Illinois Ranks as One of Worst States for Losing Citizens

Illinois keeps racking up those plaudits as the worst of the worst states in the country, this time coming in second of the top states for outward migration. Illinois has seen more of its citizens fleeing its failing edifice than every other state but New Jersey.

This list is maintained by one of the nation’s largest moving companies, United Van Lines and is compiled every year as the company tracks the migrations statistics of the nation.

“As the nation’s largest household goods mover, United’s shipment data illustrates national state-to-state migration trends,” Carl Walter, vice president of United Van Lines said in a statement. “We’ve been tracking the number of inbound and outbound domestic moves for nearly 40 years, and through our study are able to identify the states that are attracting or losing residents.”

The moving company found that for the fourth straight year, Oregon has been one of the states most moved to, this year taking the top spot after spending four years in second place. Following Oregon, South and then North Carolina won second and third places. Also on the list of the most desirable states to move to was Washington DC, South Dakota, Nevada, Texas, and Colorado.

But for the last two years the worst list remained steady with New Jersey and then Illinois coming in as the worst of the worst. New York was third worst with West Virginia coming in at fourth. New Jersey, Illinois and New York have topped the list for several years.

So, once again, Illinois comes in at one of the worst states in the USA to live in–no surprise because the Land of Lincoln comes in at the bottom of nearly every indicator of a successful and desirable state.

Here are just a few more of the “low lights” of Illinois’ standing among the states:

Fox Business Network Steals Maria Bartiromo Away from CNBC
Fox Business Network Re-Signs Stuart Varney, Continues to Grow
  • GarandFan

    Just another “worker’s paradise” where all the liberal theories about government are put to use.

    • Just another worker’s paradise where they’re going to need to put up barbed wire to ‘protect’ the workers from outside influences.

      Funny how the barbed wire at the top always tends to slant ‘in’ on protective arrangements like that, isn’t it?

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Politics has severe consequences. Chicago is the dean of U.S. urban cesspools. Heavy unionization is economic and societal suicide.

  • Alpha_Male

    Perhaps someone here can help me with a question on this topic. I’ve spent most of my adult life living in a suburb of a large Texas city, we’ve been quite successful, with many energy and tech headquarters re-locating here. Lately, friends and I have noticed the huge swell of refugees coming from other states, almost exclusively California, Illinois and Michigan and it seems every other one has a “coexist” or “Obama” sticker on their car.

    Why do these people not understand that it’s their misguided view of politics and economics that have destroyed their home states? Do they purposely set out to destroy others and bring them to the bottom levels they’re used to?

    Having spent my youth outside the U.S. maybe I’m not enlightened enough to see the subtlety? Perhaps an explanation from someone would help.

    • jim_m

      If left wing policies fail it is only because they were not applied in a sufficiently rigid (aka totalitarian) manner. Lefties know that their ideology is inerrant, therefore all their policies are correct.

      Ask a lefty why the USSR collapsed. They will tell you that it wasn’t communism that failed. The USSR was never truly communist. It was the failure to apply communist principles that caused the failure. The same is true in Illinois. The failure is not from the left wing policies, any failure is from those policies not going far enough..

      • Brucehenry

        The imaginary lefty strawman who lives in your head and causes The Voices told you that.

        • jim_m

          I see you’re still being a troll.

          You can easily do a search and find dozens of lefty sites claiming that the USSR was never really communist.

          [edit- you can even find a lovely Chomsky paper denying that the USSR was even socialist. Please! ]

          And I have stated many times that for you and others like you, facts are nor relevant to the concept of truth. It is your ideology that informs you what truth is. This is how we know that global warming is true and that unemployment payments are more stimulating to the economy than actual employment and how racism is the primary reason people oppose obama and his policies.

          The problem you have is that not understanding the value of facts you are unable to recognize one when you see it.

          • Brucehenry

            Haha you didn’t say “there are some who claim” communism can’t fail it can only be failed, you said “ask a lefty” and the lefty will tell you blah blah yada yada.


            You can find dozens of sites making any number of claims on the internet. Doesn’t mean the opinions offered on those sites are typical of any large group.

            The “ask a lefty” knockoff line makes it sound as though that’s a typical opinion of anyone left of….well, YOU, I guess. It’s not so. It definitely doesn’t suggest one would have to conduct a Google search to find someone expressing such an opinion.

          • jim_m

            I would say that a broad swath of the left would believe every last word the proceeds from the mouth and pen of Noam Chomsky. So yes, I believe that a significant part of the left (maybe even a majority) believe that the USSR was not properly communist and some believe that it was never communist.

          • Brucehenry

            You “would say” that, would you? Well, I’m convinced!

            Especially since you “believe” this to be so! If that’s not proof, what the hell is? Amirite?

            Again, a “broad swath” of the left lives in your brain and causes The Voices. Try not to listen to them, Jim, they only upset you.

          • jim_m

            Yes, you resort to mockery because you have no legitimate argument.

          • Brucehenry

            I resort to mockery because I’m feeling lazy and you make it easy.

