Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Here’s how Americans rank the 50 states

Cooked Crack

By Cooked Crack
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

mcsluggo

mcsluggo

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 4/14/2021 at 3:33 PM, mammajamma said:

it really makes no sense. arizona isn't great either, but at least they have spots like sedona that make up for the rest of the state. Nevada is literally just desert, Vegas, and Reno (2 of the worst cities in America)

same, ive lived all over CA as well and have never seen a confederate flag. that's why its so startling to me when i visit family in VA and see them as I drive south. not used to it anymore.

 

i lived in huntington beach for a little bit and people there are absolutely, overtly racist. but never a confederate flag

 

you all have clearly never met the central valley.... i lived in no ca in the 90s/early 00s and drove down to so ca 5 or so times..... Rush Limbaugh was the dirt munching hippie pinko leftist end of the radio spectrum 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for for about 5straight  hours of driving...

tumblr_majcfsw7pe1r191qj.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by mcsluggo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
China

China

Posted
Posted

The 49 Most Miserable Cities In America (Based on U.S. Census Data)

 

***The following list was created using U.S. census data (which includes more than 1,000 cities), and is using factors such as commute time, crime rate, median household income and changes in population to determine the 49 most miserable cities in the United States of America.***

 

49. Cleveland, Ohio

 

Click on the link for more

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
China

China

Posted
Posted

The 'Best Places to Live' may not be the best places to live

 

Newly released 2020 census data give us a better sense of where Americans think the best places to live are. Cities like Phoenix, Dallas, Houston and Las Vegas continue to be popular, maintaining the strong population growth that's defined them for the last half-century. Others, like Buffalo and Cincinnati, have reversed decades-long declines in population, leading to proud claims of urban revival. Still more, like Detroit and St. Louis, continued to lose people as they have for the last 70 years.

 

What's also clear from the data, though, is that population growth may no longer be the best way to measure the health of U.S. cities. What look like the "best places to live" may not, in fact, be the best places to live.

 

Historically, the U.S. has featured two distinct models of urban growth. The first, in place for a century or more, might be called the demand model. In this case, a variety of factors from jobs to affordable lifestyles to pleasant climates attract people to new places. The primary exemplars are the Sun Belt cities that have grown dramatically in recent decades.

 

The second is the asset model, which has become more prominent since the 1980s. Older cities that are well beyond their initial boom phase of development have built on their corporate, institutional and amenity assets to attract people. They've placed bets on economic sectors in which they were already particularly strong such as technology, finance, universities and medical centers, thereby arresting their population declines.

 

Interestingly, the new census data appear to show a third category of cities developing - metro areas that are booming economically without adding new residents. I reviewed data on population growth and per capita GDP growth for the 106 metro areas that had more than 500,000 people in 2010. By 2019, population growth for those 106 metros averaged 8.4%, while per capita GDP growth averaged 32.3%.

 

Metro areas like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Miami, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Boston and Denver all registered higher-than-average economic output. Some, including Seattle and Salt Lake City, also saw their populations grow strongly. New York, Los Angeles and several others saw no dramatic shifts in population.

 

Most surprisingly, a handful of Rust Belt metros - Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh, among others - outpaced the average per capita GDP gains yet actually lost population.

What's going on? There used to be a fairly direct relationship between population growth and economic growth. Booming economies created more jobs, which attracted more people. In fact, when Rust Belt cities were at their most prosperous and powerful in the middle of the 20th century, they were quite dependent on the labor that flocked there for the abundant jobs. Productivity was based in large measure on the number of people who could increase it.

 

That link has since been severed. The meteoric rise of technology over the last 50 years has made economic productivity possible without vast numbers of workers.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Comparing seniors who relocate long-distance shows where you live affects your longevity

 

Would you like to live longer? It turns out that where you live, not just how you live, can make a big difference.

 

That’s the finding of an innovative study co-authored by an MIT economist, which examines senior citizens across the U.S. and concludes that some locations enhance longevity more than others, potentially for multiple reasons.

 

The results show that when a 65-year-old moves from a metro area in the 10th percentile, in terms of how much those areas enhance longevity, to a metro area the 90th percentile, it increases that person’s life expectancy by 1.1 years. That is a notable boost, given that mean life expectancy for 65-year-olds in the U.S. is 83.3 years.

 

“There’s a substantively important causal effect of where you live as an elderly adult on mortality and life expectancy across the United States,” says Amy Finkelstein, a professor in MIT’s Department of Economics and co-author of a newly published paper detailing the findings.

 

Researchers have long observed significant regional variation in life expectancy in the U.S., and often attributed it to “health capital” — tendencies toward obesity, smoking, and related behavioral factors in the regional populations. But by analyzing the impact of moving, the current study can isolate and quantify the effect that the location itself has on residents.

 

-----

 

All told, the study found that many urban areas on the East and West Coasts — including New York City, San Francisco, and Miami — have positive effects on longevity for seniors moving there. Some Midwestern metro areas, including Chicago, also score well.

 

By contrast, a large swath of the deep South has negative effects on longevity for seniors moving there, including much of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and northern Florida. Much of the Southwest, including parts of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, fares similarly poorly.

 

The scholars also estimate that health capital accounts for about 70 percent of the difference in longevity across areas of the U.S., and that location effects account for about 15 percent of the variation.

