U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2009, 11:29 PM
 
1,012 posts, read 2,246,793 times
Reputation: 454

Advertisements

For starters, just because a state is "beautiful" and serene, doesnt necessarily mean it is a good place to live. Mountains, deserts, an ocean shoreline and sunshine do not pay the bills. For me, I couldnt care any less about topography. When I look at a state, I look at factors such as quality of education, healthcare, cost of living, taxes, and the job outlook in that state. It all comes down to being able to raise a family, in my opinion. Thats why I have no interest in places like California and Arizona; great to visit but generallybad to live. Just my ten cents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2009, 11:32 PM
 
1,012 posts, read 2,246,793 times
Reputation: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by michigan83 View Post
You're right. Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the nation, and it's also the most beautiful state in the Union. I see your point.
I lived in MI for almost ten years and do not find it to be the "most beautiful," but its nice, nonetheless (at least in northern MI anyway). The biggest thing about MI right now is its horrible econ. If it hadnt been for Michigan's bad economy and enemic jobs, I would have stayed. Although I liked Indiana and Virginia too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2009, 11:35 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,576,706 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by krock1dk View Post
For starters, just because a state is "beautiful" and serene, doesnt necessarily mean it is a good place to live. Mountains, deserts, an ocean shoreline and sunshine do not pay the bills. For me, I couldnt care any less about topography. When I look at a state, I look at factors such as quality of education, healthcare, cost of living, taxes, and the job outlook in that state. It all comes down to being able to raise a family, in my opinion. Thats why I have no interest in places like California and Arizona; great to visit but generallybad to live. Just my ten cents.
Hrrmm I wouldn't say they are bad to live at all... actually quite the opposite. Perhaps harder to get established or move here and buy a house from some other area, but bad to live? not really. BTW California has the #1 public university system in the world, places like SF offer free health care to residents and the area is still tops in areas like high tech/biotech/nanotech/finance/etc... so a job in those industries or several others which are highly skilled and specialized, that might be the only place for a certain job or company you want to work for. Cost of living can go out the window if you have a get a good job transfer. There are certainly plenty that pay for the col differences, same with places like nyc. I've learned you generally pay for what you get, that is, if you utilize the area to its fullest, and it is only sticker shock if you aren't used to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 12:04 PM
 
56,664 posts, read 80,973,859 times
Reputation: 12521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeromeville View Post
Upstate NY is extremely scenic. And until the mid 20th century, was extremely prosperous.

What's killed the Upstate economy is the burgeoning cost of union concessions and high taxes that the population can no longer support after manufacturing jobs went South (and then to the Third World). Note: I am not anti-union nor anti-tax. It's just that the business climate is now so terrible because of these obligations, that the region cannot land the green-collar industries it desperately needs.

New York State's prosperity has basically shrunk down to NYC and the immediate surrounding areas. The rest of the state is as gorgeous as ever, but economically devastated.
Yeah, but I feel that some areas Upstate are slowly coming back. Hopefully, that will continue to increase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 09:39 PM
 
2,231 posts, read 5,425,130 times
Reputation: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by michigan83 View Post
You're right. Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the nation, and it's also the most beautiful state in the Union. I see your point.
There may be some beautiful and scenic places in Michigan, but there's one flaw in your reasoning.

Michigan is neither beautiful nor ugly.

It cannot be viewed aesthetically. It is a government, not a material object.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 10:00 PM
 
2,231 posts, read 5,425,130 times
Reputation: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by krock1dk View Post
For starters, just because a state is "beautiful" and serene, doesnt necessarily mean it is a good place to live.
Good point.

Historically, people have migrated in order to ensure or improve their physical survival... either to escape wars and civil disturbances, or to improve their economic well-being.

Someone who migrates in order to admire the scenery is probably a member of a small minority... most people migrate for more pragmatic reasons.

It might be said that aesthetically pleasing locations disproportionally attract people who have little aptitude for, or understanding of, issues regarding economic survival and public order. You could then expect such places to reflect the culture of people who are aesthetic, but not particularly economically oriented. Places with a strong, economy would have a smaller proportion of the economically "challenged", and their social attitudes would have less influence on the culture.

You can see that phenomenon by comparing a metro such as Dallas-Fort Worth with metro San Francisco. The SF people have a strong sense of the aesthetic, but their economic standard of living is inferior, by virtuually any measure, to that of DFW.

DFW will continue to attract the economically pragmatic with little or no interest in scenery, and those people will further amplify the DFW economy. SF Bay Area will continue to attract those who have a low interest in economic development, and can easily forego it in return for scenic beauty. And those newcomers will furthr dampen the SF economy, in relation to the DFW economy.

Last edited by aceplace; 11-01-2009 at 10:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top