          • jim_m

            SO you are feeling normal.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes it’s pretty much business as usual. You slay strawmen and I mock you. Normal.

          • jim_m

            Feel free to contradict me at any time with the deluge of real data that you obviously have to show that my position is false.

          • Brucehenry

            No I’m persuaded by the ironclad logic of “I would say” and the irrefutable evidence found in your “I believe.” That’s good enough for me.

          • jim_m

            In other words you’ve got nothing.

          • Your opinion and $20 will get you a cup of coffee. Without your opinion the coffee would be $0.25.

          • Brucehenry

            Your loyalty to your friend is admirable.

          • Never met the man.

            I just have ample evidence that you are a racist schmuck.

          • Sky__Captain

            When I look over Bruce’s posts in this thread, it is quite apparent that the little racist came in solely to troll jim_m, not to partake in any relevant discussion.
            And got smacked down for his efforts yet again.

            So comic relief is the reason L’il Brucie is tolerated, then?

          • 914

            Well, it isn’t his brilliant one liners or debating skills.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, let’s see…

            Jim asserts without evidence that your average “lefty” will tell you, if you ask this imaginary “lefty” he knows, that the USSR wasn’t sincerely commie enough. I point out that he is pulling that assertion out of his ass, or simply hears The Voices telling him that — and that’s “trolling.”


            Then Jim tells me it IS SO true, because this is something he “would say” and also too is something he “believes.” And that’s a “smackdown.”


            You, Captain, are a genius.

            I do admit to enjoying myself by pointing out when Jim asserts over the top nonsense, like Kennedy meeting with the Soviets,(he didn’t) or that the State Dept declared Benghazi an “al qaeda op (it didn’t). In this case, I chose to point out that Jim was mocking a “lefty” position that your average “lefty” doesn’t, to my knowledge (or his), adhere to.

          • Why would we care what a racist schmuck has to say about anything?

          • Brucehenry

            Well, apparently the Captain cares. And Jim. And you, it would seem, since you seem incapable of NOT responding to my every post.

          • Wouldn’t want an innocent bystander to take you at your word…

          • Brucehenry


          • jim_m

            My point was that Kennedy tried to sell out our country. (He did) and the Congressional report does say that Benghazi was an al qaeda op and that the WH knew that from the first couple of hours.

            You omit those truths.

            And yes, I have shown here that many on the left do believe just as I claim. Do all of them? I can’t prove it but I will bet that nearly all do.

          • Brucehenry

            How have you “shown” that, Jim? By telling us what you “would say” and what you “believe”? Or maybe what you “will bet”?

            Your claim that Kennedy tried to sell out the country is based on link after link to one unsubstantiated claim in a 2007 book by a Grove City College professor who also freelances for So, no, (maybe he did but most likely he didn’t). The Benghazi report was not from the State Dept (your original claim) nor is it an official report of any Congressional committee but is a report of the Republican staff members of several disparate committees. It has no imprimatur of Congress officially.

            So, yeah, over the top nonsense.

          • A woman I was with for a time, of a quite progressive bent and certainly old enough to have known better – was indeed of that opinion. It had never been done ‘right’ – the simple fact that the Politburo was living better than the rest of the people was ample evidence to her of how flawed that implementation was.

            North Korea (this was the 80s, early 90s) was pretty close – because there was a much smaller group at the top. They were regrettably militaristic, though. And Cuba was really a wonderful place with free education and health care.

            Yeah, that relationship didn’t last… can’t understand why!

          • Brucehenry

            Oh I’m sure there are quite a few, but “ask a lefty” is too broad.

            ‘Cause I’ve met several self-identified “conservatives” who are racist fucks — doesn’t mean your average conservative is a racist fuck. Can you imagine the grief I would get if I said here, “Ask a rightwinger and he’ll tell you blacks are inferior.”???

            And I would deserve it. Because the plural of anecdote ain’t data.

          • jim_m

            No one would answer that question. But if you ask a lefty if blacks need special accommodations in order to compete with whites and asians and you will get near unanimity that blacks are incapable of competing on a level playing field.

            The only difference is that you condescendingly think you are doing blacks a favor by treating them like they are genetically stupid.

          • Brucehenry

            Please point to one liberal saying that blacks are incapable, genetically or otherwise, of competing on a level playing field.

            Much less “near unanimity.” Do you ever learn not to blurt out shit that you “would say” or you “believe” or you “would bet”?

            And no, being in favor of affirmative action is NOT “the same thing.”

          • jim_m

            Yes, affirmative action is the same thing. It wasn’t decades ago when it was first rolled out but it is today.

            Show me a leftist that does not believe in racial quotas and that hiring without regard to race is itself racist. The tacit claim here is that if you hired based on ability that blacks cannot compete. It’s that simple.

          • Brucehenry

            So in other words you can’t back up your over the top assertion and instead try to move the goalposts. Not buying it.

          • jim_m

            What’s to back up? The left is constantly fighting against judging people by their abilities. Look at all the lawsuits demanding that hiring and college admissions must be done according to racial guidelines. This is not because the left believes that minorities are competent.

