Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists Salary: Connecticut vs California
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists earn a median of $101,460 in Connecticut and $122,470 in California. That is a nominal gap of $21,010 (-17.2%), with California paying more before any cost-of-living adjustment.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics survey, May 2024 estimates. Cost-of-living adjustment uses BEA Regional Price Parities, most recent release.
The story behind the numbers
On raw wages, California pays $21,010 more per year than Connecticut for magnetic resonance imaging technologists, a gap of +17.2%.
After adjusting for cost of living, California still comes out ahead, with roughly $12,687 of extra purchasing power (+11.5% real gap). Local prices do not reverse the nominal advantage.
Full breakdown by location
Detailed wage, employment, and cost-of-living figures for magnetic resonance imaging technologists in each location. Click through to the full local salary page for percentiles, outlook, and peer areas.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists
Connecticut
- Median salary
- $101,460
- Mean salary
- $99,830
- Employment
- 490
- Location quotient
- 1.08
- Jobs per 1,000
- 0.3
- COL-adjusted median
- $97,925
- Regional Price Parity
- 103.6%
Exact state RPP match.
Full Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists page for Connecticut →
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists
California
- Median salary
- $122,470
- Mean salary
- $118,470
- Employment
- 3,220
- Location quotient
- 0.66
- Jobs per 1,000
- 0.2
- COL-adjusted median
- $110,612
- Regional Price Parity
- 110.7%
Exact state RPP match.
Full Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists page for California →
Related pages
Keep digging into magnetic resonance imaging technologists from a different angle.
- National Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists salary page
- Compare a different occupation or location
Common questions about this comparison
What does the cost-of-living adjustment actually do? +
It divides each location's nominal median wage by its Regional Price Parity (RPP), which measures how local prices compare to the national average (100 = national). A wage of $100,000 in an area with RPP 120 has the same purchasing power as roughly $83,000 nationally.
Why would the nominal and adjusted winners disagree? +
High-cost metros often pay higher salaries, but not by enough to fully offset the higher cost of housing, goods, and services. When that happens, the location with the lower nominal wage actually offers more real purchasing power.
What is a location quotient? +
The location quotient measures how concentrated an occupation is in a given area versus the national average. A value of 2.0 means the occupation is twice as common there as nationally. It is a signal of what a state specializes in.