Does love and money mix well in Southern California?

Could one’s odds for romance change depending on where they live in Southern California?

Surrounded by the romantic air of Valentine’s Day, let’s ponder love’s economic realities, as revealed by a “best cities for singles” scorecard from the financial website WalletHub. It ranked 182 cities nationwide, including 18 in Southern California, based on three factors: the demographics of the singles community, the fun available within the city’s borders, and the city’s overall costs and economics.

Look, most of these geographic rankings are a mix of data and statistical art that’s best viewed as conversation starters. And rather than debate the winners and losers of this love-based scorecard, let’s contemplate this: Does money matter when it comes to affairs of the heart?

Dating costs can be a tricky endeavor. And juggling a household budget and economic opportunities can be a massive challenge for couples. But I’ll leave that discussion to personal finance gurus or relationship counselors.

Minus money

My trusty spreadsheet took a less emotional path: Comparing WalletHub’s geographic scores with my rankings, which used the same math, excluding the economic grades.

The Southern California cities whose romantic grades improved greatly when money wasn’t a factor had a mix of sunset views, high-end paychecks, and or pricey real estate.

Long Beach’s grades surged to No. 3 when economics were out of the equation, compared with a 10th-best grade if money matters. Huntington Beach jumped to No. 6 minus economics vs. No. 11.

Glendale climbed to No. 14 without economics, compared with being the region’s worst when money mattered in the math. Irvine rose to No. 9 from No. 12, and Garden Grove went to No. 11 from No. 14.

Next, think about local cities where scores fell when money was taken out of the math. They’re inland with affordable housing and largely working-class wages.

Ontario fell to No. 12 minus economics vs. No. 9 if money matters. Fontana fell all the way down to No. 10 from fourth-best. And Moreno Valley went No. 12 minus economics vs. No. 6.

Isn’t love priceless? When just a freeway or two separates the region’s arguably high-ranked spots for singles from its purported bottom of the barrel, the economics of a person’s hometown might not be a major factor in seeking out a mate.

By the way, no matter the math, Southern California’s top spots for singles are the same. San Diego is No. 1 and Los Angeles is No. 2.

Romantic state

In most parts of the nation, it’s hard to just hop over a state border to pursue a potential mate.

So do economics matter when WalletHub ranked the 50 states with a similar grading logic?

Well, let’s consider California’s grades. It ranked second-best without its usually expensive economics. However, the Golden State was fourth-best when the grade accounted for money.

These grades clearly favored the most populous states. They’re places with plenty of fun things to do.

New York became No. 1 minus economics from No. 2. And Florida dipped to No. 3 minus economics vs. the nation’s best if money matters. And Texas fell to No. 4, excluding economics, from No. 3.

The state where romantic odds improved the most when economics weren’t factored still got a mediocre grade – Kentucky’s overall rank moved to No. 31 from No. 41. Two other big improvements were costly places to live: Connecticut (No. 12 without economics vs. No. 18) and Washington state (No. 12 vs. No. 17).

Curiously, romantic grades fell sharply in two of the nation’s three best economies when money was taken out of the math: Virginia’s singles ranking fell to No. 25 from No. 14, while Utah went to No. 31 from No. 26.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com