Minnesota is the state of the future, Gallup says

By Olivia LaVecchia Wed., Aug. 8 2012 at 12:14 PM

Wikipedia

Minnesota comes out tops in two of Gallup's 13 future-predicting metrics, including easiest to find a safe place to exercise.

SEE ALSO
- Minnesotans have third-highest well-being, Gallup finds
- Minnesota is fat, but not compared to the rest of the fat United States
- MSP is the healthiest metro in country, says American College of Sports Medicine

In 50 years, we'll be hanging with robots, flying our cars, and... living in Minnesota, suggests a Gallup analysis of the best states to live in the future, released yesterday.

Minnesota comes in just below Utah, which edged it out by three points for gold. Colorado, Nebraska, and North Dakota fill in the top five, and other neighbors Iowa and South Dakota are seventh and ninth.

The rankings aren't based on an algorithm or a crystal ball, but instead, 13 metrics that Gallup deems essential to future livability. We lead on two of them: Highest economic confidence and easiest to find a safe place to exercise.

But while Minnesotans may be bullish on the economy, when asked to anticipate the quality of our future life, we're among the most pessimistic -- gloomier than 47 other states. Mississippi wins in that category, taking top marks for optimism, even though the state's overall ranking is in the bottom five. (Mississippians are also striking out on oral hygiene, with the fewest number of residents who have seen a dentist in the past year). Numbers like these are less interesting for what they say about the future, and more interesting for what they tell us about our lives now: Mississippians are apparently delusional (or value different metrics than Gallup), and here in Minnesota, we don't know how good we have it.

The other metrics consider obesity (we're twelfth), number of smokers (seventh), access to safe water (second, after Utah), and job creation (10th), plus more abstract categories, such as "learned something new yesterday" (we're sixth) and "manager treats you like a partner, not a boss" (12th). There are subjective measures, too, like the respondents' perspectives on whether their city/area is getting better or worse (sixth again).

Gallup

If you're in the bottom ten, this is your warning. The future is coming, and according to Gallup, it doesn't look good for you.

The findings are based on over 530,000 interviews conducted over the past year-and-a-half, from Jan. 2, 2011 to June 30, 2012. The 13 metrics, all weighed equally, represent Gallup's best guesses of what will be relevant to future livability. Some of these -- health, outlook, good jobs -- are standard indicators of well-being, while others, such as ample access to clean and safe water, speak more directly to the challenges of the future.

Tags:

exercise, future, Gallup, job creation, livability, Mississippi, North Dakota, quality of life, smoking, Utah, water

We Recommend

lund519

I feel like this is a discussion that is similar to Minneapolis with it's crime rate at it's lowest in so many years - the future won't be about successful states (Minnesota), but successful cities (Minneapolis) based on affluence and amounts of post-graduate education. Duluth, for example, has received at least half, if not more, of Minneapolis/Saint Paul's very low to no income residents who can't wait for five years to get into low-rent housing. Meanwhile, low-income Duluth residents can't get into those housing units that previous had no waiting list at all. It's not fair to give Minneapolis and Saint Paul's social problems a free Greyhound ticket to Duluth and then say 'well, look at how great our Twin Cities look!'; meanwhile downtown Duluth has never seen such street crime and personal robbery rates that it's seen in the summer of 2012. I believe this is a trend seen in other states as well (New York; with the success of NYC and the decline of Buffalo/Niagara Falls, for example)...while it's great that Minneapolis has been successful in so many ways - by diversifying it's workforce and businesses in a way that Detroit and Pittsburg hasn't, its irresponsible to send the lowest functioning residents to other cities in the state while using up their social services when Minneapolis needs to be responsible and start matching affordable units for all those downtown/central city units that have been turned into $1200/month studio apartments.

kenny1

1 Like

@lund519 So what you are saying is that we need even more Welfare in the city of Minneapolis? Oh, my friend, us tax payers spend enough of our hard earned money on the "lowest functioning residents" of this city. Maybe we should change our goal of giving free handouts to "low functioning people" to teaching them how to be functional. But then, on the other hand, it so much easier to give birth to 8 kids that you can't afford in the first place and just go and apply for easy money (Welfare) than to close your fucking legs, get an education and learn to support yourself. But then, that would be asking to much.

UhHuh

1 Like

And the $20 Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, etc. take out of your pocket every time you fill your tank. What about the $10,000 extra you'd have in salary each year if income distribution were the same as it was in 1979? Your selective outrage and prole self righteousness is so adorable!

MEBB

@kenny1 @UhHuh

Or rich people didn't have to make any decisions at all -- having been born on third base...or sliding into home plate. But they've sure got you conned into believing they hit it out of the park all by their itty bitty little selves, don't they? And beotch, please, no "freeloader comments." My husband and I both have degrees, own a home, are employed and pay plenty in taxes. Ooooh, was that snobby to mention our highfalutin' schoolin'? Too late. You already expressed admiration for those of us who've made good decisions. While making those good decisions, I didn't have my humanity or good sense surgically removed. UhHuh is right. You're adorable.

UhHuh

Meanwhile, here in the real world...

LerpDerp

1 Like

@kenny1 "Rich people made smart choices. Poor people made bad ones." <-- It actually brings a bit of pain to my brain reading that. You don't seriously believe this, do you? I hope you don't say things like that out loud in public. I read a lot of goofy comments, but that one is perhaps the lowest form of intelligence I've encountered this month--and that you actually BELIEVE it!! hahahhahaha!

kenny1

1 Like

@UhHuh I don't need to fill up my tank because I don't have a tank to fill up. I live within 2 blocks from where my restaurant is located. I walk or take the bus everywhere I go. However, I would actually have about $20,000 extra each year if I did not have to pay for Welfare mooches such as yourself. See, I actually work hard for my money. The only hard work Welfare recipients have to do is spread their legs and collect an EBT card. Another thing: There is no such thing as "income distribution". Income is defined as how much you are worth to earn said income. If you are an uneducated ghetto rat with a rap sheet as long as I am tall, then you are only worth minimum wage (if that). You are obviously a DemoCunt who expects the Government to take care of you because you cannot take care of yourself. There is a reason why people are rich and people are poor. The reason? Rich people made smart choices. Poor people made bad ones.