Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In fact, the state I personally believe to have the worst overall weather in the country (North Dakota), is the fastest growing state in the country. Wow, how is that even possible in your world?!?!? *EXPLOSION*
To me, this is passive-aggressive behavior on your part, as well a heavy dose of narcissism. Not everyone thinks exactly like you....or they'd all live in Phoenix. Why the hell are you in Boston if you hate the weather so?
Kind of a simple math concept - the old "rate vs. quantity" gag.
North Dakota added 66,981 people from 2010-2014. Texas added 1,811,397 in the same time frame. California added 1,548,544 people. Florida added 1,091,987. Yes, North Dakota wins on rate - it was a horrible place to live in for most people, and about 60,000 people decided to brave that horror to make some petro-dollars. I can assure you, the 1.8 Million people in Texas did not move for precisely the same reason (that would imply 27x more oil for 27x more people, would it not?).
Of course people move for many reasons, and weather does not pay off a sub-prime mortgage, but if all things were equal (and they never are), people like warm weather more than cold. Sunshine more than clouds. Jogging in March instead of shoveling snow and drinking beer in your basement. It is both intuitively and empirically true, and you know it. Midwestern weather is, for most sane people, awful. I'm happy you are part of the standard deviation that likes bad weather, but next person from San Diego who takes a spring break in Milwaukee "for the weather" will be a true climate pioneer of note.
This list of cities with "bad weather" is stupid and unrepresentative when so many places in America clearly have much worse weather. Millions of people do move because of that bad weather. And to your question - I am in Boston because I get paid very well here, I went to a fairly decent school with a fairly decent alumni base here, I like the city, and I can afford to travel to warm places (including one where I have a residence) generally when I want. I can assure you, those of us here would gladly take better weather along with the things we have in a world-class city. I can also say flatly that if I would work for far less if it meant living somewhere warm as opposed to, let's say, St. Louis. "Sunshine tax" indeed, and I am many decades from retirement age.
Oh yes, one last thing - feel free to knock yourself out with this fun chart, which kind of shows that people don't very often move from warm to cold.......
My vote goes to New Orleans. Hot and humid. I can put up with 100 degrees with low humidity. I can put up with cool, wet, and clouldy. I can deal with bitter cold. The humidity combined with the heat feels disgusting. Constant sweat. I say this as someone who lives in the Atlanta area and deals with the summers there, which are hot and humid.
And to your question - I am in Boston because I get paid very well here, I went to a fairly decent school with a fairly decent alumni base here, I like the city
Haha
Like I said, JOBS. The economy. Not WEATHER. As you, yourself would prove. Keep arguing to argue, but I'm moving on....enjoy the Boston weather, which is why you and everyone else moves anywhere, according to you!
eastern nebraska/western iowa. worst ever. wind is a constant occurrance. it is literally windy all day/night every day/night. tornadoes, floods, blizzards, ice storms, hail, damaging wind gusts with/without storms, even small earthquakes from time to time that are just plain annoying and go unrecorded, mudslides some times, more floods, more tornadoes, more ice storms and blizzards. this is the epicenter of all weather except hurricanes and tsunamis. oh and i have yet to mention 150% humidty 24-7-365 and deadly droughts every couple years and the list goes on im sure.
Boston got 100" of snow last year and it was armageddon. Syracuse averages that much snow a year. It was also -20 degrees over the weekend there, and it's notoriously gloomy with cloud cover in the winter that is only rivaled by Seattle and Portland.
I voted Phoenix. Highs that are routinely well over 100ºF for months on end is absolutely hellish.
At least in Minneapolis, we get something out of the cold and snow (unique attractions, events, and winter recreation) that most of the country can't enjoy. In Phoenix, you're trapped in an air conditioned box all summer. That kind of oppressive heat is simply inhumane.
Phoenix has nice winters. Minneapolis has nice summers. Neither have a lot of severe weather.
Oklahoma City is only nice between late September and mid-November and sometimes the nice weather doesn't even last that long. Spring has the ever-present threat of tornadoes. Winters are warmer than the northern plains but still too cold to do much outside, and the wind generally blows 40 mph from the north during the winter making it feel much colder than it really is. Summer is almost as bad as Phoenix (almost 3 months of 100 degree temperatues). I don't think weather gets any worse than Oklahoma City.
Minneapolis, worst weather of a major city by bar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
