Connecticut ranked best state to live

[pbrower2a]

"According to measures of things liberals like in the abstract, Connecticut leads the nation in things liberals like in the abstract."

The so-called "Human Development Index," by the way, is one of the most hilarious bits of pseudo-econometrics ever devised.  Communists, whiny that Soviet Bloc countries were far behind their more-capitalist counterparts even in the liberal-Keynesian GDP measure (which includes any and all government purchases of goods and services, up to and including building stacks of $100 bills and setting them on fire), decided to create their own "alternative" index that would show that the Commies were really doing just as well, with such hilarious innovations as making educational enrollment and years of schooling - not educational outcomes, enrollment and years of schooling, whether it's preschool or college or students repeating a grade or students skipping grades - the main component, also in effect double-counting government spending on education.

Even if Commies created it to laud their questionable achievements, the HDI can compare apples to apples -- as in one capitalist society to another. All US states are capitalist.  But there are differences in educational achievement, real income, and availability of medical care.


I would not want to live in any large Southern city. Crime rates are just too high for my tastes. That might not be reflected in HDI, but it is certainly a symptom of poor educational achievement and a commitment to cheap labor as an incentive to the attraction of big business. Cheap maid service might look good to executives, but not to someone who must work for a living.  

[pbrower2a]

I'm sure it's great if you can afford it. CT is an expensive place to live. And averaging states is problematic because  they are not homogenous. Nice neighborhoods in every state are going to outcompete rough parts of New Haven by any metric.

There are nice parts of greater San Antonio, Detroit, Houston, Miami, and Tampa-St. Pete, too; those might out-compete New York City, San Francisco, Washington DC, or Boston on the average.   

States cannot avoid the fiscal effects of having a big under-performer of a city as the biggest city. Detroit is a huge drain on Michigan resources as Minneapolis-St. Paul isn't. Of course one might ask what Greater Detroit (and Michigan state government) was doing to hedge against the relative decline of the auto industry. If you live in Traverse City, you can't avoid paying a price for economic distress in Detroit.

GDP per capita is not enough to decide what states fare better in HDI.  Louisiana fares well in GDP per capita (17th) but is 46th in HDI, indicating that much of the income within the state is going to something other than health, education, public services -- and good personal habits. (Maybe people eat too much and smoke more than average... watch too much TV and read too little). In contrast, Vermont is 34th in GDP per capita (the most rural state in the northeastern US), but the state is above average (15th)  in HDI. I suppose that Vermont is not the sort of state that one goes to to get rich quickly in... but the state seems to have good health, education, and public services, and people have good habits. Vermont probably has good government.... and Louisiana is infamous for a heritage of incompetence, neglect, corruption, and demagoguery.

Race? Vermont and West Virginia are two of the "whitest" states, yet Vermont is well above average in HDI and West Virginia is toward the bottom.  Just check the PDF. 

The map of HDI has a remarkable correlation to the results of the 2008 or 2012 Presidential election... take your pick.   

[pbrower2a]

Blank map.

Ranking -- low (80%) on the darkest level, high on the lightest level (20%). I am using yellow for this map, which will have an obvious justification in the map that follows this one:

sat    HDI range

20% (5.94 - 6.17)
30% (5.38 - 5.74)
40% (5.04 - 5.31)
50% (4.71 - 4.96)
60% (4.50 - 4.65)
70% (4.12 - 4.35)
80% (3.81 - 4.04)


Districts of Maine and Nebraska are shown as white for lack of further information. I have chosen to draw divides where there seems to be a discernible gap.

[pbrower2a]

Ranking -- low (80%) on the darkest level, high on the lightest level (20%).  I chose to shade Maine and Nebraska districts as the states themselves.


sat    HDI range

20% (5.94 - 6.17)
30% (5.38 - 5.74)
40% (5.04 - 5.31)
50% (4.71 - 4.96)
60% (4.50 - 4.65)
70% (4.12 - 4.35)
80% (3.81 - 4.04)


Districts of Maine and Nebraska are shown as white for lack of further information. I have chosen to draw divides where there seems to be a discernible gap.

Now the kicker: Shade the states to green (allusion to blue as used elsewhere) if they voted for the Republican in both 2008 and 2012. Shade them to orange (allusion to red as used elsewhere) if they went for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Don't  shade those two states and NE-02 which voted differently in 2008 and 2012.

(The two congressional districts of Maine would look like the state as a whole, but the color program does not shade orange for single districts).

Does anyone wish to explain why so few states (and those that do have few electoral votes) shade in pale green or dark orange?

[pbrower2a]

Let's look at and near the bottom. A huge factor is "life expectancy at birth", which may have personal habits as a contributing factor. As an example, Kentucky is extremely friendly to alcohol (because of the whiskey business) and tobacco. Some states (California, Michigan,  and New York -- probably Connecticut) tax the Hell out of cancerweed and distilled liquors. Kentucky doesn't. If you are a chain smoker, Kentucky is paradise.  But if you drink heavily you will mess up your liver, and if you smoke at all you will hurt about every organ in your body; either way you will have a shortened life expectancy. That's not to say that if you drink heavily and smoke while living in Connecticut you will somehow be exempt from the consequences of such bad behavior.

Education matters greatly, and in general the Southern states fare badly. A high level of formal education might expose one to better habits -- or it might cull out people with bad habits. Alcoholism is incompatible with completion of college. It could also be that some states just don't attract people with high levels of education. New Mexico fares badly in about everything else,  but it seems to be in the middle of the pack for people with graduate degrees. Ski slopes (northern New Mexico) is somehow more attractive than jazz on the street (New Orleans)? Go figure. I might visit New Orleans once, but I could imagine living in parts of New Mexico. So it is with people who have spent considerable time in either California or Texas.     

[pbrower2a]

As someone who lives in the state, this has much more to do with the fact that CT is a small, highly developed state with wealthy suburbs all over the place and few (relatively speaking) poor areas.

One other possible interpretation: it is easier to get out of poverty in Connecticut than in most other states. It is far more difficult in states with low HDI measures.

Could it be that Connecticut has a pattern of good government that, let us say, Louisiana doesn't? Could it be harder for extremists to win elected office in Connecticut? Could it be that entrenched elites do not have the means of ensuring that any bounty now goes to them as in Texas? Could it be that Connecticut does better as a community in spreading income and wealth than other states?

Political extremists might put a higher priority on banning abortion and denying evolution than on meeting the unglamorous needs of sanitation, public health, and elementary education.  Maybe politicians who put a high priority on ensuring that kids learn to read and do very basic mathematics foster more rational thought, more competent management of money by people (if you can't do basic math, you can't balance a checkbook).   

Poverty hurts.

[pbrower2a]

OK -- so it isn't alcoholism (as defined by binge drinking). Smoking, maybe?

[pbrower2a]

States in order of rank among adult smokers:

1. Kentucky
2. West Virginia
T3 - Mississippi, Oklahoma
5. Indiana
6. Alaska
7. Arkansas
8. Louisiana
T9 - Alabama, Missouri
11. Tennessee
T12 - Michigan, Ohio
14. South Carolina
15. Nevada
16. North Carolina
17. Delaware
18. Wyoming
19. Pennsylvania
20. Iowa
21. Florida
22. Maine
23. Wisconsin
24. Illinois
25. South Dakota
26. New Mexico (at the US average!)
27. Kansas
28. Georgia
29. North Dakota
30. Virginia
31. Rhode Island
32. Montana
T-33 Nebraska, New Hampshire
35. Oregon
36. Minnesota
T- 37 Arizona, New York
T- 39 New Jersey, Vermont
T- 41 Colorado, District of Columbia, Texas
44. Massachusetts
45. Maryland
46. Hawaii
47. Washington
48. Connecticut
49. Idaho
50. California
51. Utah

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, 2006.

http://www.tobaccofreedelawarecounty.org/documents/Smokingratesbystate2006.pdf

[pbrower2a]

Now let's look at credit scores. I see this as a good proxy for economic distress because

(1) everyone has a credit score, and
(2) even if a poor credit rating can reflect personal malfeasance or ineptitude with handling credit, on the large scale low credit scores usually indicate difficulty meeting basic obligations (such as utilities and taxes that people can't evade).
(3) they can make their own adjustments for the cost of living and for the degree of economic equality in a State.