 

“Yes, health capital is important, but yes, place effects also matter,” Finkelstein says.

 

Indeed, the significance of place effects on life expectancy is also evident in another pattern the study found. Some locations — such as Charlotte, North Carolina — have a positive effect on longevity but still have low overall life expectancy, while other places — such as Santa Fe New Mexico — have high overall life expectancy, but a below-average effect on the longevity of seniors who move there.

 

Again, the life expectancy of an area’s population is not the same thing as that location’s effect on longevity. In places where, say, smoking is highly prevalent, population-wide longevity might be subpar, but other factors might make it a place where people of average health will live longer. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, -JB- said:

Texas > Virginia.

 

Northern VA & North Dallas Suburbs are very similar in quality of life, great schools, plenty of amenities & very diverse with so much to do.  The main difference is that snobby people in Northern VA suck & everybody is nice in Texas.  
 

Well There It Is Jurassic Park GIF

 

 

That and the whole Texas-flushed-women's-reproductive-rights-down-the-toilet thing...

  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

Virginia has one item on the list. And it’s because tobacco and textiles left. 
 

calufornia, florida, Texas, and New Jersey have tons on the list because of **** crime drugs and poverty

 

Eat it

Side note: you can definitely tell when a specific area trends healthy and when it doesn’t. You can see it all around. Tons of people running/cycling all hours of the day (I rate it higher the earlier it starts, and I tend to get up at 6 am even on a Sunday after drinking, so I see that 6-8am joggers)

 

if you smoke, like I do on and off, you find yourself an outcast and having to sneak off to smoke as to not interrupted people walking around (unless you’re just an asshole and can’t figure that out)

 

the level of restaurants is better. 
 

you have bike lanes… or paved areas dedicated to bike lanes…

 

Charlottesville reminded me of a healthy city. Old town Alexandria has that vibe. It’s a cool vibe. It’ll be where the wife and I are when it’s time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Sisko

The Sisko

Posted
Posted
On 4/13/2021 at 10:01 PM, Florgon79 said:

I’m found of the Pacific Northwest myself. I’ve lived in DC, NYC, Chicago and Seattle. I want to move back to Washington state one day.
 

DC shouldn’t count unless you want to lump in it with Maryland and NOVA. 

 

Chicago is a fun town but without it Illinois is just Indiana to the left. 
 

New York is a nice state that also has NYC so I’d rank it pretty high on my list.
 

California is great despite itself.

 

Florida is a sewer. 
 

I like my states to have a nice urban city with beautiful nature within an hours drive. 

I was about to say something similar about Atlanta but that's probably true in most places. Once you get too far out of town, it's ****hole country. Yes, there's generally some good nature type stuff to do, but you generally have to suffer through the Confederate flags and whatnot as previously mentioned. If you've ever seen anything like it, just watch a few episodes of Squidbillies. Most people think it's just an animated show and when they visit N. Georgia, they discover it's actually a documentary.

 

On 4/14/2021 at 4:34 AM, abdcskins said:

I'd like to know what criteria people are using to make these rankings.  Weather?  Natural beauty?  Economy? Culture? Food/restaurants? Overall livability and quality of the neighborhoods?  The people that inhabit them?  I dunno, so many factors.  I personally like every state I've ever been to, and I feel like I have been to many.  The only thing that would turn me off would be there being absolutely nothing to do in terms of culture, such as a lack of museums, social spaces, parks, stores/restaurants, and things of that nature.  Nature and cool places to explore are also very important.

We have a winner Alex! If you've never been to small, or in some cases mid-sized towns in the middle of nowhere, you really haven't experienced boredom. It sucks because not only is it always a long drive to get to cultural stuff, entertainment and food not dripping in the lard it was fried in, it also tends to take forever to get to healthcare, groceries, pharmacies and a host of other things that your life may depend upon. The only thing I can object to about this list is that with only a few exceptions, they could have chosen cities via the monkey --> dartboard method and it would be just as valid. Hell, Cincinnati isn't much better than Cleveland, if at all. People left in these places are just that, left behind. As the census showed, pretty much anyone with the ability to do so is leaving these areas or already gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo#44

Riggo#44

Posted
Posted
On 4/13/2021 at 6:47 PM, TryTheBeal! said:

Virginia is a paradise, honestly.  
 

From the crabpots of the bay to the peaks of the Blue Ridge and beyond.  I am blessed.

 

Maryland is crap, tho.

 

I live in Maryland, I wish we had crabpots of the bay and the Blue Ridge and beyond too...but alas...

 

You know what we don't have? I-66, under construction since 1961.

17 hours ago, -JB- said:

Texas > Virginia.

 

Northern VA & North Dallas Suburbs are very similar in quality of life, great schools, plenty of amenities & very diverse with so much to do.  The main difference is that snobby people in Northern VA suck & everybody is nice in Texas.  
 

Well There It Is Jurassic Park GIF

 

Arlington leads the world in self-righteous douchebaggery

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
purbeast

purbeast

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, -JB- said:

Texas > Virginia.

 

Northern VA & North Dallas Suburbs are very similar in quality of life, great schools, plenty of amenities & very diverse with so much to do.  The main difference is that snobby people in Northern VA suck & everybody is nice in Texas.  
 

Well There It Is Jurassic Park GIF

People in Texas are dumb as **** though.

 

See: Covid

Edited by purbeast
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...