I personally agree with this list. But, we have to be pragmatic here. This is what CNBC says they did:
"The study measures quality of life issues including crime, health care, childcare and health care, as well as inclusive policies on discrimination and reproductive rights."
See, the last two skew this study. People in these shit hole states (not all, but at least enough of the voting public) don't want inclusive policies or reproductive rights. So, to them, this metric is backwards. They would argue that living in California or New York was way more terrible because of the brown people and gays.
This isn't exactly a scientific study. It's taking objective data to reach a subjective conclusion. Neat headline though.
Edit: many if them are arguing exactly that in this thread. With a nice dose of racism and misogyny thrown in. Nice. I love when shit comes full circle.
I mean… if you want to move to one of these states as potentially any type of person (ie. perhaps not white and straight) then the inclusive policies are not an optional feature. If you’re a woman, having the government meddle in your health decisions can actually be life threatening.
For white, straight folks, and especially males, it’s easy to think these other two factors just subjectively improve life, but that’s because they already have a baseline level of respect and power in society.
Based on your take, I’d guess you’re straight, white and male.
Granted, I'm also straight, white, and male... But there are a hell of a lot of women who support abortion bans AND adore Mr "Grab 'em by the Pussy!"
I know one who doesn't believe God would allow a dangerous, nonviable pregnancy to take hold in (or in the case of ectopic pregnancies, outside of) a woman's uterus. She just doesn't believe something as sacred as a uterus can have that kind of flaw built into it.
And even if you could convince her dangerous pregnancies were real, I think @Ohthereyouare@lem.ee was saying that Republican women would not agree that their ability to survive an ectopic pregnancy is good or worth it if it also helps the "sluts" they despise to have more "convenience abortions."
Surviving might seem pretty good to you and I, but that doesn't make that ability objectively desirable to the people voting against their own interests. And they would be offended if their access to healthcare was deemed "better" in a quality-of-life metric than access to a set of theocratic restrictions.
They would tell you, "well I'm happier. Liberals think they can speak for me just because I'm a woman and my opinion doesn't matter! But if they asked me, I'd tell them I would prefer to live in a place where the sanctity of life was valued! They'd have to censor me and edit me out of their videos because I wouldn't support their narrative!"
I know one who doesn't believe God would allow a dangerous, nonviable pregnancy to take hold in (or in the case of ectopic pregnancies, outside of) a woman's uterus. She just doesn't believe something as sacred as a uterus can have that kind of flaw built into it.
But I guarantee that the second that she (or any other woman with similar views) had a pregnancy that threatened their life, they'd opt for an abortion ASAP. They'll rationalize that their abortion was justified and blessed by God, but all those other abortions are just "liberal sluts who want to kill babies" or something.
So what are we supposed to do to get them to stop choosing to be horrible like this? Can't do nothing... ~Cherri
Yup, I am, but if it's fair to say that the positive things about Florida don't count because those positive things exist in other states then it seems to me that it's fair to say that prejudice against minorities should count against those other states too. Florida does not have exclusive rights to mistreatment of minorities. In fact I'm pretty sure that exists in all 50 states.
My only point, was addressing the thought that a poster said he felt sorry for people living in those states (Florida in this case) and all I was saying was it wasn't like we all just get up every morning and fail to function because we are all so overwhelmed by how bad it is where we live. We have running water in Florida.
Yep. It is. That's sorta the point though. "Worst" is subjective. Personally? I'd never move to one of those 10 places. But, a lot of them think that the lack of reproductive rights is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I don't think that... But, a lot of folks in America do.
I think the premise is that the laws on reproductive rights have managed to effect the overall availability of health care. So it's not that the laws are bad, but some of them are written in such a way that it creates problems, or potential problems, for doctors. So Dr's are overall not choosing to get into situations where the law could make them liable and are choosing to set up practice in other locations where the government overreach isn't as bad.
The affirmative discrimination laws are generally hard to write well so they tend to add restrictions to people and businesses that are unintended.
It seems that those discrimination and reproductive rights are no longer 'soft' issues and this poll is acknowledging that.
As someone from West Virginia I'm stunned we didn't make the list. McDowell county is hell on earth. The northern part of the state really does hard carry the rest of it.
Economic and health factors in this ranking are severely downplayed in favor of hot social issues.
One would only think that's surprising or funny if they assumed that "best economy" and "best states to live in" necessarily have a one to one overlap. While I can see there being some overlap, l think we all know that business-friendly policies that foster economic growth almost always come with a suite of larger demographic costs.
The key is to seek balance between what's good for business and what's good for the public, and in that light it shouldn't really come as a surprise that some of the most business-friendly states are also the worst places to live.
Isn't the inflation rate in Florida the highest in the nation?
Moved from TX to DMV in Feb and it’s night and day here. Love the idea of Texas but the reality didn’t come close.
Where is DMV?
DC Maryland Virginia area.
