US News & World Report releases its best states rankings: See North Carolina rating, top 10
Rankings for how the Carolinas serve their citizens among those for all 50 states in the country were wildly different, according to a new report.
U.S. News & World Report's website calls the company a "multifaceted digital media company dedicated to helping consumers, business leaders and policy officials make important decisions in their lives." Using data and technology, the publication issues reporting and rankings on subjects from education to money to travel and beyond.
A list of "best state rankings" from U.S. News drew on thousands of data points to measure how well states are "performing for their citizens." Rankings take into account things like health care, education, economy and public safety, weighting the categories based on a survey of what matters most to people.
Here's what the report said about the Carolinas, the top 10 states in the country and more.
North Carolina came up just a few rankings short of making the U.S. News top 10 at No. 13 overall. The report gave the state the following rankings out of the 50 states in various overall categories studied:
Crime and Corrections - No. 25
Economy - No. 7
Education - No. 12
Fiscal Stability - No. 14
Health Care - No. 25
Infrastructure - 32
Natural Environment - 26
Opportunity - 18
According to U.S. News, the median household income in N.C. is $70,804, while the national average is $76,976. The poverty rate in N.C. sits slightly higher than the national average, 12.8% to 12.2%.
The state ranks No. 10 in long-term fiscal stability, and No. 26 in short-term fiscal stability.
Of the eight categories compiled for each state, N.C. made it into the top 10 of only one category: economy.
Job growth was measured at 2.6% throughout N.C. compared to 1.4% countrywide, and net migration is 1.4% compared to only 0.06% nationwide.
While N.C. nearly made it into the top 10 states on the U.S. News list, its neighbor, South Carolina, was on the opposite end of the spectrum, ranking at No. 40 in the country. The report gave the state the following rankings out of the 50 states in various overall categories studied:
Crime and Corrections - 42
Economy - 14
Education - 43
Fiscal Stability - 20
Health Care - 30
Infrastructure - 36
Natural Environment - 21
Opportunity - 42
According to U.S. News, the median household income in S.C. is $67,804, while the national average is $76,976. The poverty rate in S.C. sits almost two percentage points above the national average, 13.9% to 12.2%.
Though the state ranks at No. 28 in long-term fiscal stability, its short-term stability is significantly higher at No. 7.
The 10 best states from U.S. News:
Utah
New Hampshire
Idaho
Minnesota
Nebraska
Florida
Vermont
South Dakota
Massachusetts
Washington
More: Could bird flu be the next pandemic? What we know about H5N1
Iris Seaton is the trending news reporter for the Asheville Citizen Times, part of the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at iseaton@citizentimes.com.
This article originally appeared on Asheville Citizen Times: Is NC a good place to live? US News & World Report ranks all 50 states
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Contributor: As the feds abdicate responsibilities, states should band together
Until January, the federal government and the states had a mutually beneficial and straightforward deal: The federal government prioritized challenges requiring national solutions — e.g., national security, natural and public-health disaster relief, managing the American economy. For their part, the states delivered primarily local goods and services — Medicaid and Medicare, much of our transportation infrastructure, public education. Money, specifically taxpayer money, underpinned this deal. In 2023, the federal government collected about $4.7 trillion in taxes, sending back about $4.6 trillion to the states, mainly via social service programs. (The remainder of that year's roughly $6 trillion in federal spending was mostly financed by debt.) Now, this deal between Washington and the states is unraveling to tragic effect. In May, tornados ravaged communities in Kentucky and Missouri, killing 27 people. Because of cuts to the federal government in recent months, the National Weather Service is now stretched too thin to alert rural communities in the heartland about such deadly weather. Ordinarily, after such disasters, the feds could be counted on to provide relief. That too is far from a certainty. When natural disaster strikes — as it did in Arkansas this year in the form of severe storms and tornadoes — federal aid was initially denied and ultimately arrived weeks late. Similar aid was denied to those in West Virginia, Washington state and North Carolina. Meanwhile, normal and emergency disbursements to states and localities are being withheld or threatened explicitly because the administration dislikes a state's LGBTQ+-friendly policies or immigrant healthcare. We are just a little over four months into a four-year presidency, with seemingly more cuts to come. In late May, the federal government canceled a contract to develop a new vaccine to protect against flu strains with pandemic potential (including the H5N1 bird flu), alarming state public health officials across the nation. Some decisions by the feds have been successfully challenged in the courts. Realistically though, there is only so much the judges can and will do to force federal agencies to spend, especially when Congress endorses spending cuts. Meanwhile, states have duties and obligations to their residents. But making up for the massive federal shortfall is no easy feat. No state, acting alone, could come close to replicating the goods and services that the feds are no longer supplying. Each lacks economies of scale; the cost per person is prohibitively high without the bargaining power and efficiency of the federal