Is California the most miserable US state to live in? | Hacker News Reader

Is California the most miserable US state to live in?

bbc.co.uk

8 pointssimonsarris21 comments

The BBC is making a big error (I suspect intentionally) by extrapolating a number of 'miserable' cities, using a given criteria, to "most miserable US state". Many of the most desirable places to live in the world are in California. But there are also some lousy areas there. The central valley in particular is a desert that has miserably hot and sometimes humid weather, plus high unemployment, endemic poverty, and major drug problems as a result of the last two.

Some people have advocated breaking California into multiple states, in particular Northern California, Southern California and Central California (the interior part). Central California produces massive amounts of produce but is a relatively unhappy place to be, but not more so than many other similar areas like Idaho.

Where in Idaho is as unhappy as Central California? I ask because I'm thinking about taking a job in Idaho.

The rural parts. I used Idaho as one of many rural states as an example. Those areas are in bad shape and there is massive meth use, which makes people crazy and violent and quite likely to break into houses and sometimes kill the inhabitants. Had to pick a state so sorry Idaho. I could have said Kansas, Missouri, South Dakota. Family farmer era is over. Farms are owned by Monsanto and ADM slaves. There's been mass-depopulation to the point many towns advertise free lots and sometimes houses if anyone will just move there.

Thanks for clarifying (and the extra info). I've hardly heard of meth where I'm from, so it was weird driving through the country seeing graphic billboards about it everywhere.

In addition to the problems you mention, the Central Valley was harder hit by the housing bubble.

That's always been a popular theory but if you look at the facts it's not really true. Yes things in central California are bad but the worst city in California (and the one cited in the article) is Stockton which is Northern California by any measure (it's further north than San Francisco). Looking at the Forbes list posted in this thread only 2 of the 8 California cities listed as "most miserable" are in Central California (and that list doesn't include the miserable unincorporated areas bordering Mexico where unemployment is in the 30% range)

The other part of the article focuses on California's budget problems. Now without getting into an argument over which political philosophy is better there are two political facts that are not in doubt...

1. Central California is very Republican

2. Republicans have not been in control of the state legislature for AT LEAST 30 years

So whatever problems we have in the state government can largely be traced back to Northern and Southern California (though the California Republicans do get an honorable mention for mismanaging their local cities and stirring up trouble whenever a 2/3rd majority is needed)

"Central California is very Republican"

The voters might be but not the population, most of whom are not US citizens. Only US citizens get to vote.

I lived in a couple of places in the central valley and have spent quite a bit of time in the area, so don't try to pull a fast one, I know how it is there.

Tons of drugs, despair, organized crime, and the crime gangs pay the police, who are corrupt. A big industry is running prisons, a boom economy for the guards who make a fortune shaking down prisoners to deliver them drugs, phones, and contraband.

The point I was making was that they had very little control over the state government because they elect republicans. So only the voters are relative to that argument.

Beyond that your evidence is all anecdotal. There are certainly cities that are as you describe but there are also a lot of cities with perfectly nice communities (Coalinga, Frazier Park, Clovis and others). I don't think either of us has the statistical evidence to know which scenario is the norm

No one is saying that there are no good cities! That was the whole point of my other post, the article wrongly extrapolates some miserable cities to a miserable state, which is obviously an incorrect conclusion. But there are a lot of really crappy towns in California as well and they've gotten worse the last 20 years.

The Forbes List (minus the 20 clicks needed to read it)

1. Stockton, California *

2. Miami, Florida

3. Merced, California *

4. Modesto, California *

5. Sacramento, California *

6. Memphis, Tennessee

7. Chicago, Illinois

8. West Palm Beach, Florida

9. Vallejo, California *

10. Cleveland, Ohio

11. Flint, Michigan

12. Toledo, Ohio

13. Fort Lauderdale, Florida

14. Youngstown, Ohio

15. Detroit, Michigan

16. Washington, D.C.

17. Fresno, California *

18. Salinas, California *

19. Jacksonville, Florida

20. Bakersfield, California *

http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/02/stockton-miami-cleveland-bu...

No where in Texas? Sweet! We win!

If you've ever lived in the UK, then you'll know that the quality of life just about everywhere is below just about everywhere in the US. Oh Swindon, I do not miss you.

Quality is subjective. I'm Irish born and bred, have lived in west and east London, spent many months in in the Bay area, and travelled around northeast US.

Weather better in the northern CA? Sure, though it has its rainy season, and that's a lot rainer than London.

Food? Variable, but at its best in major metropolises, of which SF is usually a far distance away, and not less expensive than London.

Culture? The car / mall nexus does severe damage to the US's livability to me. San Jose isn't really a city so much as a grid of road intersections in the shadow of an interstate junction. Santa Cruz is out of the way over the hills. SF is where it's at, but again, it's a fair bit away.

Essentially, I feel I have a better quality of life in London than I do when I'm in the US.

I always felt that the "sun tax" was an appropriate way to describe living in california.

If you could pay for sunny skies 330 days a year (like in LA), how much would that be worth to you?

That's why the cost of living is higher in California. Simple supply and demand.

Ah I see. Since 6/20 cities on the list are in the Central Valley, the far-away, far more populous Bay Area[1], LA, and San Diego must also be miserable.

[1] Yes, Vallejo is technically in the Bay Area, but it is so far away from SF/Oak/SJ, that it hardly counts.

Browsing the Forbes article - seriously, they used "how the local sports team is doing" as one of their 10 factors for judging how miserable it is to live in a city?

If this is misery I'll gladly continue to suffer.

None of those cities are big. I bet they add up to ~10% of the state population.

Oh well--that's more California for me, then!

Definitely not. No matter what some article says, its awesome to live in Cali.

California is a big place. Some parts of it are nice, but I definitely believe that "eight out of 20 spots on the publication's annual list of America's Most Miserable Cities are in California".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com