Don’t get me wrong it not a utopia but much better. I miss Bucees and HEB. There’s also just as many bad drivers here, and the speed limits are LOOOOOW. But folks are on the whole nicer (which to me is weird as I heard folks here weren’t as nice as in Texas). And where I used to live 4 hours would get you to Beaumont and here it’ll get you through three states.
I've never even been there. I believe you on the nicer, it's probably genuine and not the superficial "How y'all doing?"
This could be another huge talking point for Democrats, but once again, this great opportunity to ding Republican governance is going to be missed since Democrats are so utterly incompetent to sell their successes and attack their opponents.
The inflation rate has fallen down to 3%, which is one of the lowest in the industrialized world right now. Have there been Democrats all over the news selling that success? No, of course not. Gotta keep those wins well hidden, dontchaknow!
Except none of this is swaying any republican. Some of these states are on the list because they pass exclusive legislation, seemingly overlooking any benefits otherwise.
No one cares about swaying hard-core Republicans. They are basically a lost cause. It's about showing the entire rest of the country that Republicans can't govern - aim at swaying those in the middle.
None of the states listed are surprises nor the fact they are all Republican lead states either.
Weird it’s the south east whodathunkit.
It is weird, because the entire point of racist ideology in America has historically been for personal gain by slaveowners, but now it's just objectively hurting their states' economies. Are they really getting that much benefit from exploitation like prison labor and such, or are they just so stuck in their ways that they'd rather feel powerful over others at their own expense?
They’d rather feel powerful over others at their own expense?
Yes. Was there ever a question? This is the conservative ideology.
I guess we wouldn't have LeopardsAteMyFace if it wasn't :/
Lost the Civil War and still losing today. "Loser" has become such a generic insult that it obscures the literally losing nature of so many people that live in this area.
Never thought about loser actually being derogatory towards those of the south east.
How in the world did Mississippi not make this list?
Live in mississippi, it should be #1, like it always is for shitty metrics.
Fun mississippi fact for today, if you own an electric or hybrid car you have to pay extra taxes.
A lot of places do that, they say its because they don't pay as much gas tax (which is true), which generally go toward maintaining roads and such.
I think we all know it doubles as a "liberal tax" though.
The only reasonable tax I could see being applied to an electric car is a weight tax, but that should be for all cars, not just electric. If your cars weighs more, you should pay more, especially at the city level.
More weight means it produces more wear and tear on roads. Not to mention they are more deadly, even at low speeds.
But I doubt this would happen in Mississippi lol
While true, it should be proportional to the damage.
There's a reason why semis, construction, and plows deal 99% of the damage to highways lol.
While you can say everyone benefits from semi transportation... There are tons of people who'd prefer proper rail transit upgrades and infrastructure... So they'll shoot down rail upgrades while also subsidizing truck damage lol.
One analysis contends freight-hauling trucks cause 99 percent of wear-and-tear on US roads, but only pay for 35 percent of the maintenance.
Fun fact.
WA is looking into getting rid of gas taxes and imposing a per mile driven tax due at registration.
Lived there for decades, have to agree.
You have very few rights as a worker. Pay is dogshit, even for better jobs. Life there sucks even if you're well off. Doesn't matter if you're rich, poor, left, right, black or white, it's gon' suck donkey balls being there.
Still made the best of my time there but now I've moved to Northern Europe and the difference is night and day.
Wisconsin here. I have to pay extra each year for a hybrid car :/
Because it's #11
Edit: Apparently it is #0
I also thought Florida would be much higher.
Of course Indiana is one of them. Fuck.
Stuck in Missouri taking care of my grandparents and my wife's parents. I've been wanting to move out of this shithole since I was 13. Now, I have to worry about reproductive issues with my high risk wife as it seems like we are hunkering down here entering our 30s.
I gotta say while I'm not happy with Texas decisions and there's a lot of bs there it doesn't seem even as bad as Florida much less Alabama and Mississippi.
Texans are some of the most delusional people on the planet.
The fact they think their state even holds a candle to Florida is laughable.
People live in Texas for one reason: tax breaks.
The only other state worse than Texas is Louisiana. Everyone in the nation agrees except Texans.
Oklahoma is worse. They're basically K-mart Texas.
Here here! You are 100% right! I hope people stop moving here in droves, it really does suck.
English is not my first language, but I think it is "hear, hear". This would akin to "listen, this is true!" rather than stating where you currently are 😀
English is not my first language
And you're still better at wielding it than a Texan!
must have offended a Floridian?
look I'm by no means saying Texas doesn't deserve a spot on this list, but saying that Texas banning gender affirming care is somehow not as bad as government sanctioned kidnapping of trans kids in Florida is what's delusional.
This list seems just a little bit skewed. I'm left of center but I feel like it should've been called 10 worst states if youre, and followed it up with any number of marginalized persons. And that's fine, just want to know the metric we are talking about.
