re: The United States of America, ranked from best to worst

quote:

---

I'm not saying demographics are not a factor. But they are a secondary factor compared to state government and economic interests.

---

You're missing one key component: the natural environment and proximity to desirable cities. One thing I compel anyone who's not reading this to do, is to look at the ranking map and then rank who has the most desirable state to live in regarding real and percieved natural attractions (including climate), as well as the same on its proximity to large, desirable cities and then compare the two.

When a company looks at an area in which to move their operations to, don't think for a second that they don't ask questions about its attractiveness for future employees and its inherent, built in attractions, aka its outdoors and terrain (which are free and cost the company nothing); as well as its proximity to city living amenities. People wanna move where they feel they can have a fulfilling, active life- even if their feelings are based on bullchit and conjecture.

A company wants the brightest and the best, and the brightest and the best want a mix of proximity to active outdoor lifestyles (the best and brightest of the white people love them some mountains, for example), and they also want some proximity to the cities that offer food and culture.

You named Texas, Florida, Kentucky and Tennessee. Texas has a little of everything regarding its terrain and multiple urban and culturally rich areas. Florida has the ocean- 'nuff said. (One thing regarding pollution and water quality- which is a big factor in their grading of the states- is that Florida is a peninsula surrounded by unusable water for drinking; therefore that water is all but untested for it- and also, no runoff from it. Reason stands to suggest that they and many others in a similar position get a leg up on a lot of us that are landlocked by states that are running their water and pollutants off into our boundaries. They don't have to depend as much on surrounding states and how those states treat and manage water that, inevitably, affects bordering and adjacent states, and, therefore, their published water quality & test results. Alternatively, regarding runoff, Louisiana IS at the arse end of the country's biggest watershed.)

Kentucky has proximity to lots of Midwestern and NE cities, and I personally think Kentucky is gorgeous. They've got horse barns that look like Billy Graham's homestead, plus white people love them some horses and barns.

Tennessee has the Appalachian mountains and contains cities that constantly rank in the upper echelons of "BeSt PlAcEs To LiVe" lists. (Again: white people and mountains.) I love Tennessee and mountains (and lots of other white people stuff...particularly because I'm white).

A company will look at these things: Florida's inherent advantage of water quality PLUS its same ocean AND it's awesome beaches, means that it's incredibly attractive for prospective companies looking to setup shop. Other states and their proximity to real and perceived urban amenities and fabulous outdoor opportunities means that it's clear that the old real estate adage rings true: location, location, location.

I personally don't think a government body or employee has a damned thing to do with economic prosperity other than making the tax/legal environment favorable. Hell, regardless of what the lying arse media and politicians say, the facts are that New York had to basically run Amazon out of town: if they'd of just put it in Amazon's butt with even a little bit of generic lube, then they'd of set up shop AND swallowed. It has to do with the location- both real and percieved, IMO.

Comparing both maps, another case could be made that systemic racism is real: everywhere there's a high % of minorities and poor people, there's poverty and poor rankings. It seems that racism and classism could be correlated with these low white people % areas, but, contrary to what the whites who live in their white utopias think, we ain't all down here warring with each other- far from it. So it ain't our rAcIsT arses that are to blame.

Southern whites are the blackest white people there are, and we don't even have to try to be. The south is a horrible place to live if you're a racist.

Even a dog doesn't chit where he lies down, and so it'd be insanity for the white people in the states where systemic racism could be a reason for its lack of progress to be the ones doing it; thereby holding them and their future family generations hostage to economic growth. We whites ain't owning plantations anymore; we all po' down chea. (Well, I'm not- not anymore- but I was, and I'll make every effort not to be poor again.)

So if it IS a little bit of systemic racism and classism going on, who's responsible? A strong case is/has been made that the south is still reeling from the Reconstruction era, and the reality is that a Mississippian just wants to see himself and his fellow Mississippian do well, regardless of color. Nobody sets out in life to be last place. So where could it be coming from? Or is it even coming from anywhere?

All of this is conjecture, of course, but one thing is not: A state's political affiliation has no bearing of its status on this list- assuming this list is the "be-all-end-all" of lists (which it is not, obviously).

The poster you replied too, along with the OP'ers map is one reason among many why I went into surveying and GIS: a map is as strong and perplexing of a document as any other. A good map will guide you to the treasure, but bad maps like, say, on a Garmin GPS, can lead you and your car into a body of water because it said that was where you needed to go.

My SECRant for the night is over, I just found the correlation between the two maps + your compelling comment too much to pass up on without throwing in my one cent's worth.

Goodnight to the one guy in 2027 who's read this far after a Google search. Godspeed to you, young man, godspeed.