government. The answer, quite simply, is for the states to pool their resources, thereby spreading the costs over a far wider number of taxpayers. Here are some examples of what clusters of like-minded states could do: set up interstate academic programs that pool students and faculty cut off from federal funds into large regional research consortia; re-create public-health and meteorology forecasting centers servicing member states; and finance pandemic planning and countermeasures, precisely what was lacking — and sorely needed — early in the COVID-19 crisis. Though some may assume these arrangements require congressional authorization, the courts have said otherwise, insisting such approval is necessary only when states threaten federal supremacy. (The converse would be true here. The states would be teaming up only because the feds have absented themselves.) Additional arrangements can be even looser understandings. Consider the vacuum created now that the Justice Department has disbanded the team that focused on corruption among officials and fraud by government employees. States can mobilize interstate criminal task forces to track and prosecute corruption by politicians, lobbyists and government contractors (who invariably, when violating federal laws, run afoul of myriad state laws, too). The Trump administration is also tabling consumer protection and environmental investigations and prosecutions. Here too states can pool their resources, extend their jurisdictional reach and protect their citizens, while possibly recouping some expenses. Successful litigation often carries with it awards of legal fees and sometimes damages or monetary bounties: Lawsuits brought by states could force polluters to pay for the damage they do. Of course, not all states will jump into action, at least not at first. But this is a feature, not a bug, of the coming clustering of like-minded states. The Trump administration has created an opportunity for beneficial 'races to the top' in regulatory matters. Here's how that works: As Washington abdicates its long-relied-upon responsibilities, those states that commit to making up for the federal shortfalls will retain residents and businesses. They'll also attract new ones, particularly those frustrated that their home states aren't taking similar compensatory measures. High-tax states are often at a competitive disadvantage, as evidenced by what the Wall Street Journal has repeatedly referred to as a 'Blue state exodus.' But we think that's less likely to happen going forward. Precisely because the feds are no longer promising to fund basic education, infrastructure and social services — and are no longer viewed as a reliable regulator — it's suddenly too risky to chance living or operating a business in a state that doesn't take basic health and safety seriously. Interstate collaboration isn't a cure-all, but it's a start on rebuilding a new national compact without the political strings that have been attached to federal funding in recent months, one that may endure for the foreseeable future. It's a chance to demonstrate resourceful, resilient and good-faith public service at a time when the risk of being worn down into complacency is perilously high. Aziz Z. Huq and Jon D. Michaels are professors of law at the University of Chicago and UCLA, respectively. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
9 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
As the feds abdicate responsibilities, states should band together
Until January, the federal government and the states had a mutually beneficial and straightforward deal: The federal government prioritized challenges requiring national solutions — e.g., national security, natural and public-health disaster relief, managing the American economy. For their part, the states delivered primarily local goods and services — Medicaid and Medicare, much of our transportation infrastructure, public education. Money, specifically taxpayer money, underpinned this deal. In 2023, the federal government collected about $4.7 trillion in taxes, sending back about $4.6 trillion to the states, mainly via social service programs. (The remainder of that year's roughly $6 trillion in federal spending was mostly financed by debt.) Now, this deal between Washington and the states is unraveling to tragic effect. In May, tornados ravaged communities in Kentucky and Missouri, killing 27 people. Because of cuts to the federal government in recent months, the National Weather Service is now stretched too thin to alert rural communities in the heartland about such deadly weather. Ordinarily, after such disasters, the feds could be counted on to provide relief. That too is far from a certainty. When natural disaster strikes — as it did in Arkansas this year in the form of severe storms and tornadoes — federal aid was initially denied and ultimately arrived weeks late. Similar aid was denied to those in West Virginia, Washington state and North Carolina. Meanwhile, normal and emergency disbursements to states and localities are being withheld or threatened explicitly because the administration dislikes a state's LGBTQ+-friendly policies or immigrant healthcare. We are just a little over four months into a four-year presidency, with seemingly more cuts to come. In late May, the federal government canceled a contract to develop a new vaccine to protect against flu strains with pandemic potential (including the H5N1 bird flu), alarming state public health officials across the nation. Some decisions by the feds have been successfully challenged in the courts. Realistically though, there is only so much the judges can and will do to force federal agencies to spend, especially when Congress endorses spending cuts. Meanwhile, states have duties and obligations to their residents. But making up for the massive federal shortfall is no easy feat. No state, acting alone, could come close