You may be forgetting the fact that 50ish percent of the population has a uterus. Even some of those without one have partners with one and value their partner having access to the Healthcare they need or may need at some point.
yeah I mean I would consider myself left of most of the Democratic party but you can take a look at their weightings on the metrics they used and you can see why they got the answer they did even if we'd quibble about specific state placement.
cost of doing business and business friendliness collectively makeup 20% of their weighting and cost of living and education only make up 7% total.
seems like on a list that focuses on inclusivity that they would also focus on basic needs for families but for some reason they valued basic needs for businesses at 3x families.
overall, I think in order to trust this list, I would need to lower focus on businesses and increase focus on things such as education and immigration. Texas would do poorly in both of those things but so would a lot of other states. I definitely believe it deserves a place on this list, but I don't think it would end up #1.
they're methodology summary:
Workforce (400 points – 16%)
Infrastructure (390 points – 15.6%)
Economy (360 points – 14.4%)
Life, Health & Inclusion (350 points – 14%)
Cost of Doing Business (290 points – 11.6%)
Technology & Innovation (270 points – 10.8%)
Business Friendliness (215 points – 8.6%)
Education (125 points – 5%)
Access to Capital (50 points – 2%)
Cost of Living (50 points – 2%)
Paraphrasing the waiter rule: a state that abuses any of it's residents is not a nice state. Yes, quality of life is a relative scale, but I think it's fair to put the states actively making worse the lives of it's citizens (marginalized or not) at the bottom of the list.
Whether you think this has a political bias or not, no matter what whose list you look up, they all basically say the same thing.
So reading through this is a bit surprising. I hadn't been paying as much attention to some of these state based issues. It looks like the argument of the article is that despite strong historic economic numbers some of the recent steps taken by states have created challenges for businesses.
It seems that the knock down effect of reproductive health laws in a restriction in the number of practicing doctors per state. So it is not exactly the law that is the issue, but the fact that the ratio of doctors to patients is going in an adverse direction. The article is arguing that the extent is enough to create challenges for citizens in Texas. That seems like a sound premise, basically its harder to get and see a doctor because fewer doctors are moving to Texas compared to the growing population.
It seems that the states that were less of economic powerhouses to begin with could have negative effects with less strict laws since they didn't start from as strong a position.
The rest of it seems to be based on how accessible child care and health insurance are. If you want families and not just labor those resources can greatly reduce the need for high wages.
I'd briefly seen the big fails, like the Texas power grid and the bans on investment funds taking climate change into account. There was also that thing where Florida decide it was time to kill Disney.
Not moving the office buildings to Florida was a MUCH bigger deal to Disney that it appeared. The cost of 1-2 billion was going to be offset by MUCH lower cost of living for employees,(less pay as well) favorable taxes an the sale of super valuable real estate in California. It was very likely structured to be a net positive for the company. So I think that this is basically the core of the article. Even what should be on paper good deals are now in questions because of the state policies.
Hey this is pretty level headed and what you're saying makes sense. Please check out lemmy.world/c/moderate_politics we'd love to have you!
subscribed. I'm not sure I'm moderate, but I'll chime in when I get the time.
The main question is imho what's the cause - are they they worst to live in because of their politics? Or do people there vote populists because they are so unhappy with their lives
The American South has been reeling since the years following the Civil War. The economic strength of the Southern States was so tied up in agricultural slavery. When that system was dismantled it left a big hole in the fabric of those states socially, economically, politically. All of that resentment never went away it just changed forms over the years and turned into law and public policy. It's easy to forget that the Civil War was not that long ago, not in terms of human social development in any case.
It doesn't help that we elected qn apologist who decided to welcome them back with open arms not so long after the Civil War. Instead of adapting to the situation they were in, post-war, they ended up sucking on the feds that while they got equal representation as the non-slave states.
That's not what happened. Johnson became president when Lincoln was assassinated and at that time the president and VP didn't run on a single ticket and instead the VP slot went to the presidential runner-up, who, of course, was from the opposition. So we didn't really elect Johnson; we elected Lincoln, but John Wilkes Booth happened and he fucked us for generations.
Hmm, for some reason I thought it happened much later. Apologies!
Well the guy we elected after Johnson was Grant, and while he was an outstanding General, he was nowhere near as capable in the presidency where his authority, while great, was very different in kind from that of a military commander.
There's an argument to the effect that Grant was largely an absentee president who preferred to spend his days drinking as opposed to actually being the chief executive.
I'm not a historian and don't know enough about his presidency to have a strong opinion on it, but there's no question that the policies that Johnson put in place, that allowed reconstruction to go so badly off the rails, weren't competently addressed by the Grant administration, so in that respect your original point is not entirely incorrect.
He also badly botched, mostly through a lack of attention, Indian affairs with regard to the powerful plains tribes. It was probably inevitable that said tribes would eventually be subjugated, but it certainly could and should have been handled more humanely.
The article explicitly states one of the evaluation criteria is as follows:
So we consider inclusiveness in state laws by measuring protections against discrimination, as well as voting rights.
