Here be the results and the methodology, measuring across 13 metrics. The main finding: stay away from West Virginia and Mississippi!
Utah? Must be nice but whatever. I'm partial to California. People may be a bit weird, but it's a cool place to live.
When you think about climate change and how the East and South had incredible record-breaking heat waves this summer, and the Midwest is in the midst of a historic drought, some parts of the country may have no future livability at all. Meanwhile, California looks better and better -- for us, "climate change" means it's not as warm in the summer.
Been that way for a couple of years. Without looking at the polls, has something to do with the low levels of divorce, low levels of crime (both relative) and a long list of outdoor activities to keep people healthy, among other things...okay, read this and am wrong. At least Tennessee is not in the top 10 least livable states for the future.
Props to Minnesota. But, as usual, I find the methodology used in these kinds of lists to be horseshit.
Given that ND/SD are about to turn into Saudi Arabia for natural gas, there's going to be a lot of money floating around up there.
I don't have anything against the good people of North Dakota or the people moving there for economic opportunity. But none of them can make North Dakota less windy, cold, or flat. I just reject the notion that the Dakota's are or will become more "livable" than other states (where people actually want to live). This happens with all of these lists; the selection criteria don't actually lead to the conclusion the authors make.
Depends on what "livable" is to the people who live there, don't you think? Nebraska is on that list. I'm from Nebraska. I get why it's there. I get why a lot of my friends who still live there would never want to leave. For that matter, if I'd stayed I'd probably be happy in many ways. I'd have fewer commuting headaches and a more active social life than I do in the Northern Virginia suburbs, that's for sure. I'd have a much smaller mortgage, and a bigger house--probably a house with more character than the cookie-cutter townhouse I do own. It would be a lot easier to make ends meet, and we'd have fewer anxieties about our economic future--and that of our friends and neighbors. That's kind of a big deal, IMHO. You can really tell the difference between a community rife with economic uncertainty versus one where the general assumption is that you, and just about everybody else, is and will continue to be OK. Say what you will about those places, but people generally aren't stressed out and anxious the way they are in many other places. But I'd also be missing out on a lot of other things. My wife would still be getting asked "Where are you from?" every time she opens her mouth just because she has an accent and immigrants are still something novel there. Our son would attend essentially all-white schools and be denied the culturally and ethnically diverse student bodies he's been lucky enough to be a part of here. I probably wouldn't be playing adult rec soccer very often. Our son wouldn't be playing as much soccer as he does here. And yes, the weather sucks. Really hot in the summer, really cold in the winter, no Spring or Fall to speak of, and it's always windy.
Colorado at #3 I get (at least West of I-25). I moved here just about 3.5 years ago, and I don't plan on moving again. but Nebraska?? North and South Dakota? I agree with tomwilhelm... money may improve the culture and activities to do of a city, but the cold, wind, and flatness of those states counteracts any effect money may have on culture and social improvement.
I guess it's a little different if you grew up in a place. there's no place like home. but I lived in Oklahoma for 3 years, and I think many of the benefits as well as drawbacks you recounted for Nebraska would apply to Oklahoma as well. but none of that stuff (mostly economic - and resulting peace of mind benefits) would induce me to live there again. the people are great (for the most part), but I can't stand the flatness. I need mountains, man. that or the ocean. a state that has neither doesn't rank very high on my list. plus Nebraska is just colder and windier and flatter than Oklahoma.
They do have great skiing. But can they ski in the morning and go to the beach in the afternoon? I don't think so.
Cali is definitely the best of all possible worlds in many ways - you have mountains, beaches (although the water is a bit chilly), culture, arts, social scene, etc. but it's expensive as hell. and that's a big draw-back for many people. I considered Cali before choosing Colorado, and the cost of living was the big deciding factor. I'm pretty happy with my choice.
Well, it's not ALL flat. To be fair to outsiders, most people who've "seen" Nebraska have done so from I-80, which follows the Platte River valley most of the way across the state, and cuts through the REALLY flat part of southeast NE in order to connect w/Lincoln (and passing by my hometown). From that perspective, it really does appear to be 500 miles of the same view. If a major interstate cut through the Sandhills, or the Pine Ridge, or the Missouri River bluffs, the perception would be much different.
Nebraska is horrible. Don't move here. Stay away. (Is it working? Are they still looking? Shhh, I think they're coming back again, go hide.)
I don't think you have to worry about using reverse psychology to keep people from moving to Nebraska. I don't see a mass migration to Nebraska in its future - not anytime soon.
Where are you at, btw? If you don't mind saying so, that is. Not trying to be too nosy. And seriously other people--DON'T MOVE THERE. The Ogallala Aquifer is being taxed quite enough as it is. Moving back home someday is, if nothing else, one of my most likely retirement scenarios. So I need the place to remain liveable for a few more decades, at least.
The average number of electoral votes in the top 10 states: 6.9 The average number of electoral votes in the bottom 10 states: 10.0 Just sayin.