Here goes:

https://www.creditkarma.com/trends/state

T-1 Hawaii, Minnesota 667
3 Wisconsin 663
4 District of Columbia 660
5 Massachusetts 659
6 New Jersey 658
7 New York 657
T-8 California, Vermont 656
10 Washington
T-11 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut 652
14 Utah 650
15 Oregon 648
T-16 Illinois, North Dakota 647
T-18 Iowa, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Virginia 646
T-22 Montana, Rhode Island 645
24 South Dakota 644
25 Idaho 643
26 Maryland 642
T-27 Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Pennsylvania 641
T-31 New Mexico, Wyoming 637
T-33 Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio 636
37 Delaware 635
38 North Carolina 634
39 Georgia 633
T-40 Indiana, Missouri 632
42 Texas 631
43 Tennessee 629
44 Oklahoma 628
45 Kentucky 627
46 West Virginia 626
47 Arkansas 623
T- 48 Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina 622
51 Mississippi 613

[pbrower2a]

This is very relative. The best place to live is very different for each person and family.

If one has connections to the economic elite in Mississippi, then one might not want to leave the state except for vacations. Much of what drops some states in the ratings are bad habits -- notably smoking. Smoking causes cancer just as surely in Connecticut as in Kentucky, so going Up North with a cancerweed habit will not allow one to get the benefits of lesser smoking -- unless you kick the habit. Going from a state with a bad educational system after completing high school to one with a good educational system gives one a huge disadvantage in competing for a job. 

Add to that, some of the states have built-in attractions for educated people (scenery, recreational activities, culture). Colorado and even New Mexico can attract educated professionals with their ski slopes that Arkansas does not have. (Arkansas would have good slopes -- the Ozarks are steep enough -- but they just lack the snow. Michigan has copious snow but at best pedestrian slopes). Think about the Sandia Lab in Los Alamos -- physicists in the atom bomb project seemed to like skiing. In many respects New Mexico is an economic mess, but it has a surprisingly-high number of people with graduate degrees for as poor a state as it is.   

It could be that some of the difference -- as shown in the credit scores -- is that  in some states one has a better chance of landing on one's feet and in others one lands in economic quicksand.   

Moving from Mississippi to Minnesota will not solve your problems. The political and economic cultures are very different.

[pbrower2a]

States in order of rank among adult smokers:

1. Kentucky
2. West Virginia
.......
50. California
51. Utah

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, 2006.

http://www.tobaccofreedelawarecounty.org/documents/Smokingratesbystate2006.pdf

That's pretty funny. The best place to live depends on several things about the individual a lot more than a survey of many people. We're all different.

The connection between smoking and medical pathologies is about as clear as the connection between temperature and whether precipitation is rain or snow. Between smoking and economic distress is not so obvious... but at $5 a pack  a cigarette habit can cost one plenty. $1825 a year before other costs could go well toward buying lots of stuff.

But if you go from California to Kentucky you still pay for Kentucky smoking habits through fiscal expenditures on smokers' failed health. Health insurance is surely more expensive in Kentucky -- in a far-poorer state. What public expenditures go to treating smoking-related ailments can't be spent on schools.

But smokes are cheap in Kentucky. If you enjoy cheap smokes more than you enjoy views of San Francisco Bay you might prefer Louisville to San Francisco because California taxes the Hell out of tobacco.    
 

[pbrower2a]

Cheaper cigarettes could encourage early smoking.

Well documented. One reason for high taxes on cigarettes is to discourage youth smoking.

[pbrower2a]

Blank map.

Excise Tax Per Pack (USD)    State/Territory 0.17    Missouri 0.30    Virginia 0.36    Louisiana 0.37    Georgia 0.425    Alabama 0.44    North Dakota 0.45    North Carolina 0.55    West Virginia 0.57    Idaho 0.57    South Carolina 0.60    Kentucky 0.60    Wyoming 0.62    Tennessee 0.64    Nebraska 0.68    Mississippi 0.79    Kansas 0.80    Nevada 0.84    Colorado 0.87    California 0.995    Indiana 1.03    Oklahoma 1.15    Arkansas 1.18    Oregon 1.25    Ohio 1.339    Florida 1.36    Iowa 1.41    Texas 1.53    South Dakota 1.60    Delaware 1.60    Pennsylvania 1.66    New Mexico 1.68    New Hampshire 1.70    Montana 1.70    Utah 1.98    Illinois 2.00    Alaska 2.00    Arizona 2.00    Maine 2.00    Maryland 2.00    Michigan 2.50         District of California 2.52    Wisconsin 2.60    Minnesota 2.62    Vermont 2.70    New Jersey 3.025    Washington 3.20    Hawaii 3.40    Connecticut 3.50    Rhode Island 3.51    Massachusetts 4.35     New York

