2011 The 20 "Most Miserable Cities" in America

Looks like we've made it again but have dropped from the top ten


Slideshow
http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/02/sto...ies_slide.html


2011 The 20 "Most Miserable Cities" in America


No. 1 Stockton, Calif.
No. 2 Miami, Fla.
No. 3 Merced, Calif.
No. 4 Modesto, Calif.
No. 5 Sacramento, Calif.
No. 6 Memphis, Tenn.
No. 7 Chicago, Ill.
No. 8 West Palm Beach, Fla.
No. 9 Vallejo, Calif.
No. 10 Cleveland, Ohio
No. 11 Flint, Mich.
No. 12 Toledo, Ohio
No. 13 Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
No. 14 Youngstown, Ohio
No. 15 Detroit, Mich.
No. 16 Washington, D.C.
No. 17 Fresno, Calif.
No. 18 Salinas, Calif.
No. 19 Jacksonville, Fla.
No. 20 Bakersfield, Calif.


The full story
http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/02/sto...le-cities.html



For comparison the 2010 list


1.Cleveland
2.Stockton, Calif.
3.Memphis, Tenn.
4.Detroit
5.Flint, Mich.
6.Miami
7.St. Louis
8.Buffalo, N.Y.
9.Canton, Ohio
10.Chicago
11.Modesto, Calif.
12.Akron, Ohio
13.Kansas City
14.Rockford, Ill.
15.Toledo, Ohio
16.New York City
17.Sacramento, Calif.
18.Youngstown, Ohio
19.Gary, Ind.
20.Philadelphia

Wow, interesting that Cali has kind of taken over so much of the top of that list.

So part of their critical ranking is sports teams' scoring? This factors into their definition of human "misery"? Along with...sales tax?

I can tell you that any of the "misery" I may experience during my journey in this life isn't tied to that garbage.

So now what city has the most mother's love? Is that the next scientific list to be published by this venerable journal?

Forbes is the Us Weekly of the financial press. All they do is make up top 10 or top 20 lists every day as filler for the rest of their fluff. Money magazine, the equivalent of Ok!, is just as bad.

Quote:

---

So part of their critical ranking is sports teams' scoring?

---

Yes indeed! Typically ,scoring is directly correlated to a winning team.

The overall morale of the area is improved if your home team is competitive.

Not much different than having an extraordinary ratio of people that are looking through

"rose colored glasses"participating in a forum. Even though they are wallowing in the

dark crevasses of the bowels. Hey all yall let's be happy na! WEEEEE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

Wow, interesting that Cali has kind of taken over so much of the top of that list.

---

This ranking is total BS. I grew up in Detroit and moved to San Francisco in 1974. I now live in Modesto.

The Central Valley cities of California are all agriculture based and, as such, compare unfavorably with industrialized and high-tech cities in terms of per capita wealth and education.

However, I was in Detroit last summer [[2010) and the prior November [[2009) and to compare the standard of living with that of the Valley cities is totally ludicrous.

The costof living in the Valley cities, and Modesto in particular, is well below te bloated figures for the rest of CA and the ease of daily life compares quite favorably to the rest of the state as well.

The population is weighted by the large number of Hispanic families. I'm sure their economics color the Forbes report to a certain extent. But, what is left unsaid is the strong commitment to family and care of the older community that is characterized by the Hispanic members of the community.

I grew up near Grand River and Greenfield and there is no way you can compare that blight and degradation to the current conditions here in Modesto.

So, some may revel in this bogus city ranking, but those who know poop from shoe polish will attest to its short-sightedness and ignorant slant.

Love, good luck, and best wishes to all for a happy, satisfying and useful life whereever you happen to dwell.

How in the world did Chicago rank so high?

I think it's interesting how people who don't like their hometown being on a given list always criticize those who are making said list while people who are happy with where a list ranks them are likewise happy with lists.

One can always argue with how certain variables are weighted from one list to the next. The important factors, in my opinion, are direction and momentum. Detroit is still on this list, but we rank a lot better than we did a year ago. This is an improvement and should be recognized as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPole

So part of their critical ranking is sports teams' scoring? This factors into their definition of human "misery"? Along with...sales tax?

---

I don't know about you, but taxes always make me miserable.

As for sport teams, even if you're not a sport fan, one has to appreciate the impact that they have on community as well as its local economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

How in the world did Chicago rank so high?

---

My guess is that has something to do with rapidly declining property values. There are only so many Detroiters left to move to Chicago. Once that dries up, their property values drop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

I think it's interesting how people who don't like their hometown being on a given list always criticize those who are making said list while people who are happy with where a list ranks them are likewise happy with lists.

One can always argue with how certain variables are weighted from one list to the next. The important factors, in my opinion, are direction and momentum. Detroit is still on this list, but we rank a lot better than we did a year ago. This is an improvement and should be recognized as such.

---

I would agree if we weren't talking about a Forbes list. To compare cities Forbes often uses either 1) extremely subjective criteria [[e.g., the weather), and/or 2) very fluid metrics that wildly fluctuates from year to year for any given location [[e.g. the win rate of the pro sports teams). I also don't think that they standardize their criteria from year to year, which could also factor into why these lists change so dramatically from year to year.

The real value of not being ranked in the top 5 is that 24-year-old Joe reader in Petersburg, Virgina does not automatically cut Detroit from his short list of places he might live because Forbes says it is the most miserable.

