Gallup has released its "Well-being Index". There is some rather good news for the Dakotas. North Dakota ranks third best, after nos. 1 and 2, Hawaii and Wyoming. South Dakota came in at number 7. The Rushmore State ranked number one in "work environment". For our blogosphere neighbors who love to tell us how bad South Dakota is, this will no doubt be depressing news.
I am not sure quite what to make of the national map, but it is thought-provoking. The "empty quarter" as it has been called (upper Midwest) ranks as the highest region, but a lot of New England states rank in the high range. The South ranks lowest. While the West ranks in the midrange mostly, Nevada is in the toilet.
We tied with Minnesota. Interesting.
I wonder just how tangible the differences are in a range spanning scores of 61.7 to 71.0 on a 100-point scale. I know 60s on this scale don't correspond to failing 60s in a classroom, but consider: suppose I showed you a class of 50 students, could point to one that got a barely passing grade, and had to note that everyone else got 60s. How much difference would you see in thoe students' performance?
Posted by: caheidelberger | Monday, March 07, 2011 at 09:21 AM
Also interesting that SD scores highest in work environment, the category that gets the lowest scores nationwide. I could contend that lots of people dislike their jobs, but we just dislike our jobs least (and are just thankful for low unemployment)?
Posted by: caheidelberger | Monday, March 07, 2011 at 09:24 AM
Just you wait: Atlas Shrugged will hit the theaters, and all the John Galt types will fall in love with high-speed rail.
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2011/03/04/galt-the-musical/
Posted by: caheidelberger | Monday, March 07, 2011 at 09:28 AM
Cory, you are repeating yourself. You are starting to sound like Larry in writing the same posts on different threads and/or blogs. You also appear to be talking to yourself.
I do not believe one could use the scale as seen as being the same type of scale used for grading someone in a classroom. For one thing, it is based upon perceptions. How one person perceives his/her situation could be different from another. I also see the bottom score is 61.7. We are talking a total difference of about 9 points from top to the bottom. This really is not a lot of difference. I also note from year to year things remain pretty stable except for the period of the end of 2008 to the beginning of 2009. I am not sure what this index tells us except that a scale of 66.5 seems to about normal.
Posted by: duggersd | Monday, March 07, 2011 at 10:30 AM
Good find, Ken. Who would have thunk it? Doug, it's so sweet that you're such a happy guy in a happy state. Hook up with Tim Fountain and spread some christian hope and succor to people huddled up to the stove; http://northernplainsanglicans.blogspot.com/2011/02/diocese-of-south-dakotas-new-outreach.html
Posted by: larry kurtz | Monday, March 07, 2011 at 07:40 PM
A few days ago, I saw the results of one of these "happiness-coefficient" studies on a popular Web site (not sure, but I think it was MSNBC). The outfit that performed the surveys was a well-known and respected publication (for some reason Forbes Magazine comes to mind, but I'm not sure of that either).
Cities were ranked according to "happiest" and "most miserable." Miami ranked number 2 in +both+ categories. Evidently the people there are very very happy and very very sad.
I lived in Miami for nearly 20 years, and I can tell you all that there might in fact be something to this apparent contradiction. Miami is a bittersweet place, hot-and-cold, light-and-dark.
My point: I reject all of these "happiness coeffient" studies out of hand. I'm pretty happy here in Lead, and I hope I give the people around me a few laughs (with me or at me, who cares?).
Wherever ye go, there ye be.
Posted by: Stan Gibilisco | Tuesday, March 08, 2011 at 01:02 AM
Well, I guess we all know now what is wrong with Harry Reid!!!
Posted by: lynn | Tuesday, March 08, 2011 at 07:23 PM
dugger, first, my apologies: I meant the Atlas Shrugged comment to go on KB's post on trains. I regret the error.
That said, your response sounds a lot like mine: whether or not we compare the scale to classroom grades, the range seems rather small. Given the size of the sample, the results may be statistically significant, but I'm wondering if they are practically significant.
Posted by: caheidelberger | Wednesday, March 09, 2011 at 07:08 PM
(Paperback) I like that the stories are short, but feel like in some cases that meant imntaorpt details were not included. I think it would have been helpful, even being a life long resident of South Dakota, if there had been a map of SD in the back of the book with key locations from the book identified. NOTE to author: The Missouri River runs through our beautiful state not the Mississippi! All in all, I enjoyed the book. Many of the stories were familiar to me, but I enjoyed learning more details about them.
Posted by: Michael | Monday, June 25, 2012 at 03:55 PM