I'm guessing this is what led to the outcome the post title is highlighting.
The article explains each position.
They're listed as the worst because this is basically just a political hit piece. They've defined the criteria for "best" to align with policy the democrats push and Republicans don't. It's hardly anything except a list of states that democrats agree with (or in the case of the bottom 10, don't agree with)
I left my last job at the same time as a couple other people. We all got remote work, but I moved up to Seattle and they moved to Dallas. It's crazy how different our two places are.
Flop Florida and Tennessee, and bump Mississippi to the top. Florida is way worse than Tennessee, so glad I left the one for the other. Still need to find somewhere better long term though.
If you want to stay on the east, New England, New Jersey, DC, Virginia(Virginia's the weakest of these options). West coast: Cali, PNW, Colorado. Michigan gets an honorable mention due to the whirlwind of progressive legislation they've been passing lately. Along with the more favorable weather they will have long term as climate change destroys the rest of the country. Illinois is apparently pretty ok too but I don't know much about the state. Source: I'm looking to GTFO of Florida next year and have been reading up on these states for a few months now
E: here's a tool that helped me get started with my research
Have to stay in Eastern time zone. Initially I was looking at NC, but that has gone downhill lately. My kid wants us to look at Vermont or Maine, but I'm leaning towards Virginia. We tend to avoid large cities, so NJ and DC are out.
Vermont's gonna be a rough one to move to, they have one of the worst housing shortages in the country atm. Maine might be a good pick, you may want to check out Connecticut too, that's the one I'm leaning more towards. The towns are small, but close to one another so you get the benefits of a city with a more small town feel. Cost of living is reasonable, schools are good, pretty progressive govt. It checks a lot of my boxes and I get the feeling it might do the same for you.
Good, stay the fuck out! Stay in your own shit holes.
Ridiculous study. Nothing about climate, taxes, real estate, schools, natural amenities.
Ahh yes, because health care and crime isn't important to consider 🙄
I used pods to move from California to SC because I can work remotely, get paid a CA wage, could afford a house for the first time, while living close to family in SC.
Covid lockdowns in big cities made them feel much smaller and that started to feel a little claustrophobic- living in a tiny apartment, not really leaving that much. At least there’s more room to stretch out in smaller cities, but now that things are seemingly going back to normal (not that I think SC had any shifts in that aspect to begin with), I’d much rather be somewhere that doesn’t feel so hostile.
That being said, after a couple years of being here the vibes here are bad and I intend on moving possibly to Minneapolis as soon as I can.
what a propaganda
so vote for democrats forever right? /s
Nonono. First you remove FPTP. Then you get more than two real parties like most of western society.
When you have a democracy in place, we can start talking about who to vote for.
you know the title of this post had me thinking:
is it intentionally directing people to pin all faults to republicans; and that democrats means freedom and good lives ?
i mean no party is perfect, but from what I am seeing, it is more pro-Democrats in here
Tech people will almost always be progressives. This is the way it'll probably always be.
USA only have two "real" parties. The republican party who is now seen as regressive and the Democrat party who are seen as progressive (they used to be the opposite back in the day)
To me, the word "freedom" is toxic and a non-starter. Most western societies are free.
Coming from a country with many parties, having only two options is undemocratic. Affiliating with only one is reductive, especially when the parties change course all the time.
So, to respond to your comment:
Both parties are a bit shit, as they don't need to self-regulate because of their duopoly.
Democrats are more progressive than republicans, thus people with higher educations will gravitate this way.
No voting system is perfect, but FPTP is one of the worst, and imo is the main reason for the culture wars - which is virtue signaling fluff to keep the poor angry (doesn't matter which side they're angry with) by making them stop voting based on wealth redistribution, and instead on issues invented by politicians to keep the gravy train running.
why don't you post this in a us community. I don't give a shit about this.
This is a U.S. community. Did you read the description?
"... and up next: the 7 signs you're getting older". Pfff, whatever dude.
And why should I give a singular fuck about cnbc's list of personal preferences?
You shouldn't, and neither should anyone else. Most people who care are either looking at this list and saying to themselves or elsewhere "this is biased bullshit" of some type of "this validates things I already believe", and those aren't mutually exclusive.
Judging a place to live by a limited set of statistics is fairly useless.
I personally agree with this list. But, we have to be pragmatic here. This is what CNBC says they did:
"The study measures quality of life issues including crime, health care, childcare and health care, as well as inclusive policies on discrimination and reproductive rights."
See, the last two skew this study. People in these shit hole states (not all, but at least enough of the voting public) don't want inclusive policies or reproductive rights. So, to them, this metric is backwards. They would argue that living in California or New York was way more terrible because of the brown people and gays.
This isn't exactly a scientific study. It's taking objective data to reach a subjective conclusion. Neat headline though.
Edit: many if them are arguing exactly that in this thread. With a nice dose of racism and misogyny thrown in. Nice. I love when shit comes full circle.
