Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am still waiting for a certain member to post something positive. Joined 04-23-17 and has 132 posts to date, ALL negative in tone.
I for one do not think the population of RI shrinking is necessarily bad. Just think how much nicer and upbeat it could be if just one person left.
Well you're funny mister, and that ain't nothing. I'd like to thank you for taking the time to offer your opinion and I agree, less Rhode Islanders would please me as well. Try to focus on the real issue though. To what reason or reasons, do you attribute the state's anemic population growth? And please feel free to make use of empirical data, facts, or extrapolations of fact to bolster your position. And if we don't hear from you again, we'll understand why.
walnut hub? This is the same group that posted Rhode island in last place for medical opportunities. The reason for this placement was that there are already too many doctors here. Kind of comical, but I don't know how to respond to that type of assertion. As I pointed out, the list I brought forth, only that bottom 10, did not include Rhode Island. It doesn't mean we aren't #11, but we aren't last.
walnut hub? This is the same group that posted Rhode island in last place for medical opportunities. The reason for this placement was that there are already too many doctors here. Kind of comical, but I don't know how to respond to that type of assertion. As I pointed out, the list I brought forth, only that bottom 10, did not include Rhode Island. It doesn't mean we aren't #11, but we aren't last.
I don't get the doctor thing. Doesn't it make sense that if there's already too many, then there's not much opportunity for any more? Wouldn't more opportunity exist where there ain't enough of them? At any rate, yes WalletHub. Whether you like it or not, they're an oft quoted source of rankings. In fact, lots of others simply put forth WH findings rather than their own. They identify relevant metrics and plainly disclose their methodology of ranking. Perfect? I doubt it, so feel free to choose your own. Unfortunately, you've put forth a partial list without reference to metrics or methodology. Look, there's lots of lists to choose from and Rhode Island is not likely to be at the very bottom of all of them, but all that I've seen rank the state at or near the bottom. And let's be honest, does it shock anybody to learn that retirees aren't flocking to Little Rhody?
I don't get the doctor thing. Doesn't it make sense that if there's already too many, then there's not much opportunity for any more? Wouldn't more opportunity exist where there ain't enough of them? At any rate, yes WalletHub. Whether you like it or not, they're an oft quoted source of rankings. In fact, lots of others simply put forth WH findings rather than their own. They identify relevant metrics and plainly disclose their methodology of ranking. Perfect? I doubt it, so feel free to choose your own. Unfortunately, you've put forth a partial list without reference to metrics or methodology. Look, there's lots of lists to choose from and Rhode Island is not likely to be at the very bottom of all of them, but all that I've seen rank the state at or near the bottom. And let's be honest, does it shock anybody to learn that retirees aren't flocking to Little Rhody?
the point of the doctor thing was that we were dead last in that particular poll and thus the state was put in an adverse light by walnut hub, thus my lack of respect to their polls. Of course we are not ranked at the bottom on all polls. Although, much to our detriment, we are at the top of the list for giving many social benefits. You point out that others put out walnut hubs info as their own. Maybe it is laziness or just that they are being paid off to no longer do their own polling. That is how Quinnipiac College Polling improved in the polling world. They had their own type of payola. No poll, in my opinion, is perfect and you cannot quote just one. Our Interpretation of polls is based on our own biases, which you and I differ.
It still doesn't make sense. If the rankings reflected employment opportunities for doctors, and if Rhode Island had less opportunity due to a glut of doctors, then of course the rankings would reflect this. It wouldn't be very helpful otherwise. Conversely though, Rhode Island would probably rate near the top in a doctor per capita ranking. I don't understand how this casts Rhode Island in a negative light.
walnut hub? This is the same group that posted Rhode island in last place for medical opportunities. The reason for this placement was that there are already too many doctors here. Kind of comical, but I don't know how to respond to that type of assertion. As I pointed out, the list I brought forth, only that bottom 10, did not include Rhode Island. It doesn't mean we aren't #11, but we aren't last.
