5 ms·
Answer: they're all terrible places to live and the residents are relatively easily able to move to one of the greatest places to live (the continental U.S.).
by sb057 4y ago
Answer: they're all terrible places to live and the residents are relatively easily able to move to one of the greatest places to live (the continental U.S.).
- eesmith 4y agoThe article elaborates some of the reasons which made them "terrible places to live" - which I'll summarize as "bad rule by distant landlords" I find it odd that you excluded Hawaii and Alaska.
- jleyank 4y agoErr, they became states in 1960 or thereabouts so the territory “oddities” ceased applying to them.
- eesmith 4y agoYet sb057 didn't include them as part of "one of the greatest places to live", even after 60+ years of statehood.
- jleyank 4y agoI suspect the people who live in Alaska think it's the cat's meow. Rustic, back-to-nature, low taxes, ... And for Hawaii, great weather, lots of surfing, probably a reasonable retirement place. Certainly a good retirement place. While Alaska's not my cup of tea, I would think that either of these states would be more interesting and rewarding than places like West Virginia, the deep South, the north Midwest, ... Different tastes and all that, but "continental US" is too broad to be a useful distinction re: states.