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.
...and 9 of the top 10 states are predominantly white. Aren't generalizations fun?! It has MUCH more to do with other variables than simply being "blue" states.
"To identify the best and worst states in which to live, 24/7 Wall St. devised an index composed of three socioeconomic measures for each state: poverty rate, the percentage of adults who have at least a bachelor’s degree, and life expectancy at birth". If these three meaningless stats make you feel better about where you live, thats great. Most don't care.
I seriously doubt that I could have said it better, myself.
Trust me CT is a terrible place to live. Cannot wait till the Democrats are out. It's taxes and taxes and taxes. The budget was bad when they came in. They tried to fix it, but made it worse and still taxed to try to fix it. Then when they messed it up they kept increasing taxes and taxes. I have no idea how people can vote Democrat.
"24/7 Wall St. devised an index composed of three socioeconomic measures for each state: poverty rate, the percentage of adults who have at least a bachelor’s degree, and life expectancy at birth"
These criteria seem specifically targeted. What about things like divorce rate, high school graduation rate, crime/murder rates, unemployment, cost-of-living, etc? What about areas that support high or stable incomes with blue collar jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree? Maryland ranked as 7th best, but has the 5th highest murder rate in the country. Most of this top ten also appear in the top ten teen abortion states.
Here's a 2014 Gallup poll of 176,000 people to rank their satisfaction in these areas: motivation to achieve goals (purpose), having positive relationships (social), economic satisfaction (financial), feeling safe and having pride in where you live (community), and taking care of your health (physical).
Rankings don't mean much, because it's impossible to come up with any ranking that is both comprehensive and universal. That is, if your ranking takes into account everything that is relevant to one individual, it won't be possible to generalize it to make it useful for everyone, and if it's useful for everyone, it won't contain enough information to give a fair ranking to many individuals. Some people could look at a list of states ranked by a particular metric and then argue about which end of the list is better. A classic case of that might be warm weather; some people can't stand to be without snow, and some people can't stand anything other than Hawaii's weather.
Some people have special interests, too; if you're Vietnamese, for example, you probably favor those areas with large Vietnamese populations, and there are plenty of otherwise quite nice places that lack that feature.
California is just about perfect for me, but I can see why some people might prefer Boston or Philly or Houston.
Another problem with state rankings, by the way, is the fact that they reduce states to an unrealistic average. "Average California" means nothing to me because I live in the San Diego area, and the average takes into account statistics in areas that would take me more than a day to reach by car. That's pretty useless. The cost of living and crime rate and cultural amenities in San Francisco mean very little to me in my day-to-day life; that might as well be in a different state.
As someone else pointed out, the metrics often used in these kinds of rankings are usually chosen in such a way as to reinforce the usual opinions about which countries are allegedly the best, i.e., they're chosen from lists of things that Western countries tend to do well, and things that Western countries don't do well tend to get left off.
From your own article: Life satisfaction in a given state is often based on highly subjective measures it's too bad that not everyone agrees with your biased opinion, isn't it? That list puts New Jersey as the 4th best state to live in, and you expect anyone to think the list is worth anything? Who would ever want to live in New Jersey? Isn't it funny that YOUR state, supposedly one of the highest ranked, has a red leader? I guess some people are mostly stupid, aren't they.
NJ has been a highly ranked state forever, and run by democrats most of the time. Christie got in after Obama backlash several years ago. He has turned our state into ***** in a very short time. 9 credit downgrades, poor disaster management, Bridgegate, slowest economic recovery in the nation, the list is endless. He should be in jail, except we rarely put rich, white people in jail in this country unless they rip-off other white rich people.
It's not a stretch to say he is the worst governor NJ has ever had. He is currently hated in our state. So to say he has anything to do with our high ranking is stupid.
Yes, NJ has high taxes. But we also have the best schools and a highly educated public. We have the highest salaries in the country. We have top health care facilities. So does it really matter that I pay $5000 more in taxes per year then my in-laws in Georgia when I make over $40,000 per year for the same job?
Let's face it, those bible thumpers in the south are being hosed by their GOP leaders. The only thing the south has that leads this country is diabetes and teen pregnancy. The GOP wants to keep ya'll as stupid as possible down there, it's the only way keep getting re-elected.
That IS odd, real odd. W Virginia's up there but DC ain't even tho BOTH places have lots of poor people.
Actually, wealthy people are just as likely to commit suicide as the poor. And older white males in rural areas are the top demographic. It is less common in cities. So it makes sense that DC doesn't top the list.
"It's interesting that although we have always have an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature, we keep putting Republicans as our head of state."
The two phenomena are related. Since the Democratic Party maintains supermajorities in the Massachusetts legislature, Republicans are often elected governor in order to provide some semblance of a check. Basically, the presence of a GOP governor means that only legislation supported overwhelmingly by the Democratic caucus can pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
"The constant GOP victories in gubernatorial elections are why I would not consider MA the bluest state in the country. I'd consider Washington to be the bluest American state, as the last GOP governor was elected in 1980."
There are two blue states that hold gubernatorial elections [only*] in presidential years: Delaware and Washington. Neither has elected a Republican governor since the 80's. If Hawaii, New York, California, etc. did likewise, you'd see the same dynamic.
*Vermont's governor serves a two-year term.
Last edited by drishmael; 11-30-2015 at 04:33 PM..
So move Townie... There are 55 other states you can move to.... Nobody is holding you there are they?
Name those states that come after 50, since I haven't heard of them. Have any of them legalized medical marijuana? The current petition drive to vote on legalizing medical marijuana in Oklahoma is failing miserably with only a bit over 42,000 signatures collected, so far.
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.
It has MUCH more to do with other variables than simply being "blue" states.