This makes me think of the metric that's most suspicious about the WalletHub retirement survey: Rhode Island ranked No. 29 for healthcare?! Even Rhode Island detractors typically acknowledge that we have above-average healthcare. I just googled "best states for medical care" and Google offers me Rhode Island as one of eight without even having to click into anything:
On this topic in general, I really really hesitate to say this because it's politically incorrect and I don't want to offend, and it's certainly a very unpopular opinion among the C-D demographic, which I've always sort of gotten the idea is -- how do I put this politely? -- very old, but ... uh ... you don't necessarily want to be a good state for retirement. This is because retirees contribute far less to the state's economy than the average person while draining far more from it. Now, as a big, soft liberal who still feels the increasingly out-of-fashion emotion of empathy, I do think that making life easier for retirees is an end in and of itself. People who have lived their lives in a state deserve to have the ability to stay there. But do you want to attract retirees, which seems to be the focus of most of these lists? Absolutely not.
On this topic in general, I really really hesitate to say this because it's politically incorrect and I don't want to offend, and it's certainly a very unpopular opinion among the C-D demographic, which I've always sort of gotten the idea is -- how do I put this politely? -- very old, but ... uh ... you don't necessarily want to be a good state for retirement. This is because retirees contribute far less to the state's economy than the average person while draining far more from it.
Bingo. And if you're looking for population growth, that's not exactly the demographic most likely to achieve that goal!
Bingo. And if you're looking for population growth, that's not exactly the demographic most likely to achieve that goal!
For once, we're in agreement. Much better to attract the best, brightest and talented YOUNG minds to move here, start working and paying taxes. Trouble is, that ain't happening either. We can't even keep our own. Here's what you're missing: guess what state would likely be at or near the bottom of a list of states attractive to THAT demographic. See it's not actually about attracting retirees as I've stated, though fostering a political and economic climate that would attract younger talent would necessarily make it more attractive to retirees as well. The bigger question is why can't Rhode Island attract ANYBODY? It's not about whether you, me or anybody else here thinks that we need more or less people; it never was. Rhode Island will continue to scrape along at the bottom until the underlying conditions at the root of our undesirability are addressed.
This makes me think of the metric that's most suspicious about the WalletHub retirement survey: Rhode Island ranked No. 29 for healthcare?! Even Rhode Island detractors typically acknowledge that we have above-average healthcare. I just googled "best states for medical care" and Google offers me Rhode Island as one of eight without even having to click into anything:
On this topic in general, I really really hesitate to say this because it's politically incorrect and I don't want to offend, and it's certainly a very unpopular opinion among the C-D demographic, which I've always sort of gotten the idea is -- how do I put this politely? -- very old, but ... uh ... you don't necessarily want to be a good state for retirement. This is because retirees contribute far less to the state's economy than the average person while draining far more from it. Now, as a big, soft liberal who still feels the increasingly out-of-fashion emotion of empathy, I do think that making life easier for retirees is an end in and of itself. People who have lived their lives in a state deserve to have the ability to stay there. But do you want to attract retirees, which seems to be the focus of most of these lists? Absolutely not.
So retirees drain more from the economy than the "average person"? In Rhode Island, according to your own governor, one in five receive public assistance totalling roughly 30 percent of the budget. Hell of a drain right there. And how much do you think these folks "contribute"? I'm a liberal too, and I'm happy to pay reasonable taxes for the greater good, but I find your statement a great disservice to those who've worked and paid taxes for the better part of their lives. They may not contribute directly with income tax dollars though some may work part time and some may pay state tax on their SS benefits, but they drain far less than one in five Rhode Islanders who likely contribute little if anything to the economy. And the problem with not wanting to attract retirees is that they're attracted to most of the same things as anybody else that you might WANT to attract save for schools.
This makes me think of the metric that's most suspicious about the WalletHub retirement survey: Rhode Island ranked No. 29 for healthcare?! Even Rhode Island detractors typically acknowledge that we have above-average healthcare. I just googled "best states for medical care" and Google offers me Rhode Island as one of eight without even having to click into anything:
On this topic in general, I really really hesitate to say this because it's politically incorrect and I don't want to offend, and it's certainly a very unpopular opinion among the C-D demographic, which I've always sort of gotten the idea is -- how do I put this politely? -- very old, but ... uh ... you don't necessarily want to be a good state for retirement. This is because retirees contribute far less to the state's economy than the average person while draining far more from it. Now, as a big, soft liberal who still feels the increasingly out-of-fashion emotion of empathy, I do think that making life easier for retirees is an end in and of itself. People who have lived their lives in a state deserve to have the ability to stay there. But do you want to attract retirees, which seems to be the focus of most of these lists? Absolutely not.
And one last thing. Of the big three taxes --- sales, property and income ---retirees likely pay at least the first two.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
