Best State to Live Permanently?

[webny99]

Here is a fun debate by FiveThirtyEight about which state would be the best one to live in if you were stuck there forever.

I thought this might be interesting for us to discuss as well, given that everyone is more or less stuck in their state right now unless they live very near a state line. There are a limited number of clear top contenders: California and New York are probably the top two. Maybe we could even come up with some metrics to use to rank all 50. But obviously, New York is #1. 

[oscar]

I thought this might be interesting for us to discuss as well, given that everyone is more or less stuck in their state right now unless they live very near a state line.

Don't forget the several states that never had "stay at home" orders, and some more for which their orders have expired.

If you have lots of money, California (where I grew up) and Hawaii would be high on the list. I can't afford the latter, and the former would be a reach financially, due to their high cost of living (in Hawaii, it's called the "paradise tax").

From a purely financial perspective (but nice in other ways too), Vancouver WA is a dream place to retire, in a state with no income tax, next to a state with no sales tax.

[Max Rockatansky]

California wouldn't be so bad given there is a huge variance in the types of scenery.  Cost of living could be a huge issue in major metro areas though along with high taxes.  I think that I could do Arizona but I would have to settle at a higher elevation like Prescott of Flagstaff. 

[KEVIN_224]

I would love to be back in Maine. Kittery is just a bridge away (well, three, really) from Portsmouth, NH. However, I'd likely be in Portland.

[Ketchup99]

Texas has everything. Coastline, Cajuns, desert, cities, the South, the Southwest, plains. It's got everything you could want but forests.

[Max Rockatansky]

Texas has everything. Coastline, Cajuns, desert, cities, the South, the Southwest, plains. It's got everything you could want but forests.

That definitely isn't "everything" if you're missing large swathes of trees.  Personally the state east of San Antonio has way too much in common with Louisiana and Arkansas to be my bag.  The western part of the state is intriguingly remote and mountainous.  Even still, I've always felt as though New Mexico does the whole rugged lifestyle thing that western Texas tries so hard be.

[ce929wax]

If I had my choice, it would be a tossup between Texas and New Mexico.  Corpus Christi is where I would live if I chose Texas, and I agree with Max that New Mexico does rugged better than West Texas or Oklahoma.  New Mexico is more my speed politically (all I'm going to say on that), but Texas has more opportunities and no state income tax.

Unfortunately, I'm stuck in Michigan because I have fantastic health insurance, and I'm not sure I could get as good of coverage in other states.  I do have mental health and regular health issues to be concerned with.   

[Roadgeekteen]

If you couldn't leave, I would go with California. Fantastic national parks, big cities, beaches, mountains, desert, redwoods, theme parks, interstates, everything.

[TravelingBethelite]

Texas has everything. Coastline, Cajuns, desert, cities, the South, the Southwest, plains. It's got everything you could want but forests.

That definitely isn't "everything" if you're missing large swathes of trees.  Personally the state east of San Antonio has way too much in common with Louisiana and Arkansas to be my bag. [...]

I would second this. In my limited experience, the Piney Woods are much closer in character to both, and Louisiana especially. Come to think of it, what part of the state does the Texas stereotype best characterize? Any part at all? Talk about an identity crisis...

[sprjus4]

Texas has everything. Coastline, Cajuns, desert, cities, the South, the Southwest, plains. It's got everything you could want but forests.

That definitely isn't "everything" if you're missing large swathes of trees.  Personally the state east of San Antonio has way too much in common with Louisiana and Arkansas to be my bag.  The western part of the state is intriguingly remote and mountainous.  Even still, I've always felt as though New Mexico does the whole rugged lifestyle thing that western Texas tries so hard be.

East Texas is largely forested with wetlands. Becomes largely plains west of San Antonio, then transitioning into desert the further west you go.

