We like to throw around all sorts of indicators here on the blog to argue about which states offer the best quality of life. Personal income growth, GDP, education funding, health care costs, strip clubs per capita... can any one number really tell us which state is the greatest?
Of course not. That's why the Lucy M. Burns Institute coagulates 236 datasets from 19 indices over 21 years to create its own State Quality of Life Index. Whoo-hoo! Who wins?
New Hampshire. Arrggh!
Over two decades of data, South Dakota and Minnesota both come out in the top ten for overall quality of life. South Dakota has the best record on unemployment, ranking in the top three for low unemployment for 18 of the 21 surveyed years. Minnesota was first in health rankings for seven years and first in voter turnout for 18 years. (I'll buy that higher voter turnout indicates higher civic engagement that will make a community a better place to live; how about you?)
South Dakota and Minnesota are part of a big heartland cluster of wide open nice places. But check out the other cluster: those dinky little New England states, with all those big cities and Democrats and income taxes.
LBI's methodology includes rankings from a variety of interests. Their survey includes three business indices (Forbes, CNBC, and Chief Executive Magazine), a variety of economic indicators (personal income per capita, poverty, unemployment), political metrics ("tax freedom" day, state vs. local tax burden, and state government spending as a proportion of GDP), and social indicators (health, Gallup's well-being index, and high school graduation rate). So I'm willing to grant that this survey, while based on multiple subjective choices, doesn't appear to have a nefarious political bent.
Here are the full rankings (from pp. 29–30 of the full report):
| State | SQLI | State | SQLI |
| New Hampshire | 1 | Alaska | 26 |
| Minnesota | 2 | Texas | 27 |
| Colorado | 3 | Georgia | 28 |
| Nebraska | 4 | Idaho | 29 |
| Iowa | 5 | Ohio | 30 |
| Connecticut | 6 | North Carolina | 31 |
| Virginia | 7 | Michigan | 32 |
| South Dakota | 8 | Hawaii | 33 |
| Massachusetts | 9 | Tennessee | 34 |
| Delaware | 10 | Rhode Island | 35 |
| Wyoming | 11 | Oregon | 36 |
| Maryland | 12 | Arizona | 37 |
| Wisconsin | 13 | Maine | 38 |
| New Jersey | 14 | Montana | 39 |
| Nevada | 15 | California | 40 |
| Washington | 16 | Oklahoma | 41 |
| Missouri | 17 | New York | 42 |
| Utah | 18 | Alabama | 43 |
| Illinoi | 19 | Arkansas | 44 |
| Kansas | 20 | South Carolina | 45 |
| North Dakota | 21 | Louisiana | 46 |
| Indiana | 22 | Kentucky | 47 |
| Vermont | 23 | New Mexico | 48 |
| Florida | 24 | West Virginia | 49 |
| Pennsylvania | 25 | Mississippi | 50 |
That bottom tier snags New York (and California is close; if they counted earthquakes, California would sink!), then heads South. The Lucy Burns Institute is working on a Part 3 report to compare these rankings with their Part 1 study of state partisan control, but I'd suggest from a cursory glance at the map above that you don't want to leap to conclusions that good conservative governance will make your state a better place to live than good liberal governance.
This proves that many of the whiners here should move to Minnesota. Every move makes the vast majority of 70% non-libbies happy, plus the 1 libby who moved. WIN-win. I approve. When Mr. H gets kicked out of Spearfish, I expect him to move shortly.
Oh Grud, if we have good South Dakotans moving to Minnesota, we will just end up spending money trying to get them back! Think of the poor governor's time and how much of it he will be spending at the Mall of America.
He's probably trying to get upstanding hard working fellows to move here, not the ones on the dole. Doesn't the pitch they have on TV say in little letters disclaimer "nobody on the dole wanted?"
Makes me chuckle to see SD in the top ten.
You don't want to leap to conclusions that good conservative governance will make your state a better place to live than good liberal governance.
Nooo ... but I leap and cling to the conclusion that good governance will make any state a better place to live than bad governance will.
Mr. Stan, that is why I am glad that you are one of our legislatures. And you write good books. Keep up the good work.
Thanks, Grudz. I hasten to add the notion that while governance cannot in itself make a place great, governance can and all too often does in itself make a place suck.
Grud, does that "dole" you speak of include French cheese companies? Farmers receiving welfare/subsidies? Ethanol plant workers? Good Republican retirees sucking the life out of SS and Madicare?
For the record, I am not a legislator. I lack the temperament to serve in such a role.
What a completely pointless study. If SD has one of the best qualities of life one would expect rapid growth. Obviously that hasn't and isn't occured.
Conversely, look at Arizona, which is ranked 37th. It has achieved incredible growth by comparison.
This study uses pointless metrics to come up with a result that isn't correlated with reality.
I think tonyamert said something that should be taken into account with all studies:
"This study uses pointless metrics to come up with a result that isn't correlated with reality."
I cringe every time someone (including me) posts a study. I think studies are interesting and can help to discover areas of information worthy of further study. However overall studies tend to have their actual importance over-stated and relied upon too heavily for government policy (even after they have been debunked).
Having said that. This study makes me feel better about moving back to SD!
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/the-8-least-expensive-states-to-live-in-the-u-s.html/8/
Always fun to see South Dakota ranked #1 by a website with "cheat" in its name ;-)
Note also that James's article is based on the same BEA data that I reported on two weeks ago: https://madvilletimes.com/2013/06/south-dakota-rocks-real-personal-income-growth-in-2011/