Last week we told you how Los Angeles wasn't really a big city when it comes to the size of certain anatomical parts. Now comes word that Angelenos aren't really big spenders either.

Despite the region being home to Rodeo Drive, the biggest Porsche-buying market in the nation and a large if not record number of billionaires, L.A. only ranks 42nd in household spending, according to analysis of America's 100 largest metropolitan areas by (spotted at LABizObserved).

Angeleno households (and those of our environs) spend $39,422 annually, slightly more than the national average of $37,782. New York, another money crazed metropolitan area, also ranked comparatively low, at 53, with $37,435 in annual household spending. Austin, Tex., Scottsdale, Ariz., San Jose, Arlington, Va., and Plano, Tex. Irvine came it at number nine.

Why didn't L.A. rank higher? Two words: Housing costs.

While income levels in L.A. and New York are healthy, housing costs kill our disposable income in both big cities.

“Bundle's data excludes spending on mortgage and rent, which explains why New York City doesn't top the list, and why the top 25 includes relatively affluent towns with low housing costs,” states bundle. ” … Ditto for Los Angeles, with its sprawling geography and socioeconomic diversity. That city is No. 42 with $39,422 spent in '09, 4.3 percent higher than the national average … “

Also, LABizObserved's Marc Lacter notes that “Los Angeles has lots of rich people, of course, but it also has many more poor people.”

LA Weekly