[Bruce]

Washington has all the biomes that anyone would ever want. Rainforests, regular forests, mountains (including volcanoes), deserts, steepes, dry forests, and irrigated semiarid land. Our natural disasters are a bit less frequent, with rare earthquakes (but looming risks), seasonal windstorms, and very rare tornadoes.

And it's a bit more affordable than California. And our (plentiful) water tastes good. There's also no income tax, which is nice for high earners (hence Bezos and Gates staying here) but sucks for most people.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I myself would probably be content living in the eastern half of Minnesota my whole life. Abundant clean lakes and rivers, vast forests, cities that are big but not too big and are easy to quickly leave behind, rolling hills, bluffs, and cliffs. Taxes are a bit high for some to stomach but it's part of why our quality of life is top-3.

The western half, not so much of these things.

[SectorZ]

Unfortunately government has ruined many states, and that may vary depending on your belief system.

I vote NH.

[Max Rockatansky]

Texas has everything. Coastline, Cajuns, desert, cities, the South, the Southwest, plains. It's got everything you could want but forests.

That definitely isn't "everything" if you're missing large swathes of trees.  Personally the state east of San Antonio has way too much in common with Louisiana and Arkansas to be my bag.  The western part of the state is intriguingly remote and mountainous.  Even still, I've always felt as though New Mexico does the whole rugged lifestyle thing that western Texas tries so hard be.

East Texas is largely forested with wetlands. Becomes largely plains west of San Antonio, then transitioning into desert the further west you go.

Yes, but they are all "civilized forests"  in eastern Texas along with a handful of swamps.  If I want to visit some real swamps in a deep murky forest than Louisiana and Florida do that way better than Texas.  In western Texas you have the likes of Guadalupe Mountains National Park and Big Bend National Park, both which are very much mountainous. 

Speaking of Mountains, Colorado would have been high on my list ten-twenty years ago.  The urban areas started getting way too hipster around that time to be something I think that I could tolerate long term.  The Front Range westward is top notch and probably some of the best terrain in the country.  Personally I would probably choose Wyoming or Montana over Colorado for somewhere to settle for good. 

[Flint1979]

Texas for me

[Max Rockatansky]

Washington has all the biomes that anyone would ever want. Rainforests, regular forests, mountains (including volcanoes), deserts, steepes, dry forests, and irrigated semiarid land. Our natural disasters are a bit less frequent, with rare earthquakes (but looming risks), seasonal windstorms, and very rare tornadoes.

And it's a bit more affordable than California. And our (plentiful) water tastes good. There's also no income tax, which is nice for high earners (hence Bezos and Gates staying here) but sucks for most people.

The biggest issue I see with Washington is two things; how difficult Seattle can be to deal with, but more so the constant grey dreariness west of the Cascades in winter.  Personally I don't mind the winter weather in Washington, but it definitely isn't for everyone.  We have looked at possibly transferring to the Kitsap area in the future, the winter weather is what concerns my wife the most. 

[Roadgeekteen]

Well, if I could leave, than I would stay in Massachusetts.

[SP Cook]

538 is to serious politics and polling as watching YouTubes on a subject is to getting a PhD in it.  Nate Silver is an idiot.

Anyway, the obvious answer is there is no obvious answer.  First, of course, people are different.  Different desires, different likes and dislikes, different ideas about what is good and bad (something most 'urban planners' do not understand), different values.  Second, nothing is "permanent".  For just one example, California spent the better part of a century being one of the most desirable places to live and welcomed millions from other states.  Now it has become a ****hole and most people with an option are fleeing. 

[webny99]

538 is to serious politics and polling as watching YouTubes on a subject is to getting a PhD in it.  Nate Silver is an idiot.

Trying to be a bi-partisan, data-based news outlet is a tricky needle to thread these days, and this post is a classic example of why. Personally, I have a lot of respect for any outlet that isn't explicitly catering to one partisan camp or the other, and FiveThirtyEight is one of the few remaining.