Detroit's image and reputation is key to it's revival and if publications like Forbes stop ranking Detroit as the "most miserable," "most depressed," "least enjoyable," etc., we have a better chance to change our image, especially when we beat out cities like Chicago, Sacramento, Miami, and Memphis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bahbay

I grew up near Grand River and Greenfield and there is no way you can compare that blight and degradation to the current conditions here in Modesto.

---

So where is the Modesto version of Royal Oak or Midtown or Birmingham or Palmer Woods or Canton or Brighton or Grosse Pointe or ... I could go on. The comparison isn't between the city of Detroit and the City of Modesto. It's a comparison of metropolitan areas. On a whole, I would say Metro Detroit is in much better shape as of now then Metro Modesto. California has extremely high unemployment, an extremely large budget problem, taxes that are already too high, and costs of living that are far too high for the average resident. Metro Detroit might have more of the lower economic extreme than Modesto, but it also has much more of the upper economic extreme. I'll take Metro Detroit over Metro Modesto any day of the week.

Often makers of such lists deliberately change the criteria or chose volatile criteria precisely to make the lists change substantially ever year. If the lists are always basically the same, they get less attention. The purpose of such lists is to attract attention.

Yes you must be miserable if you live in any one of the above. You are all losers for holding a nine to five job in a city that is not New York or London. You may be a millionaire 900 times but you are still short of being a billionaire. Forbes tells it like it is.

You might as well be put to sleep out of your misery.

Judging by the way that all of those Florida and California cities just jumped up in there this year, I would have to say that unemployment, decline in housing prices, and home foreclosures have to factor heavily in the ratings calculations.

That kind of article is a good example of the mind numbing we are subjected to by the press. What passes as news based on statistical evidence is not only frivolous and nonsensical it is insulting. Cities are tallied like sports events and apart form giving us insights into local economies, in no way do these pieces give us the big picture. One year Vegas wins when it is on top of its game; three new casinos and hotels; then the housing debacle disappears all the glitter and rhinestone.

The worst thing about it is the idea that people need to move on and find a better place instead of putting community ahead of all that fizz. Folks live in all the cities listed above and arent the cardboard chess pieces that Forbes and others presume them to be. You can live in London's Hyde Park or New York over Central Park and still be a miserable SOB. Some of these folks spend more on visits to their shrinks in a month than I do on car expenses in three years. And they may be the ones who run the economy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

How in the world did Chicago rank so high?

---

They actually looked beyond the Loop & north side

A quick reading of the articles answers a lot of these questions.

Quote:

---

California cities take the next three spots: Merced [[No. 3), Modesto [[No. 4) and Sacramento [[No. 5). Each has struggled with declining home prices, high unemployment and high crime rates, in addition to the problems all Californians face, like high sales and income taxes and service cuts to help close massive budget shortfalls.

---

Quote:

---

Two of the 10 largest metro areas make the list. Chicago ranks seventh on the strength of its long commutes [[30.7 minutes on average--eighth-worst in the U.S.) and high sales tax [[9.75%---tied for the highest). The Windy City also ranks in the bottom quartile on weather, crime, foreclosures and home price trends.

---

It is Forbes.Their lists are kind of a joke.

However, at least they're paying less attention to the rust belt and more attention to California and Florida.

I'm sure all of the residents of Gary, Indiana woke up feeling WAY better knowing that they are no longer living in a miserable city...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnemecek

I don't know about you, but taxes always make me miserable.

As for sport teams, even if you're not a sport fan, one has to appreciate the impact that they have on community as well as its local economy.

---

I don't mind paying taxes. Its the price we pay for living in a civilized society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I would agree if we weren't talking about a Forbes list. To compare cities Forbes often uses either 1) extremely subjective criteria [[e.g., the weather), and/or 2) very fluid metrics that wildly fluctuates from year to year for any given location [[e.g. the win rate of the pro sports teams). I also don't think that they standardize their criteria from year to year, which could also factor into why these lists change so dramatically from year to year.

---

Forbes decides their criteria by polling people about what they look for in a community; what would make them move to a certain area. They then look for ways to objectively rank communities that are consistent with the stated answers from that polling data.

When people say in surveys that they like living in an area with warm, sunny weather, Forbes calculates the average number of sunny days in an year for each given area.

As for the items that can fluctuate wildly, such a sports team's performance, this is dealt with by using a 3 year rolling average.

No system of ranking communities will ever be perfect. Forbes, however, is as good as it gets.

Regardless, the important variable is the direction and momentum that a given community has in these polls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ferntruth

I don't mind paying taxes. Its the price we pay for living in a civilized society.

---

Every community has taxes. However, if Community X is able to deliver all of the comforts of a civilized society while imposing that are below average, it becomes a more attractive option in the eyes of most people.

The problem with that methodology is that people don't always say exactly what they want. For example, if you ask people if they would rather buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, the vast majority would say yes. The reality however, is that people tend to put size over fuel efficiency and pick a 20 MPG midsize crossover over a 30 MPG compact sedan. In the same sense, the vast majority of people would prefer living in an area that is more sunny, but when it comes down to it, people often put other factors ahead of "weather", such as family, career, etc. Someone may be more miserable living in sunny Miami than cloudy Detroit simply because they don't get to see their family in Detroit as much.