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.
There is a lot of different data and metrics used in these rankings, and based on grading scale and weight, each study is inherently different. But, I do see some general consistencies, and often see the same "top" states and the same "bottom" states across the board.
So, based on all criteria (personal metrics and those used for the grading in this ranking), which states get your vote? Does this look accurate? Any surprises?
Here is the list's top 20:
1. New Hampshire
2. Minnesota
3. Vermont
4. Utah
5. Colorado
6. Massachusetts
7. Iowa
8. Wyoming
9. Maine
10. Wisconsin
11. Idaho
12. Hawaii
13. Connecticut
14. Virginia
15. New Jersey
16. Washington
17. Nebraska
18. North Dakota
19. Montana
20. Maryland
Interesting list. IMO I think some of these metrics are overemphasized and overall are not really ranked properly.
Places like Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota while being pleasant geographically, offer little economic opportunities, or have little assets in terms of being competitive in the 21st century and think they are way over ranked.
There is a lot of different data and metrics used in these rankings, and based on grading scale and weight, each study is inherently different. But, I do see some general consistencies, and often see the same "top" states and the same "bottom" states across the board.
So, based on all criteria (personal metrics and those used for the grading in this ranking), which states get your vote? Does this look accurate? Any surprises?
Here is the list's top 20:
1. New Hampshire
2. Minnesota
3. Vermont
4. Utah
5. Colorado
6. Massachusetts
7. Iowa
8. Wyoming
9. Maine
10. Wisconsin
11. Idaho
12. Hawaii
13. Connecticut
14. Virginia
15. New Jersey
16. Washington
17. Nebraska
18. North Dakota
19. Montana
20. Maryland
New Hampshire? Not a chance in my book.
No offense at all to New Hampshire folks, and it does have some incredible people, some pretty countryside and beautiful mountains.
But I visited twice (in 2007 and again in 2010) and it is a tucked away, quiet state with a PBS mid 1970s nostalgia appeal (or not, depending on taste), and a lot of "real country folk," as we call them down here in the south.
I understand the appeal for family and retirement, but man there's not much going on there, and boy are winters freezing too.
Not a state I personally could ever live in, but I suppose considering all factors that created this list, it somehow topped the list.
That listing is totally ridiculous. Every state in the list, other than Hawaii, is a northern state. It they put it in map form, you'd really see it. The list/ranking is completely biased against the south. Total rubbish.
The two states that I really enjoy and value aren't even on the list.
By that standard, Idaho should be ranked first, which it is not. Clearly, there were other things that counted for more than population gain or loss.
My point was not that states with the highest population growth should be top ranked. But there are reasons why these states lost population. People didn't want to live there for some reason. Strange metrics to include 3 of the 8 that lost population in the top 20.
NH, VT and Minnesota are too cold and boring for me but I agree that do offer a great quality of life to raise a family. Not for me thou. That is why America is great we have 50 states and every city or state pleases somebody.
Additionally, every state in the list, other than Hawaii, is a northern state. This list is completely biased against the south. Total rubbish.
I think it's bias to income levels and unemployment. What this list does not consider is COL.
Even still, I understand the New Hampshire vote. Very average COL, low crime, high income, high educational attainment, healthy, diverse topography. That said, and if people were to start migrating to NH, the state would be screwed. Very little employment options to had. I've seen that ~15-20% of the state actually works in Massachusetts, which likely inflates the income levels and employment opportunities a bit.
I do understand Utah/Colorado for the same reasons as NH, with the added bonus of larger cities.
My point was not that states with the highest population growth should be top ranked. But there are reasons why these states lost population. People didn't want to live there for some reason. Strange metrics to include 3 of the 8 that lost population in the top 20.
Dispersing of population doesn't necessarily reflect desirability. Chicago is a good example.
They're losing population at a rate higher than any other major city. But who is leaving? Is it those who have the flexibility to stay? i.e. income levels and employment opportunities. Or is it those that can't find work? Or are chasing an industry elsewhere, like oil?
Point being, an established area can have a marginally fleeting population without being undesirable. Shoot, if Chicago had San Antontio prices, do you think people would generally choose San Antonio? Probably not. Corrections will continue to take place until the playing field levels out. Not sure that makes one more desirable than the other... May be as simple as earning a paycheck.
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.