Anyways, this isn't supposed to be about politics, this is supposed to be an interesting thought experiment about the relative benefits of different states. The fact that there is no right answer is what makes it fun.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

538 is to serious politics and polling as watching YouTubes on a subject is to getting a PhD in it.  Nate Silver is an idiot.

Trying to be a bi-partisan, data-based news outlet is a tricky needle to thread these days, and this post is a classic example of why. Personally, I have a lot of respect for any outlet that isn't explicitly catering to one partisan camp or the other, and FiveThirtyEight is one of the few remaining.

Anyways, this isn't supposed to be about politics, this is supposed to be a fun thought experiment about the relative benefits of different states.

Don't bother with SP. Any media that isn't openly hard right is too far left for him. Move along with the rest of the discussion. 

[webny99]

Serious question: Besides desert, what does California have that New York doesn't?

If you like an urban lifestyle, upstate NY is cheaper than anything in CA, while NYC is more diverse.
If you like a suburban lifestyle, all major NY cities including NYC have good suburbs - best in the nation, I would argue - that have larger properties at a much lower price than what you'll find in CA.
If you like a rural lifestyle, NY has the Adirondacks, the Finger Lakes, and the 1000 Islands. Nothing as dramatic as the Sierra Nevadas, but we certainly have mountains, forests, lakes, and farm country. Desert is the only notable exception.

[Max Rockatansky]

Serious question: Besides desert, what does California have that New York doesn't?

If you like an urban lifestyle, upstate NY is cheaper than anything in CA, while NYC is more diverse.
If you like a suburban lifestyle, all major NY cities including NYC have good suburbs - best in the nation, I would argue - that have larger properties at a much lower price than what you'll find in CA.
If you like a rural lifestyle, NY has the Adirondacks, the Finger Lakes, and the 1000 Islands. Nothing as dramatic as the Sierra Nevadas, but  we certainly have mountains, forests, lakes, and farm country. Desert is the only notable exception.

Real mountains, all you have out east is big hills at best.  Mountains aren't the same when they don't have potential volcanic activity or top 10,000 feet in elevation.  The coast line here (especially in Big Sur and the Lost Coast) is pretty unique and far more dramatic than the East Coast. 

[GaryV]

I certainly haven't been everywhere in the country. Of the places I've been, I've usually thought they were great places to visit.    But overall, if I had to choose one place to stay, it would be my home state of Michigan.  It provides a great diversity of environments and has 4 true seasons, none of them extreme.  Sure there's things that aren't perfect and some things that are just plain bad, but what state doesn't have those? 

[Max Rockatansky]

I certainly haven't been everywhere in the country. Of the places I've been, I've usually thought they were great places to visit.    But overall, if I had to choose one place to stay, it would be my home state of Michigan.  It provides a great diversity of environments and has 4 true seasons, none of them extreme.  Sure there's things that aren't perfect and some things that are just plain bad, but what state doesn't have those?

I was so bored there the two times I lived in the Lower Peninsula.  When I was in High School there was almost no outdoor activities or things like hiking trails to be had.  The lack of sunlight after 4 PM in the winter was totally depression inducing, but I did like how late it stayed light out in the summer.  The City of Detroit is bad enough to drive someone to clinical depression along with trails and tribulations of the auto industry.  The Upper Peninsula couldn't be anymore different than the Lower Peninsula in a good way, truly an outdoorsy person's paradise.  The Lower Peninsula has gotten substantially better in terms of recreation, especially with the Metro Park System around Detroit.

[webny99]

Other states that I can see an argument for:

Washington, Oregon, Texas, Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

Maine, if it had a bigger city.
Tennesee, if it had a coastline.
Kentucky, same as above.
Ohio, if it had more varied landscape.
Illinois, same as above.

And some states are just too small. If we could consider all of New England a single state, it would be a legitimate top contender. But no single New England state has enough to contend with CA, NY, or even TX.
In terms of pure quality, Vermont is obviously #1, but the problem is that it has no big cities, no coastline, and lacks diversity.