Connecticut ranked best state to live

[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.

[The Free North]

In terms of HDI and other similar measures I believe that politics is not the main factor. Ultimately, its environmental factors that determine who moves there and how successful they are. Connecticut benefits from its geographical location more than anything else. While politics certainly have some sway, the biggest factor deals with geography.

Ultimately Connecticut benefits from being close to 2 major cities and having the wealthy suburbs without many of the inner city areas. Furthermore, the poorer areas of the state are not only offset by these wealthy areas but the rest of the state is fairly well off to due the states size, etc

[memphis]

As an example, Kentucky is extremely friendly to alcohol      

Red counties are dry. Yellow are semi-dry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Kentucky

[barfbag]

Every state could be argued as the best state to live in. It really depends on what someone is looking for. Media and pollsters can't determine where we should and should not live.

[The Free North]

Well going by HDI, education, and wealth, were #1

[Dave from Michigan]

As an example, Kentucky is extremely friendly to alcohol      

Red counties are dry. Yellow are semi-dry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Kentucky

I realize you posted this to prove Pbrower wrong but,

This map is misleading for semi dry counties, though. I was like wtf with all the yellow on Michigan. Apparently if any city or township in the county is dry they have it yellow. I was shocked at first that Oakland county was yellow, but 3 cities have a ban on alcohol by the glass, the 3 cities have a total pop. of 33,000 people out of 1.2 million.  Another 236 townships most with 2000 or less people prohibit alcohol licensing. The map makes it look like Michigan is quite anti alcohol when it is not. Just a little fyi for anyone not from Michigan.

[Mechaman]

As an example, Kentucky is extremely friendly to alcohol      

Red counties are dry. Yellow are semi-dry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Kentucky

I realize you posted this to prove Pbrower wrong but,

This map is misleading for semi dry counties, though. I was like wtf with all the yellow on Michigan. Apparently if any city or township in the county is dry they have it yellow. I was shocked at first that Oakland county was yellow, but 3 cities have a ban on alcohol by the glass, the 3 cities have a total pop. of 33,000 people out of 1.2 million.  Another 236 townships most with 2000 or less people prohibit alcohol licensing. The map makes it look like Michigan is quite anti alcohol when it is not. Just a little fyi for anyone not from Michigan.

Yeah, this.

My experience in Lapeer County was anything but "dry".

[Mechaman]

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.    

Nice post WASPboy, but a few notes:

1. On the "Alcoholism is incompatible with completion of college": I got a Bachelor's degree with an over 3.0 GPA (sure, on this website it probably doesn't mean much, but it's still a finished four year degree) while having one hell of a drinking problem.  Sure, it probably makes college harder, but it by no means is impossible to get a college education if you are a drinker.

2. "Kentucky is extremely friendly to alcohol". . . . . . umm look at the map provided by Memphis.

3. The really weird "Southern states have drinking problems" stereotype.  Really, I don't know where you and others get this idea.  In fact, this study that I found on statemaster.com (Source: CDC, you know the Center for Disease Control?) shows that if anybody has a binge drinking problem, it's northerners:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_alc_con_bin_dri-health-alcohol-consumption-binge-drinkers

Of course this makes a ton of sense as one would expect states with high populations of German and Irish Catholics to be more into drinking than say states with high populations of Southern Baptists.  But, our enlightened red avatar from MI friend here, despite living in Michigan and being next door to Wisconsin, seems to have never seen a bar or pub before (or he lives in a weird "Catholic free zone"). . . .. . . . so I felt the need to add emphasis.

Oh and what's this?  Those hillybilly hellholes are at the bottom of the list?  Say it isn't so!  But I thought everyone north of the Mason Dixon Line and west of Texas were fitness buffs who were religious vegans who ate protein shakes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner!  Surely this study is lying, or else your snobbish worldview is blinding you to simple things like statistics.

Of course, this isn't to say that this study doesn't bring up relevant points.  It does, like the gap in education and decent labor laws in certain states.  However, your points are a vomituous combination of obnoxiously stupid and glaringly sneering culturalism that had to be addressed.  And I make no apologies for calling you out on it, since it's embarrassing to practically everyone else in this thread who have raised relevant points about things that matter.

[greenforest32]

As an example, Kentucky is extremely friendly to alcohol      

Red counties are dry. Yellow are semi-dry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Kentucky

What does the grey represent?

[opebo]

As an example, Kentucky is extremely friendly to alcohol      

Red counties are dry. Yellow are semi-dry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Kentucky

Incredible that Missouri is so not-bad on that map..

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

As an example, Kentucky is extremely friendly to alcohol      

Red counties are dry. Yellow are semi-dry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Kentucky

I realize you posted this to prove Pbrower wrong but,

This map is misleading for semi dry counties, though. I was like wtf with all the yellow on Michigan. Apparently if any city or township in the county is dry they have it yellow. I was shocked at first that Oakland county was yellow, but 3 cities have a ban on alcohol by the glass, the 3 cities have a total pop. of 33,000 people out of 1.2 million.  Another 236 townships most with 2000 or less people prohibit alcohol licensing. The map makes it look like Michigan is quite anti alcohol when it is not. Just a little fyi for anyone not from Michigan.

Indeed.  Camden County, NJ is yellow because of Collingswood alone... but I challenge you to go to Camden County on a Friday night and NOT get shwasted. 

[traininthedistance]

As an example, Kentucky is extremely friendly to alcohol      

Red counties are dry. Yellow are semi-dry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Kentucky

Incredible that Missouri is so not-bad on that map..

Anheuser-Busch would have it no other way.  Their lobbying power keeps Missouri's drinking laws among the most liberal in the nation.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As an example, Kentucky is extremely friendly to alcohol     

Red counties are dry. Yellow are semi-dry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Kentucky

Wow, no dry counties in Utah, Idaho, or Wyoming?

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

I think people would be surprised at the wealth you can find in Mississippi, for example.

[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

[Franknburger]

To save you some work, pbrower2a: On the HDI map, you can via the small arrows on the top-left corner get maps of certain sub-indices. I recommend:
- % of low-birth-weight infants (highest in MS, DC and LA, lowest in AK, KS, OR)
- Diabetes (highest in WV, MS, AL, lowest in MN, CO, UT)
- Infant mortality rate (highest in DC, MS, LA, lowest in MN, MA, UT)
- Child mortality age 1-4 (highest in MA, AR, LA, lowest in MA, DE, NH)
- Physicians per 10,000 population (least in ID, MY, WY, most in DC, MA, MD)
- People without health insurance (most in TX, NM, FL, least in MA, MN, HI)
- Life expectancy (highest in HI, MN, CT, lowest in MS, DC, AL)

Lifestyle plays a role, but things like health insurance and medical infrastructure are also pretty important.

[they don't love you like i love you]

As an example, Kentucky is extremely friendly to alcohol     

Red counties are dry. Yellow are semi-dry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Kentucky

Wow, no dry counties in Utah, Idaho, or Wyoming?

In Utah and Idaho (and maybe Wyoming), they're not allowed at all. Utah and Idaho state laws state the state laws are the final authority on alcohol and municipalities can't vary including making it stricter. In both states the state also has a wholesaling monopoly on alcohol too, so it has an economic interest in not allowing it. Which also proves that is hardly sign of an alcohol friendly policy.

There should be a couple yellow counties in Minnesota on that map by the way.

[barfbag]

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

[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.

[barfbag]

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

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.

[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.    
 

[barfbag]

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.    
 

Cheaper cigarettes could encourage early smoking.