The federal excise tax on cigarettes is $1.01, which is not included in the rates shown above.
    Several municipalities, such as New York City, Chicago, and Anchorage also have a cigarette tax, which is not included in any of the rates shown above.
    Most states charge a sales tax on top of the retail price and the excise taxes. A few municipalities levy a local sales tax in addition to the state tax. None of the rates shown above take sales taxes into account.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_States

90% saturation -- under 30¢ per pack (Missouri 17¢)
80% saturation -- 30¢ to 68¢ per pack
70% saturation -- 79¢ to $1.25 per pack
60% saturation -- $1.339 to $1.70 per pack
50% saturation -- $1.98 to $2.00 per pack
40% saturation -- $2.50 to $2.70 per pack
30% saturation -- $3.025 to $3.20 per pack
20% saturation -- $3.40 to $3.51 per pack
10% saturation -- $4.35 per pack (New York)

[pbrower2a]

The states and drinking habits. Light colors -- low drinking. Dark -- heavy drinking.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12119523/1/the-drunkest-states-in-america-2013-vintage.html?utm_source=inlinespeeddesk&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=inlinespeeddesk

Lowest ten:

10. North Carolina
9. Ohio
Tie -- 7 and 8 -- Alabama and Georgia
6. Oklahoma (Nothing stronger than 3.2 beer is allowed)
5. Kansas (tough alcohol laws)
4. West Virginia
3. Kentucky
2. Arkansas (more than half of its counties are 'dry', practically no Sunday sales allowed)
1. Utah (Mormon influence, tough alcohol laws)

Top ten for drinking:

10. South Dakota
9. Vermont
8. Montana
7. Alaska
6. Wisconsin. Highest rate of binge drinkers.
5. North Dakota (second in binge drinking)
4. Nevada
3. Delaware
2. District of Columbia
1. New Hampshire (no sales tax)

[pbrower2a]

I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

Not wrong just completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, it's just making the Democrats' point that higher tax states are better places to live if you take the surveys together.

I suppose it might be ok for some. Connecticut ranks 45th in population growth and 44th in net migration.

I am so confused as to how that relates. When people get past working age, they leave the high paced New York metro area to either be more successful in a less high pressure (and thus usually less income) west coast job or go to a warm retirement location in a tax free southern state. It doesn't make sense to live there and pay property taxes when you stop using the amenities like the excellent schools. Why would anybody move to cold Connecticut? It's hard to go from a poor state to a rich state. Most of this country would die to have such amenities. They can't move in. Also, the lack of any rural area means there is going to be less population growth as the suburbs usually have pretty good birth control. The whole state is a suburb. Population has nothing to do

New York City seems like a tough place to live. City government has been very paternalistic for a very long time. Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg would be insufferable almost anywhere else. Real estate costs are astronomical and taxes are high. Population density itself imposes economic regimentation.  

But if you are at the top of your game, then you belong in New York City...maybe San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, Certainly not the rural South

[pbrower2a]

I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

Not wrong just completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, it's just making the Democrats' point that higher tax states are better places to live if you take the surveys together.

I suppose it might be ok for some. Connecticut ranks 45th in population growth and 44th in net migration.

I am so confused as to how that relates. When people get past working age, they leave the high paced New York metro area to either be more successful in a less high pressure (and thus usually less income) west coast job or go to a warm retirement location in a tax free southern state. It doesn't make sense to live there and pay property taxes when you stop using the amenities like the excellent schools. Why would anybody move to cold Connecticut? It's hard to go from a poor state to a rich state. Most of this country would die to have such amenities. They can't move in. Also, the lack of any rural area means there is going to be less population growth as the suburbs usually have pretty good birth control. The whole state is a suburb. Population has nothing to do

New York City seems like a tough place to live. City government has been very paternalistic for a very long time. Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg would be insufferable almost anywhere else. Real estate costs are astronomical and taxes are high. Population density itself imposes economic regimentation.  