to replicating the goods and services that the feds are no longer supplying. Each lacks economies of scale; the cost per person is prohibitively high without the bargaining power and efficiency of the federal government. The answer, quite simply, is for the states to pool their resources, thereby spreading the costs over a far wider number of taxpayers. Here are some examples of what clusters of like-minded states could do: set up interstate academic programs that pool students and faculty cut off from federal funds into large regional research consortia; re-create public-health and meteorology forecasting centers servicing member states; and finance pandemic planning and countermeasures, precisely what was lacking — and sorely needed — early in the COVID-19 crisis. Though some may assume these arrangements require congressional authorization, the courts have said otherwise, insisting such approval is necessary only when states threaten federal supremacy. (The converse would be true here. The states would be teaming up only because the feds have absented themselves.) Additional arrangements can be even looser understandings. Consider the vacuum created now that the Justice Department has disbanded the team that focused on corruption among officials and fraud by government employees. States can mobilize interstate criminal task forces to track and prosecute corruption by politicians, lobbyists and government contractors (who invariably, when violating federal laws, run afoul of myriad state laws, too). The Trump administration is also tabling consumer protection and environmental investigations and prosecutions. Here too states can pool their resources, extend their jurisdictional reach and protect their citizens, while possibly recouping some expenses. Successful litigation often carries with it awards of legal fees and sometimes damages or monetary bounties: Lawsuits brought by states could force polluters to pay for the damage they do. Of course, not all states will jump into action, at least not at first. But this is a feature, not a bug, of the coming clustering of like-minded states. The Trump administration has created an opportunity for beneficial 'races to the top' in regulatory matters. Here's how that works: As Washington abdicates its long-relied-upon responsibilities, those states that commit to making up for the federal shortfalls will retain residents and businesses. They'll also attract new ones, particularly those frustrated that their home states aren't taking similar compensatory measures. High-tax states are often at a competitive disadvantage, as evidenced by what the Wall Street Journal has repeatedly referred to as a 'Blue state exodus.' But we think that's less likely to happen going forward. Precisely because the feds are no longer promising to fund basic education, infrastructure and social services — and are no longer viewed as a reliable regulator — it's suddenly too risky to chance living or operating a business in a state that doesn't take basic health and safety seriously. Interstate collaboration isn't a cure-all, but it's a start on rebuilding a new national compact without the political strings that have been attached to federal funding in recent months, one that may endure for the foreseeable future. It's a chance to demonstrate resourceful, resilient and good-faith public service at a time when the risk of being worn down into complacency is perilously high. Aziz Z. Huq and Jon D. Michaels are professors of law at the University of Chicago and UCLA, respectively.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
One of America's best small cities is in WA, says US News & World Report
Looking for the best place to live in Washington state? You might want to consider Sammamish, according to a new ranking from U.S. News and World Report. On June 4, the publication released its list of the 15 best small cities in the U.S. to live in this year. Sammamish took the No. 6 spot. This comes after U.S. News named Sammamish the No. 11 city to live in nationwide in late May. The King County city, located east of Bellevue, earned high marks from U.S. News for its job opportunities, which the publication attributes to its proximity to Seattle-area tech companies. It ranked No. 3 in the nation for its job market and its median household income of just over $235,000 a year was nearly triple the national rate, right around $80,000. Its proximity to nature and location on Lake Sammamish, meanwhile, helped the city place in the top 25 in the country for desirability and quality of life. There is a catch, though. As with much of Washington, Sammamish has a high cost of living. The median home price is $1,185,433, according to U.S. News, while the median monthly rent is $2,403. Sammamish was the only west coast city to make the list of the best small cities. Here's the rest of the top ten: Johns Creek, Georgia Apex, North Carolina Leander, Texas Rochester Hills, Michigan Troy, Michigan Sammamish, Washington Ellicott City, Maryland Flower Mound, Texas Pflugerville, Texas Plymouth, Minnesota While Sammamish was the only place in Washington on the list of the best small cities in the U.S., a few others made the list of the top 250 cities overall, with Seattle's eastern suburbs featuring heavily. Redmond was the next Washington city on the list at No. 83, followed by Bellevue at No. 126. Kirkland was the last Washington city to make the list at No. 133. According to U.S. News, each city is given a score across five categories: quality of life, value and affordability, desirability strength of the job market and net migration. Quality of life accounts for 26% of each city's score, and is determined by the quality of the area's schools, infrastructure, health care, economy and natural environment. The other categories account for between 23% and 25% of the total score, with the exception of net migration, which accounts for 2%.
