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.
Why should they have much larger populations? Some of us happen to like them the way they are.
Could that be another reason people are happier there?
More are, perhaps that is why they are growing and RI isn't.
ME is growing very slowly, but that is mostly due to lack of jobs (like RI). Yet even among colder states with no jobs, there is a huge disparity in this survey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
You mean "past success".
Did I say past? No? Probably because I didn't mean to.
You meant to say you love Rhode Island and are moving to Providence, right?
Did I say past? No? Probably because I didn't mean to.
Well you should learn more about the history of your home state. It was once a great industrial powerhouse that attracted labor from all over the world. Due to its location, it was also a center of maritime commerce and fishing. Agriculture was once very important as well. Due to modernization of the economy and creation of the highway system (diminishing the importance of the rivers and seafaring), all those things are now a shell of what they were. And because of political corruption and general incompetence at the state level, Rhode Island has been unable to transform itself to succeed in the modern era. For that reason, the population has been stagnant for decades now. The million or so that live there now are basically living off the state's legacy and the infrastructure that was created to support what was then a very powerful economy. Most of the economy is now service based in order to serve that population, as well as from those leaching off the system and commuting to MA for jobs there.
Most of ME and RI are actually very similar economically today, they are both a shell of what they once were. Portland is doing better than anywhere in RI, however. But where the two clearly differ, is in quality of life. Sorry if the truth hurts.
I really don't understand what you mean here? How do the "nanny states" (RI/MA etc.) protect the vulnerable more than any other state be it ME or TX?
You can qualify for food stamps anywhere. Yet some states want to restrict how one defends themself...
The gun thing is just an example. The point is that states with lower regulations in general, seem to produce a more content populace (based on this survey)...
I'm a little confused myself. Aren't "nanny states" and "states that protect the vulnerable" two spins on the same thing? If you, a conservative, claim that a state is a "nanny state," what does that mean if not a state that I, a liberal, claim protects the vulnerable?
There are plenty of examples, but just a couple: Many states with Republican governors refused to accept federal funds to expand their Medicaid programs because of the perception that they would become nanny states. As a result, lots of poor people who would be receiving free healthcare in those states are not. In the nanny states, they are. Another example: Here in Rhode Island, my special-needs child gets loads of free development services that he wouldn't in, say, South Carolina, a state I briefly toyed around with moving to but ruled out because, among other reasons, those sorts of important services aren't available there.
As for lower regulations equaling satisfaction, correlation does not equal causation. Many have commented since the survey came out that the states with the highest satisfaction are the emptiest states, and empty states also tend to have lax regulations because of the frontier spirit or whatever.
I'm a little confused myself. Aren't "nanny states" and "states that protect the vulnerable" two spins on the same thing? If you, a conservative, claim that a state is a "nanny state," what does that mean if not a state that I, a liberal, claim protects the vulnerable?
There are plenty of examples, but just a couple: Many states with Republican governors refused to accept federal funds to expand their Medicaid programs because of the perception that they would become nanny states. As a result, lots of poor people who would be receiving free healthcare in those states are not. In the nanny states, they are. Another example: Here in Rhode Island, my special-needs child gets loads of free development services that he wouldn't in, say, South Carolina, a state I briefly toyed around with moving to but ruled out because, among other reasons, those sorts of important services aren't available there.
As for lower regulations equaling satisfaction, correlation does not equal causation. Many have commented since the survey came out that the states with the highest satisfaction are the emptiest states, and empty states also tend to have lax regulations because of the frontier spirit or whatever.
Difference between "empty" or "frontier states" like AZ, CO, ID, and UT vs. Southern states is that people in frontier states tend to be better educated and *much* harder workers than people in Southern states, so more gainfully employed and higher income. They also tend to be more fitness/outdoors-oriented and more likely to eat healthily/organically. There are lots of nature-lovers in the West, and people tend to be much more outdoors-oriented overall than people in the South. Lastly, the West has better weather than the South--drier, sunnier, less volatile. Health, fitness, education, income, climate--these are all factors that influence QOL metrics, which is usually why Western states score much higher and have more satisfied residents overall than Southern states.
I grew up in RI, but have lived in FL, GA, CA, TX, and now AZ. IME, people in South tend be a lot lazier, more dishonest, and a lot more likely to look for government handouts/subsidies overall than people in the Intermountain West states. Some of this is racially-driven, too, but I'll avoid going there for the sake of PC.
Most of ME and RI are actually very similar economically today, they are both a shell of what they once were. Portland is doing better than anywhere in RI, however. But where the two clearly differ, is in quality of life. Sorry if the truth hurts.
The truth from a tourist who cites wikipedia for his history lesson is easily disregarded, so there's no hurt on this end.
The truth from a tourist who cites wikipedia for his history lesson is easily disregarded, so there's no hurt on this end.
Well you always have to take into account the target audience. Maybe next time, I will post a video in big colorful letters that one can follow with their finger.
Last edited by massnative71; 06-05-2014 at 05:08 PM..
Well you always have to take into account the target audience. Maybe next time, I will post a video in big colorful letters that one can follow with their finger.
Maybe next time, you'll just leave me alone and quit presuming to know what I "really meant to say". It's misguided at best and obnoxious at worst.
I'm quite capable of reading and coming to my own conclusions and don't need the manative video or wiki guide to history.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by todd00
Look at the size of the sample from each state. A random sample of approximately 600 adults in each state, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. So from that you can make huge generalizations about everyone? It tells plenty about those 600 they called in every state but that's about it. I hate these polls.
Yeah, actually, you can. Depending on the survey structure and the variance in the data you get, you can obtain highly significant results statistically. It is a fantastic science.
But, question structure and poll execution is critical. What you ask, how you ask it, and how you obtain your sample is critical.
Well you always have to take into account the target audience. Maybe next time, I will post a video in big colorful letters that one can follow with their finger.
Yes agreed the "target audience" is the reason we have to simplify our posts so that they can understand better but yet half the time don't. Maybe we should start quoting The Onion newspaper articles for our posts maybe that'll work
Maybe next time, you'll just leave me alone and quit presuming to know what I "really meant to say". It's misguided at best and obnoxious at worst.
I'm quite capable of reading and coming to my own conclusions and don't need the manative video or wiki guide to history.
But when you say something that makes absolutely no sense, expect a little help with the words. Or at least be prepared to explain yourself a little more, rather than questioning another poster's credibility who is correct about everything he said in that paragraph (regardless of what you think of the "source").
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.
. Maybe we should start quoting The Onion newspaper articles for our posts maybe that'll work