But if you are at the top of your game, then you belong in New York City...maybe San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, Certainly not the rural South

If you're at the top of your game, you can live wherever the hell you want.

If you're poor, you face a tradeoff in that expensive states like New York are also often places where the poor are more likely to become non-poor, while low-cost states like Alabama and Texas may give the poor more purchasing power but also offer fewer opportunities to move out of poverty.

Arguably, if you're a poor "striver" with a very clear ambition and set of goals, you should move to a major city, deal with the high housing costs and take advantage of things like affordable public transportation and education to climb up the socioeconomic ladder. If you just want to "maintain" in a state of manageable squalor, you ought to decamp to a mobile home in the rural/suburban South. You won't have to worry about getting evicted and you'll always be able to afford dirt-cheap processed food at Walmart, but you'll have to accept that your children will never be able to expect anything more unless they join the military and get them to pay for their education.

If you are at the top of your game, and you don't live in a giant city, then you are in some place with some remarkable scenery or recreational activities.    

Of course it depends upon what one wants. Tony Bennett didn't sing "I left my heart in Waco, Texas". I can more imaginably think of a first line for a song... "The best two things about Waco are I-35 North and I-35 South..." only to recall some story of stereotypical country music heartache.  But even at that Waco is not the worst place possible in America.

There are people thoroughly content to go home after a crappy job to a trailer, situate themselves on a recliner, and watch televised sports with a cancerette in one hand a beer in the other with a bag of chips in easy reach. Do we need such people? Sure. Somebody has to do those awful jobs, and if someone doing those had any elevated purpose in life, he'd want out fast. Those awful jobs might never get done. You do need your oil changed, don't you? You know that someone has to guide the cattle through the feed lot, don't you... steak and hamburger don't grow on trees, after all.  

  

[pbrower2a]

Hawaii could become the state in the Union most hostile to cancerweed by increasing the minimum age for buying tobacco products to 21.

[pbrower2a]

I rated Minnesota #1 for having the highest average statewide credit score. Minnesota residents are less likely to get into credit trouble -- and people are more likely to get into credit trouble by under-earning or having some catastrophic event  than by going on a binge at the mall.

Credit scores do not adjust for income. Thus having a low cost of living but lower pay (living in a low-cost state) does not get penalized in contrast  to living in a high-cost and high-wage state. Earning $40K a year in New York City does not mean the same as earning $40K a year in Mississippi.

[pbrower2a]

Here we go again:

http://ssrc-static.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Geographies-of-Opportunity-4.22.2015.pdf

[pbrower2a]

#257 of 436.

Michigan District 7
HDI 4.72
Life expectancy at birth 78.7 (below average for a rural district)
Less than high-school  9.1 (actually better than the US average)
High-school or more  90.9 (better)
At least a bachelor's degree 23.2 (way below average)
Graduate or professional degree 8.3 (way below average)
School enrollment 76.3 (about average)
Per-capita income  28,093 (below average -- OK for a rural area)
Health index 5.29 (below average)
Education index 4.76 (below average)
Income index 4.12 (below average)

The local culture reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. Great place to live if you like to vegetate in front of a TV with snacks and mass-market beer. Wal*Mart culture prevails.

There are two sorts of people living in a hick town: those who could never live anywhere else, not even some other hick town... and those who live to get away from it. For the first, life is a complex web of empty relationships.

[pbrower2a]

Exactly.  For example, this has Illinois ranking above Indiana, yet we have tons of companies moving there, their economy is doing a lot better than ours and I bet you'll find next to zero people living in Indianapolis or Bloomington wishing they lived in the Land of Lincoln.  They have about the same REAL (adjusted) standard of living and lower taxes/costs...

Just about every kids who is growing up within a few hours drive of Chicago wants to move there. Lots of people want the big city life that is simply not available in Indiana. Cost is a consideration but it's not the only consideration.

Culture. Live in the cultural desert of rural southwestern Michigan, and you will live to go to Chicago.

[pbrower2a]

Any correlations?