• Markets with affordable rent and good job growth include Las Vegas, Phoenix and Jacksonville.
• Markets with unaffordable rent and poor job growth include Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago.

A few weeks ago, we set out to find those metro housing markets nationwide that fit in a so-called “Goldilocks Zone,” where homes were both relatively affordable to buy and where jobs were relatively easy to find. But those home-buying sweet spots don’t mean much to the one-third of Americans who rent, so we set out to replicate the analysis and find those same kind of “just right” places for renters.

Nationwide, renters looking for a new home to lease should expect to pay about 30 percent of their income to their landlords, more than the 25 percent share they would have expected to pay historically and far more than the 15 percent share they should expect to devote to a mortgage payment. In other words, even as buying a home is very affordable, renting a home is very unaffordable – and is not expected to improve in the next two years.

We analyzed 69 large metro areas, looking at rental vacancy rates, average employment growth in 2014 and the share of median income necessary to afford a typical home for rent. Our research unearthed four types of markets for renters (figure 1):

• “Just right” markets: The share of income devoted to rent in these areas is less than in other markets, and the number of jobs is growing more quickly than in other areas.
• “Too hot” markets: Metros that are “too hot” have good job growth, but the share of income needed to rent the typical home is far higher than other areas.
• “Too cold” markets: These areas have affordable rents, but weak job growth.
• “Just wrong” markets: Here, rents are both too damn high, and job opportunities too damn few. Basically, this might be where our Goldilocks renters get eaten by (metaphorical, of course) bears.

In general, metros in the South and Southwest seem to be “just right” (excluding Texas, notably). Las Vegas, Phoenix and Jacksonville are among the largest metros featuring strong job growth, relatively affordable rent and at least moderate rental vacancy rates. In other words, in these areas it is easier to find a job and an affordable place to rent.

A surplus of West coast metros are “too hot,” with Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle all featuring great job growth, but terrible rental affordability. In our previous analysis, many Texas metros were in the sweet spot for those looking for a place to buy. But when considering rental affordability, Texas is just “too hot.”

Detroit, Washington, D.C. and Pittsburgh are among the largest metros that are “too cold.” While they all feature relatively affordable rent, they have poor job growth.

Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago are some of the largest metros that are “just wrong.” Rent is unaffordable and job growth is poor. But it’s not all doom and gloom in these areas. Philadelphia and Chicago have rental vacancy rates of 14.1 percent and 13.2 percent, respectively, well above the national rate of 7 percent. So even though rent is expensive, there’s no shortage of places to choose from. And while we’re unsure if the bears in these locales are hungry enough to eat our intrepid Goldilocks, we do know that in Boston at least, the bears can be mean-tempered.