California’s quality of life is the worst in the country?
mercurynews.com
California’s quality of life is the worst in the country?
1–10 of 118 posts
Re: California’s quality of life is the worst in the country?
#2Re: California’s quality of life is the worst in the country?
#3Re: California’s quality of life is the worst in the country?
#4Unless you're rich of course. Then it's fantastic!
Re: California’s quality of life is the worst in the country?
#5Perhaps correct? It does change the tone.
Re: California’s quality of life is the worst in the country?
#6Unless you're rich of course. Then it's fantastic!
Re: California’s quality of life is the worst in the country?
#7Mischaracterization in the title. Actual title, which I think matters, is: "California’s quality of life is the worst in the country: Says who?" Perhaps correct? It does change the tone.
Re: California’s quality of life is the worst in the country?
#8> In case it makes you feel any better, while California stinks in terms of quality of life at least it didn’t rank dead last in the overall rankings. We came in at No. 32 overall, although that’s well behind New Jersey (at No. 19), Florida (at No. 15), and Nebraska (at No. 7). Ouch.
> The bottom line? The state performed well in terms of its economy, coming in at No. 4 (hello, high tech boom) but it fared terribly in categories such as citizen opportunity (No. 46) and fiscal stability (No. 43) in addition to the dreaded quality-of-life assessment (that scarring No. 50). Of course, as anyone who has tried to buy a house in the Bay Area knows, fiscal instability is basically our motto at this point.
I think it's also interesting that Mississippi, Arkansas, and New Mexico were in the top 10 for "quality of life," but bottom 10 overall: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings