indicates a more tolerant and supportive community. A higher score reflects a higher degree of LGBT+ equality.

Sources: Spartacus; Gallup; local statistics departments

Gender Gap Index (Score)

The score combines The Global Gender Gap Index calculated by the World Economic Forum with the Global Inequality Index as calculated by the United Nations. The indices takes into consideration economic opportunities, education, health and political leadership. State-level versions of the index were calculated for the US, using state level data according to the Global Inequality Index methodology.

Sources: World Economic Forum (WEF); United Nations (UN)