I mean… if you want to move to one of these states as potentially any type of person (ie. perhaps not white and straight) then the inclusive policies are not an optional feature. If you’re a woman, having the government meddle in your health decisions can actually be life threatening.
For white, straight folks, and especially males, it’s easy to think these other two factors just subjectively improve life, but that’s because they already have a baseline level of respect and power in society.
Based on your take, I’d guess you’re straight, white and male.
Granted, I'm also straight, white, and male... But there are a hell of a lot of women who support abortion bans AND adore Mr "Grab 'em by the Pussy!"
I know one who doesn't believe God would allow a dangerous, nonviable pregnancy to take hold in (or in the case of ectopic pregnancies, outside of) a woman's uterus. She just doesn't believe something as sacred as a uterus can have that kind of flaw built into it.
And even if you could convince her dangerous pregnancies were real, I think @Ohthereyouare@lem.ee was saying that Republican women would not agree that their ability to survive an ectopic pregnancy is good or worth it if it also helps the "sluts" they despise to have more "convenience abortions."
Surviving might seem pretty good to you and I, but that doesn't make that ability objectively desirable to the people voting against their own interests. And they would be offended if their access to healthcare was deemed "better" in a quality-of-life metric than access to a set of theocratic restrictions.
They would tell you, "well I'm happier. Liberals think they can speak for me just because I'm a woman and my opinion doesn't matter! But if they asked me, I'd tell them I would prefer to live in a place where the sanctity of life was valued! They'd have to censor me and edit me out of their videos because I wouldn't support their narrative!"
But I guarantee that the second that she (or any other woman with similar views) had a pregnancy that threatened their life, they'd opt for an abortion ASAP. They'll rationalize that their abortion was justified and blessed by God, but all those other abortions are just "liberal sluts who want to kill babies" or something.
So what are we supposed to do to get them to stop choosing to be horrible like this? Can't do nothing... ~Cherri
Yup, I am, but if it's fair to say that the positive things about Florida don't count because those positive things exist in other states then it seems to me that it's fair to say that prejudice against minorities should count against those other states too. Florida does not have exclusive rights to mistreatment of minorities. In fact I'm pretty sure that exists in all 50 states.
My only point, was addressing the thought that a poster said he felt sorry for people living in those states (Florida in this case) and all I was saying was it wasn't like we all just get up every morning and fail to function because we are all so overwhelmed by how bad it is where we live. We have running water in Florida.
Reproductive rights is healthcare.
Yep. It is. That's sorta the point though. "Worst" is subjective. Personally? I'd never move to one of those 10 places. But, a lot of them think that the lack of reproductive rights is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I don't think that... But, a lot of folks in America do.
Just not a majority anywhere. Minority rule baby!
Did I mention majorities?
I think the premise is that the laws on reproductive rights have managed to effect the overall availability of health care. So it's not that the laws are bad, but some of them are written in such a way that it creates problems, or potential problems, for doctors. So Dr's are overall not choosing to get into situations where the law could make them liable and are choosing to set up practice in other locations where the government overreach isn't as bad.
The affirmative discrimination laws are generally hard to write well so they tend to add restrictions to people and businesses that are unintended.
It seems that those discrimination and reproductive rights are no longer 'soft' issues and this poll is acknowledging that.
As someone born in Texas and now resides in Oklahoma I agree with this study.
sweats in Georgia
As someone from West Virginia I'm stunned we didn't make the list. McDowell county is hell on earth. The northern part of the state really does hard carry the rest of it.
Economic and health factors in this ranking are severely downplayed in favor of hot social issues.
If you want a good chuckle, here are the states that they say have the best economies. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/these-10-states-are-running-americas-best-economies-for-residents.html
Included in the top 10 are:
Florida
Texas
Tennessee
South Carolina
Indiana
Best economies for CEOs.
One would only think that's surprising or funny if they assumed that "best economy" and "best states to live in" necessarily have a one to one overlap. While I can see there being some overlap, l think we all know that business-friendly policies that foster economic growth almost always come with a suite of larger demographic costs.
The key is to seek balance between what's good for business and what's good for the public, and in that light it shouldn't really come as a surprise that some of the most business-friendly states are also the worst places to live.
Isn't the inflation rate in Florida the highest in the nation?
!savedyouaclick@lemmy.nrd.li
Here is yougov's list https://today.yougov.com/topics/travel/articles-reports/2021/04/13/us-states-ranked-best-worst-according-americans
The difference two years makes
Moved from TX to DMV in Feb and it’s night and day here. Love the idea of Texas but the reality didn’t come close.
Where is DMV?
DC Maryland Virginia area.
Don’t get me wrong it not a utopia but much better. I miss Bucees and HEB. There’s also just as many bad drivers here, and the speed limits are LOOOOOW. But folks are on the whole nicer (which to me is weird as I heard folks here weren’t as nice as in Texas). And where I used to live 4 hours would get you to Beaumont and here it’ll get you through three states.
