Quote:
Originally Posted by Average Guy
There is a tab on their website that is labeled "How MONEY Ranks the Best Places - Best Places to Live 2015: Methodology
Their website states that they only consider places with a population between 10,000 and 50,000.
So, don't get too upset, The Villages' population is not within the range that they were looking at. The real problem with the article is their title. It should have been something like this "Best Places To Live With a Population between 10,000 and 50,000." |
How MONEY finds the best places to live in America
3,625: Start with data provided by Onboard Informatics on all U.S. towns with populations of 10,000 to 50,000.
3,625 places did meet that criteria
1,900: Strong retirement communities; places with a median family income less than 80% of the state average; those with more than 95% of one race; and those with poor education scores.
We lost this one too, I think we are a strong retirement community and more that 95% of one race
932: Eliminate places with a median family income of more than 210% of the state average or a median home price over $1 million. Rank the rest on factors including job growth, diversity, and ease of living, giving the most weight to economic opportunity, housing affordability, education, and safety.
We might have a problem with diversity.
280: Factor in more data on health, taxes, real estate, culture, and the economy. Limit the results to three places per state, one per county, and sort to represent all regions evenly.
We got this one.
44: Visit towns and interview residents; assess traffic, parks, and gathering places; consider intangibles like community spirit.
We aced this one too.
1: Select the winner based on the data and reporting.
thank-you that was helpful