California ranks last place in new quality of life report

It's a quality of life report. Nothing about it is misleading.
Let me put it like this: the report isn't misleading if you read it. If you come into the thread and say something like "See, California is a liberal shithole", then you haven't read the report.
 
wow. never been to california. only the north-east coast.
sorta had this idea in my head it was maybe like new york? but with warmer weather and a lot of movie stars everywhere.
there’s plenty of shitty spots and beautiful ones

go to Napa Valley, SF, Big Bear, LA, the beach cities like Redondo Beach and you’ll see the GOAT state
 
No, but it's still much worse in the North and especially the Northeast.
Point being that's hardly a distinguishing factor in the sense of the OP.
 
LOL at all the people that didnt read the article.

It takes quality of life (pollution, traffic, population density) no wonder pristine states with small populations are at the top.


And then claiming the second is better because its healthier, well no shit.
Funny. I would have thought people who read the report would notice that you've mentioned sub-categories of "Natural Environment" when that is only one of two of the larger categories (Social Environment being the other), and accounts for 50% of the total score.

Added a link to the OP so that you-- along with those you chide-- may enlighten themselves before speaking.
 
That's incredibly interesting. I really expected a report like this to be more ammunition to bash the Alabamas/Georgias/Missisipi/Kentucky red southern states

U.S. News & World Report is the source. So not like some BS hyper biased "study" by Breitbart

Upper Midwest (MN, WI, Dakotas) won out. I can attest that it's nothing flashy, but those are nice places to live and raise a family
Kentucky is pretty decent, depending where you live. If you like mountains, I don’t, then eastern Kentucky is all you.
 
Based on the metrics and the little blurb it looks to be merely a ranking of how populated states are.
 
Funny. I would have thought people who read the report would notice that you've mentioned sub-categories of "Natural Environment" when that is only one of two of the larger categories (Social Environment being the other), and accounts for 50% of the total score.

Added a link to the OP so that you-- along with those you chide-- may enlighten themselves before speaking.

People packed in the cities are assholes? colour me surprised and im sure its specific only to America, specifically California.
 
So why is Texas in the bottom 5?

I literally and quite deliberately made a point of making that the first sentence in my OP to preempt shitty posts like this one.

It's a quality of life report. Nothing about it is misleading.
Maybe you can somehow fit that Texas statement to the thread title
 
People packed in the cities are assholes? colour me surprised and im sure its specific only to America, specifically California.
*Yawn*

Just remember to shut up and read shit before excoriating others for not doing the same.
 
But Texas was in the Bottom 5, too:

California ranks last in quality of life in new report

What's the lesson to draw from this?

New Hampshire finishes at the top of everything. Seriously. It does. Every goddamn time. If you don't mind the cold, or a sea of mild-mannered white people, then that's the place to be. I guess in that way it's sort of like Canada.

Meanwhile, it isn't mentioned in this report, but in terms of booming economies, it's none other than (eek!!!) Florida leading the way. Currently 3-4 of the top ten boomtowns are in that state.


Link to full report:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/quality-of-life
These 'rankings' for popular consumption are like People magazine's '50 Most Beautiful People'.
 
LOL at all the people that didnt read the article.

It takes quality of life (pollution, traffic, population density) no wonder pristine states with small populations are at the top.

California and Texas vs North Dakote is like choosing between.

djo3xN6.jpg


Vs

photo.jpg


And then claiming the second is better because its healthier, well no shit.

This. I've spent quite a bit of time in North Dakota. And frankly it sucks. The only places that have money are the oil and gas towns, which are full of traffic, pollution, and crime. Everything in those towns, including rent is through the roof. Want to rent a 1 bedroom in Williston? Hey it'll only cost ya about 2,000 a month. And I remind you, you're in NORTH DAKOTA not New York City. Have fun being inside all winter.

Outside of those towns there's basically nothing besides a couple cool national parks.
 
Based on the metrics and the little blurb it looks to be merely a ranking of how populated states are.
They base the QoL metrics on Natural Environment and Social Environment.
Natural Environment is essentially a pollution score and Social Environment is defined as "Community engagement and social support are based on surveys of how often people participate in community events and how often they spend time with friends, family and work colleagues". Both of those are going to be biased towards rural communities.
 
The traffic in LA is sooooooooo bad. My family lives there and I can't comprehend how they deal with it. I drove 400 in miles to get there in 5 hours, and once I got passed Magic Mountain it took 2 hours to go 20 miles.

And in the last 20 years NorCal has gone to shit with endless sprawl. It is turning into a place like LA. I hate people. I need to move.
 
*Yawn*

Just remember to shut up and read shit before excoriating others for not doing the same.

Except that none of what you said really contradicts what i pointed out, living in the cities is not good for your health. Dont you have an study where it shows that water is indeed wet?

If Texas and California were such shitholes and North Dakota was a fucking paradise, people would be moving to North Dakota from said states in droves, but that doesnt happens isnt?

See ill give you an advice when you observe some natural phenomena, observe the phenomena from the outside to the inside.

The study shows something that everyone knows, cities arent good places to live.
 
These 'rankings' for popular consumption are like People magazine's '50 Most Beautiful People'.
No. They're more objective than that, and they're illuminating when taken in context of other metrics and rankings (ex. Cato Institute's Freedom Report Card, US Department of Education's state rankings on school performance, Census reports ranking U.S. counties by median income levels, etc.)

Again: New Hampshire finishes at the top of damn near everything.
Except that none of what you said really contradicts what i pointed out, living in the cities is not good for your health. Dont you have an study where it shows that water is indeed wet?

If Texas and California were such shitholes and North Dakota was a fucking paradise, people would be moving to North Dakota from said states in droves, but that doesnt happens isnt?

See ill give you an advice when you observe some natural phenomena, observe the phenomena from the outside to the inside.

The study shows something that everyone knows, cities arent good places to live.
I'm not addressing that. I'm pointing out that you shot you mouth off without reading the report yourself. If you put a cone on your head don't be surprised when people treat you like a dunce.
 
Back
Top