I've never even been there. I believe you on the nicer, it's probably genuine and not the superficial "How y'all doing?"
what was your experience like?
Red states are shit holes, more news at 11.
Usually higher mortality in those states
https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2019-09-05/mortality-rates-highest-in-states-with-lower-income-education-levels#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20mortality%20rates%20were%20highest%20in%20Alabama%2C,from%20the%20Centers%20for%20Disease%20Control%20and%20Prevention.
This could be another huge talking point for Democrats, but once again, this great opportunity to ding Republican governance is going to be missed since Democrats are so utterly incompetent to sell their successes and attack their opponents.
The inflation rate has fallen down to 3%, which is one of the lowest in the industrialized world right now. Have there been Democrats all over the news selling that success? No, of course not. Gotta keep those wins well hidden, dontchaknow!
Except none of this is swaying any republican. Some of these states are on the list because they pass exclusive legislation, seemingly overlooking any benefits otherwise.
No one cares about swaying hard-core Republicans. They are basically a lost cause. It's about showing the entire rest of the country that Republicans can't govern - aim at swaying those in the middle.
None of the states listed are surprises nor the fact they are all Republican lead states either.
Weird it’s the south east whodathunkit.
It is weird, because the entire point of racist ideology in America has historically been for personal gain by slaveowners, but now it's just objectively hurting their states' economies. Are they really getting that much benefit from exploitation like prison labor and such, or are they just so stuck in their ways that they'd rather feel powerful over others at their own expense?
Yes. Was there ever a question? This is the conservative ideology.
I guess we wouldn't have LeopardsAteMyFace if it wasn't :/
Lost the Civil War and still losing today. "Loser" has become such a generic insult that it obscures the literally losing nature of so many people that live in this area.
Never thought about loser actually being derogatory towards those of the south east.
How in the world did Mississippi not make this list?
Live in mississippi, it should be #1, like it always is for shitty metrics.
Fun mississippi fact for today, if you own an electric or hybrid car you have to pay extra taxes.
A lot of places do that, they say its because they don't pay as much gas tax (which is true), which generally go toward maintaining roads and such.
I think we all know it doubles as a "liberal tax" though.
The only reasonable tax I could see being applied to an electric car is a weight tax, but that should be for all cars, not just electric. If your cars weighs more, you should pay more, especially at the city level.
More weight means it produces more wear and tear on roads. Not to mention they are more deadly, even at low speeds.
But I doubt this would happen in Mississippi lol
While true, it should be proportional to the damage.
There's a reason why semis, construction, and plows deal 99% of the damage to highways lol.
While you can say everyone benefits from semi transportation... There are tons of people who'd prefer proper rail transit upgrades and infrastructure... So they'll shoot down rail upgrades while also subsidizing truck damage lol.
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/06/22/murphys-law-how-trucks-destroy-our-roads/
Remember when Republicans tried to get bicyclists to pay their fair share of road damage? Lol.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/sen-ray-scott-calls-for-tax-on-bicycles-to-help-pay-for-colorado-roads/article\_b58e5ed5-2ab2-566b-8c1e-cf401973e9a3.html
Fun fact. WA is looking into getting rid of gas taxes and imposing a per mile driven tax due at registration.
Lived there for decades, have to agree.
You have very few rights as a worker. Pay is dogshit, even for better jobs. Life there sucks even if you're well off. Doesn't matter if you're rich, poor, left, right, black or white, it's gon' suck donkey balls being there.
Still made the best of my time there but now I've moved to Northern Europe and the difference is night and day.
Wisconsin here. I have to pay extra each year for a hybrid car :/
Because it's #11
Edit: Apparently it is #0
I also thought Florida would be much higher.
Of course Indiana is one of them. Fuck.
Stuck in Missouri taking care of my grandparents and my wife's parents. I've been wanting to move out of this shithole since I was 13. Now, I have to worry about reproductive issues with my high risk wife as it seems like we are hunkering down here entering our 30s.
What a shocking revelation.
I gotta say while I'm not happy with Texas decisions and there's a lot of bs there it doesn't seem even as bad as Florida much less Alabama and Mississippi.
Texans are some of the most delusional people on the planet.
The fact they think their state even holds a candle to Florida is laughable.
People live in Texas for one reason: tax breaks.
The only other state worse than Texas is Louisiana. Everyone in the nation agrees except Texans.
Oklahoma is worse. They're basically K-mart Texas.
Here here! You are 100% right! I hope people stop moving here in droves, it really does suck.
English is not my first language, but I think it is "hear, hear". This would akin to "listen, this is true!" rather than stating where you currently are 😀
And you're still better at wielding it than a Texan!
must have offended a Floridian?
look I'm by no means saying Texas doesn't deserve a spot on this list, but saying that Texas banning gender affirming care is somehow not as bad as government sanctioned kidnapping of trans kids in Florida is what's delusional.
