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.
Massachusetts has the history and the colleges, that's about it.
Washington destroys Massachusetts in terms of scenery.
This is an odd comparison because Massachusetts is largely a function of Boston really. 80% of the population lives in the Boston metro.
I disagree with this "just being it." Massachusetts residents are surely not starved for nature getaways. Plenty flock to the coast of Massachusetts. Also, despite having a smaller population, Massachusetts packs the bigger economic punch (Massachusetts has a much more diversified economy). For instance, I work in the legal field. Seattle's legal job market is absolutely tiny compared to most other cities. Seattle has a nice tech job market, but it's not exactly a diverse economy.
And as I said earlier, it's no contest as to which state is better located in terms of neighboring urban metropolitan areas. Massachusetts is part of one of the most important urban corridors in the world (Bost-Wash corridor). The Pacific Northwest in comparison is very rural. If you prefer the outdoors, Western Washington provides some nice getaways (Eastern Washington is arid). But I think many people would find the advantages of living in the Bost-Wash corridor to be great.
The thread topic isn't about which state is closest to neighboring cities and attractions though.
If you have to mention other states as a reason to highlight your own state (in general), then it doesn't sound like a strong state to begin with.
Massachusetts is way too small to be compared to Washington. The state is dominated by Boston. Washington has something of it's own to offer in addition to Seattle.
The thread topic isn't about which state is closest to neighboring cities and attractions though.
If you have to mention other states as a reason to highlight your own state (in general), then it doesn't sound like a strong state to begin with.
Massachusetts is way too small to be compared to Washington. The state is dominated by Boston. Washington has something of it's own to offer in addition to Seattle.
Besides hiking, what? Spokane?
Edit: Also, why would you not consider a state's neighbors? Reviewing a state in a vacuum is just unrealistic and arbitrary.
Last edited by GatsbyGatz; 08-08-2016 at 10:50 PM..
The hiking goes without saying. Spokane is better than Worcester and Springfield, the seafood, the beer, the wine (second largest producer), the music, no income tax, the economy, the cost of living, it's more literate as a whole, etc.
Having lived in both I can say that Washington suits me better, one thing I hated about Massachusetts were the brutal winters and hot/humid summers. Massachusetts has texture to the land but nothing like the texture of Washington, Massachusetts never feels like you're in a vast uninhabited wilderness like you can in Washington. When it comes to townships, cities, Boston vs Seattle, I would definitely give the nod to Boston, but Seattle is on beast mode right now and quickly becoming one of the premier cities in the U.S., can't go wrong with either
Don't get me wrong, as I'm definitely splitting hairs here. I personally debated between Boston or Seattle upon making my final choice on where to move.
Don't get me wrong, as I'm definitely splitting hairs here. I personally debated between Boston or Seattle upon making my final choice on where to move.
I disagree with this "just being it." Massachusetts residents are surely not starved for nature getaways. Plenty flock to the coast of Massachusetts. Also, despite having a smaller population, Massachusetts packs the bigger economic punch (Massachusetts has a much more diversified economy). For instance, I work in the legal field. Seattle's legal job market is absolutely tiny compared to most other cities. Seattle has a nice tech job market, but it's not exactly a diverse economy.
And as I said earlier, it's no contest as to which state is better located in terms of neighboring urban metropolitan areas. Massachusetts is part of one of the most important urban corridors in the world (Bost-Wash corridor). The Pacific Northwest in comparison is very rural. If you prefer the outdoors, Western Washington provides some nice getaways (Eastern Washington is arid). But I think many people would find the advantages of living in the Bost-Wash corridor to be great.
The Seattle metro's economy is actually pretty diverse - the largest employer in the region is Boeing, then you also have retailers like Starbuck's and Costco, tech giants like Amazon and Microsoft (with major satellite offices for Google, Facebook, etc), and the two biggest real estate websites (Zillow and Redfin) are based in Seattle. Not to mention two major ports and a strong maritime-based economy.
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.
