Republican states like Tennessee, Texas, Indiana, Louisiana, are the WORST states to live in the USA

What I can tell you is that a lot of these "lists" are nonsense. The quality of life indexes for example that list Scandinavian countries fail to list a lot of the negative issues present, and focus on a few measures. Same in the USA - you will see some lists that have Florida as one of the best and other lists have them listed as one of the worst. It really comes down to going to these places and living and see if you like it --- also different places are right for different stages of your life.

My cousin moved from Michigan (not the best place for a family) to Spain about two years ago and has not had her expectations met overall. I know someone else that moved to Arkansas - never leaves their 100 acres and thinks it is wonderful because his entire life is on that property.

Only thing I will tell you is that Oregon is a poor choice if you want the sun - also there isn't a lot of diversity, and the drug situation is scary. There are a lot of drug addicts just about everywhere.

 

Every single list is about methodology and opinion.

In my 20's I had ZERO interest in living in the Northeast.

The strengths of the New England area or Chicago really were not important to me at that age --- and the weaknesses (cost etc.) all were big negatives.

Over 20 years later --- Chicago and New England are now very appealing.

Italy is now very appealing compared to in the past.

 

Go straight to the data, find what matters to you.

https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/

Life expectancy, child mortality, obesity, suicides, teen birth rate, physicians per capita, smokers, uninsured population, overdoses, air pollution, high school/college completion, unemployment, child poverty, median household income, homicides, car accident deaths, % population under 18/over 65

and more, all available on a per county basis, all comparable to state and US averages on a single website. One thing about America is we keep very thorough data.

https://www.schooldigger.com/ Shows all the test scores for every school over the last 5-10 years, as well as demographic data and a few other indicators. Pretty incredible information to have within a user friendly interface.

Extensive climate data is everywhere. A number of credible sources that give further details on all kinds of demographic/population/health/environmental/safety/economic/education things.

You guys can probably tell im a bit of a crackhead/sicfuc/tistic with this stuff, (grew up with Morey as our GM don’t blame me), it’s not everything but you can really figure out a lot of invaluable information at an instance that could otherwise take one years/decades/lifetime to wrap your head around by in-person experience.

 

College towns are great. Many of the amenities of larger cities, but without all the crap that comes with them.

Also, these lists are click-bait crap. Every state has good and bad places to live.

 

Data-based best places to live lists always suck. Not saying any of those states don't deserve to be there. But the inputs at best don't reflect what I care about and at worst are selected to engineer an outcome.

In this case it seems that CNBC did a study for top states for business, and one of their factors is quality of life for appealing to a workforce. And then someone figured they can blow up that one dimension into its own article about the "best" and "worst" states based on what they would think would matter for attracting a workforce. Commoditize me much?

They use crime rate, environmental quality, healthcare access, childcare availability, worker protections, anti-discrimination law, election law, and abortion access. You know what would actually matter to me? Access to good jobs, good weather, natural beauty, quality cultural assets, diversity, and progressive political policy. Find all that and it is a good state to me. Others will have a different list.

At the end of the day, it isn't often you get to look at all the places in the world and decide what is the best place. My own home state doesn't score well on my own criteria list. Your actual decision is based on stuff like, where is my family, where are my friends, where can I hold a job, where can I afford a home, where is all my stuff right now? Seems like I had 3 opportunities in my life to decide: (1) when I picked my college, (2) when I started my career, and (3) now with the kids moving out. Maybe there will be a 4th when I retire, but where the grandkids live might govern the choice.

 

CNBC - nough said

 

When I first viewed it, no, not at all. Now that I rewatched it, a little bit. She's almost like a character from The Office. Almost.

I know I sometimes laugh at completely inappropriate times. It's not that I lack empathy or find enjoyment in pain and suffering, it's more like a "I can't f'ing believe this is actually happening" type thing - a coping mechanism.

 

I can get that in some situations, but not this one.

 

I think that would **** me up too. I say "think" because I really have no idea what it would be like to have a little me growing -- or not growing -- inside of me.

 

Well of course they all have their own, but I don't agree with the weights applied to various factors by this particular article. Definitely every place has its advantages and disadvantages and if you have the financial ability, every state can be great. I love aspects of the city, the country, the mountains, the beach, the north, the south, but unless you are super into gambling nobody is picking Mississippi over GA without having strong ties to the state.

If I could try living anywhere, and my kids weren't a factor, I'd probably split my time between Alaska & Greece of the places I have been. GA wouldn't be where I would be, despite me living here and defending it. Family is here, so I am here. It is great for people that want to come South, but want a place cheaper and less crazy than Florida. It offers the beach and the mountains, which is something only California is better for (northern states having colder and rockier beaches, just isn't the same).

 

We essentially agree.

If you are a single woman or have a daughter -- the abortion laws matter a lot more. If you are poor, the benefits in a particular state or country matter more.

As far as Mississippi versus Georgia, yeah, I agree that most people are picking Georgia.

Personally I wouldn't pick either of them - but if you told me I had to pick one, it would be Georgia every time over Mississippi or Alabama or even Louisiana, outside of the gentry in New Orleans.

I will take Georgia over Florida as well. There is nothing wrong with Georgia, it is better than most of the world and even a lot of places in the USA. Also - and this is important, it is more affordable than California.

If money wasn't an issue, I would live in either a select part of California or a select part of NYC for half the year, and live the rest of the year split between Italy and London.

Those that live in poverty in the USA would be better off living in parts of Europe that have a better safety net. However, for most Americans that is not the case.

 

good point

I don't need no diversity . But near the top of my list is quality public education, health care (mental health care included), food, home-grown stuff (gardening, livestock, etc.).

 

Grande Old Pedophiles strike again.

DD

 

I dated a woman with a young daughter, and she really wanted to leave GA (she was former Navy and lived in California before moving to GA and was very liberal). She was very adamant about moving in part because of the abortion law. For me, I thought of that as a calling to stay, because we could easily afford to leave if either of our daughters were put in that situation. To me it is part of our responsibility to care for those that can't. It is part of why I don't send my kids to private school or try to move into the best school district. We don't fix problems by leaving them to those with fewer resources. But for those with limited resources they don't have the luxury to be super flexible on things.