This list seems just a little bit skewed. I'm left of center but I feel like it should've been called 10 worst states if youre, and followed it up with any number of marginalized persons. And that's fine, just want to know the metric we are talking about.
You may be forgetting the fact that 50ish percent of the population has a uterus. Even some of those without one have partners with one and value their partner having access to the Healthcare they need or may need at some point.
yeah I mean I would consider myself left of most of the Democratic party but you can take a look at their weightings on the metrics they used and you can see why they got the answer they did even if we'd quibble about specific state placement.
cost of doing business and business friendliness collectively makeup 20% of their weighting and cost of living and education only make up 7% total.
seems like on a list that focuses on inclusivity that they would also focus on basic needs for families but for some reason they valued basic needs for businesses at 3x families.
overall, I think in order to trust this list, I would need to lower focus on businesses and increase focus on things such as education and immigration. Texas would do poorly in both of those things but so would a lot of other states. I definitely believe it deserves a place on this list, but I don't think it would end up #1.
they're methodology summary:
Paraphrasing the waiter rule: a state that abuses any of it's residents is not a nice state. Yes, quality of life is a relative scale, but I think it's fair to put the states actively making worse the lives of it's citizens (marginalized or not) at the bottom of the list.
Where is WV? We are always on lists like this
I moved from MO to IL and never looked back
Whether you think this has a political bias or not, no matter what whose list you look up, they all basically say the same thing.
So reading through this is a bit surprising. I hadn't been paying as much attention to some of these state based issues. It looks like the argument of the article is that despite strong historic economic numbers some of the recent steps taken by states have created challenges for businesses.
It seems that the knock down effect of reproductive health laws in a restriction in the number of practicing doctors per state. So it is not exactly the law that is the issue, but the fact that the ratio of doctors to patients is going in an adverse direction. The article is arguing that the extent is enough to create challenges for citizens in Texas. That seems like a sound premise, basically its harder to get and see a doctor because fewer doctors are moving to Texas compared to the growing population.
It seems that the states that were less of economic powerhouses to begin with could have negative effects with less strict laws since they didn't start from as strong a position.
The rest of it seems to be based on how accessible child care and health insurance are. If you want families and not just labor those resources can greatly reduce the need for high wages.
I'd briefly seen the big fails, like the Texas power grid and the bans on investment funds taking climate change into account. There was also that thing where Florida decide it was time to kill Disney.
Not moving the office buildings to Florida was a MUCH bigger deal to Disney that it appeared. The cost of 1-2 billion was going to be offset by MUCH lower cost of living for employees,(less pay as well) favorable taxes an the sale of super valuable real estate in California. It was very likely structured to be a net positive for the company. So I think that this is basically the core of the article. Even what should be on paper good deals are now in questions because of the state policies.
Hey this is pretty level headed and what you're saying makes sense. Please check out lemmy.world/c/moderate_politics we'd love to have you!
subscribed. I'm not sure I'm moderate, but I'll chime in when I get the time.
The main question is imho what's the cause - are they they worst to live in because of their politics? Or do people there vote populists because they are so unhappy with their lives
The American South has been reeling since the years following the Civil War. The economic strength of the Southern States was so tied up in agricultural slavery. When that system was dismantled it left a big hole in the fabric of those states socially, economically, politically. All of that resentment never went away it just changed forms over the years and turned into law and public policy. It's easy to forget that the Civil War was not that long ago, not in terms of human social development in any case.
It doesn't help that we elected qn apologist who decided to welcome them back with open arms not so long after the Civil War. Instead of adapting to the situation they were in, post-war, they ended up sucking on the feds that while they got equal representation as the non-slave states.
That's not what happened. Johnson became president when Lincoln was assassinated and at that time the president and VP didn't run on a single ticket and instead the VP slot went to the presidential runner-up, who, of course, was from the opposition. So we didn't really elect Johnson; we elected Lincoln, but John Wilkes Booth happened and he fucked us for generations.
Hmm, for some reason I thought it happened much later. Apologies!
Well the guy we elected after Johnson was Grant, and while he was an outstanding General, he was nowhere near as capable in the presidency where his authority, while great, was very different in kind from that of a military commander.
There's an argument to the effect that Grant was largely an absentee president who preferred to spend his days drinking as opposed to actually being the chief executive.
I'm not a historian and don't know enough about his presidency to have a strong opinion on it, but there's no question that the policies that Johnson put in place, that allowed reconstruction to go so badly off the rails, weren't competently addressed by the Grant administration, so in that respect your original point is not entirely incorrect.
He also badly botched, mostly through a lack of attention, Indian affairs with regard to the powerful plains tribes. It was probably inevitable that said tribes would eventually be subjugated, but it certainly could and should have been handled more humanely.
The article explicitly states one of the evaluation criteria is as follows:
I'm guessing this is what led to the outcome the post title is highlighting.
The article explains each position.
They're listed as the worst because this is basically just a political hit piece. They've defined the criteria for "best" to align with policy the democrats push and Republicans don't. It's hardly anything except a list of states that democrats agree with (or in the case of the bottom 10, don't agree with)
THAT'S NOT VERY INCLUSIVE OF YOU
Not a single state in that list was a surprise.
Erin In the Morning - June Anti-Trans Legislative Risk Map
I left my last job at the same time as a couple other people. We all got remote work, but I moved up to Seattle and they moved to Dallas. It's crazy how different our two places are.
Flop Florida and Tennessee, and bump Mississippi to the top. Florida is way worse than Tennessee, so glad I left the one for the other. Still need to find somewhere better long term though.
If you want to stay on the east, New England, New Jersey, DC, Virginia(Virginia's the weakest of these options). West coast: Cali, PNW, Colorado. Michigan gets an honorable mention due to the whirlwind of progressive legislation they've been passing lately. Along with the more favorable weather they will have long term as climate change destroys the rest of the country. Illinois is apparently pretty ok too but I don't know much about the state. Source: I'm looking to GTFO of Florida next year and have been reading up on these states for a few months now
E: here's a tool that helped me get started with my research
Have to stay in Eastern time zone. Initially I was looking at NC, but that has gone downhill lately. My kid wants us to look at Vermont or Maine, but I'm leaning towards Virginia. We tend to avoid large cities, so NJ and DC are out.
Vermont's gonna be a rough one to move to, they have one of the worst housing shortages in the country atm. Maine might be a good pick, you may want to check out Connecticut too, that's the one I'm leaning more towards. The towns are small, but close to one another so you get the benefits of a city with a more small town feel. Cost of living is reasonable, schools are good, pretty progressive govt. It checks a lot of my boxes and I get the feeling it might do the same for you.
Good, stay the fuck out! Stay in your own shit holes.
Ridiculous study. Nothing about climate, taxes, real estate, schools, natural amenities.
Ahh yes, because health care and crime isn't important to consider 🙄
Ahh yes a scientific unbiased source. Very nice.
What do you feel is missing from this study?
Lack of bias.
Projection isn't a river in Egypt
https://www.pods.ca/fr/blog/2023/05/moving-trends
Can anyone explain why this says the exact opposite?
It doesn't say the exact opposite, that's why. Your question is a non-sequitur.
Is this a troll question? The metrics used are so different it's not even about the same thing.
I'm thinking that's mostly retirees on fixed incomes. Low wages = low cost of living = crappy schools = low wages
Do you have a source for that?
"I'm thinking" doesn't imply a source unless I'm omnipotent, which I'm not.
I used pods to move from California to SC because I can work remotely, get paid a CA wage, could afford a house for the first time, while living close to family in SC.
Covid lockdowns in big cities made them feel much smaller and that started to feel a little claustrophobic- living in a tiny apartment, not really leaving that much. At least there’s more room to stretch out in smaller cities, but now that things are seemingly going back to normal (not that I think SC had any shifts in that aspect to begin with), I’d much rather be somewhere that doesn’t feel so hostile.
That being said, after a couple years of being here the vibes here are bad and I intend on moving possibly to Minneapolis as soon as I can.
what a propaganda so vote for democrats forever right? /s
Nonono. First you remove FPTP. Then you get more than two real parties like most of western society.
When you have a democracy in place, we can start talking about who to vote for.
you know the title of this post had me thinking: is it intentionally directing people to pin all faults to republicans; and that democrats means freedom and good lives ? i mean no party is perfect, but from what I am seeing, it is more pro-Democrats in here
Tech people will almost always be progressives. This is the way it'll probably always be.
USA only have two "real" parties. The republican party who is now seen as regressive and the Democrat party who are seen as progressive (they used to be the opposite back in the day)
To me, the word "freedom" is toxic and a non-starter. Most western societies are free.
Coming from a country with many parties, having only two options is undemocratic. Affiliating with only one is reductive, especially when the parties change course all the time.
So, to respond to your comment:
Both parties are a bit shit, as they don't need to self-regulate because of their duopoly.
Democrats are more progressive than republicans, thus people with higher educations will gravitate this way.
No voting system is perfect, but FPTP is one of the worst, and imo is the main reason for the culture wars - which is virtue signaling fluff to keep the poor angry (doesn't matter which side they're angry with) by making them stop voting based on wealth redistribution, and instead on issues invented by politicians to keep the gravy train running.
why don't you post this in a us community. I don't give a shit about this.
This is a U.S. community. Did you read the description?
"... and up next: the 7 signs you're getting older". Pfff, whatever dude.
And why should I give a singular fuck about cnbc's list of personal preferences?
You shouldn't, and neither should anyone else. Most people who care are either looking at this list and saying to themselves or elsewhere "this is biased bullshit" of some type of "this validates things I already believe", and those aren't mutually exclusive.
Judging a place to live by a limited set of statistics is fairly useless.