            In the case of college admissions it is expressly because the left believes that if all you got were transcripts and test scores, you would not admit black students because they are incapable of scoring high on the tests and incapable of achieving good grades.

          • Brucehenry

            Not getting into a discussion of whether or not affirmative action is a good thing, whether or not it has outlived its usefulness, etc, Jim.

            But people who support affirmative action do so expressly TO make the playing field level, not because they think minorities can’t compete on a level field. The logic is that historically minorities have been so disadvantaged that they have NOT been playing on a level field, and that some tilting of that field today is warranted to redress historic grievances.

            Now you, or even I, may think differently, but that’s the logic. The notion you have that “liberals are the real racists because affirmative action” is entirely manufactured by The Voices, as well as real voices like Limbaugh’s and others’.

          • jim_m

            Not seeing it. I have seen too many times where the left demands that people that pass the test for the police dept or fire dept be excluded because blacks that failed it have to be let in. I have seen too many instances of blacks being admitted to college only to flunk out because some leftist administration believes that they are doing everyone a favor by admitting students that aren’t prepared. The left even demands that the military violate its standards for physical readiness in order to accept more female soldiers.

            SO don’t tell e that the left isn’t about defining people by their race and sex. Judging people by what they can do is wrong.

            It’s all about the appearance and not about the performance. Very much like the obamacare web site.

          • Brucehenry

            Again you may think the liberal remedy is the wrong medicine and that “lefties” are fools for asking America to swallow it. Doesn’t make it their position that “blacks can’t compete on a level playing field.”

            It’s closer to the liberal position to say that blacks historically have not competed well on our current playing field because the field is not yet level. Affirmative action is meant to address that perceived tilt.

            Again, you may think the remedy wrongheaded but it is dishonest and wrong to ascribe racist motives to it. It is meant to be a long-term help in alleviating the historic effects of racism.

          • Hawk_TX

            Old time racism: Black people are inferior and should be treated differently.

            New racism: blacks can’t compete on a level playing field and they should be treated differently.

            The only difference between these positions is that the new racist think they are doing black people a favor by treating them differently now. It is no coincidence that both of these positions have been pushed by the Democratic party, and that both have been opposed by the Republican party.

          • Brucehenry

            Wrong. The position of supporters of affirmative action is NOT “blacks can’t compete on a level playing field.”

            Instead it is more like “blacks haven’t competed well in America because the playing field is not yet level.”

            Again it is dishonest and wrong to argue against a position the other side is not taking. Yet that’s what Jim, and now you, have done here.

            So the rest of your comment, based as it is on a strawman argument, is simply irrelevant.

            See, it all depends on whether you think the “playing field is level.” If you think it was leveled by the CRA and the VRA back in 1964-65, or that it was leveled in the Reagan Trickle Down Revolution, or that it was leveled during the Clinton-Gingrich Boom Years, you’re gonna oppose affirmative action.

            If you think we still have a ways to go, you’re gonna support it. Calling supporters or opponents racists ain’t helpful, so stop doing it. Just sayin’.

          • jim_m

            The dishonesty is the claim that the playing field is not level without affirmative action. In fact the only reason the playing field is not level is affirmative action.

          • Brucehenry

            That is your opinion and I respect it. Others have a different opinion and I respect theirs as well. So the debate will continue.

            But you are moving the goalposts when you claim that “liberals say blacks can’t compete on a level playing field” and then, when called on it, say, “the playing field IS TOO level because I say so!”

          • jim_m

            See my response above. It’s not because I say so. It’s because I am right.

          • Brucehenry

            Because you say you are right. You “believe” you are right. You “would say” you are right. You “will bet” that you are right.

            So, sure, yeah, why not.

          • Hawk_TX

            How is the playing field ever supposed to get level if some people are given preference over others?

            Who gets to decides if the playing field is level or not?

            I call supporters of affirmative action racist because they want to treat people of different races differently, and that is racist.

          • Brucehenry

            The supporters of affirmative action would say that the playing field has been tilted so far for so long it’s taken for granted. For instance, legacy admissions to colleges., “It’s who you know” job interview opportunities. Good Old Boy legs-up regardless of merit. Etc etc etc.

            In a democracy, the people’s representatives in Congress get to decide if the playing field is level, which they have done in passing various affirmative action measures. Why do you hate democracy, Hawk?

            Of course you are free to call supporters of affirmative action racist if you wish. You are incorrect and unhelpful, but you are free to do so if you wish.

          • Hawk_TX

            Does that mean that we eventually will have to reverse affirmative action policy to disadvantage blacks in order to make up for all the tilting of the playing field now.

            If you knew anything about how affirmative action policy has developed in the U.S. you would know that it is the courts that have primarily made affirmative action policy not the legislature. Even if legislatures voted for affirmative action policy it would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

            The U.S. is not a democracy it is a Republic.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, so even if I’m wrong you have answered your own question. It is “primarily” the courts, and I guess a teeny bit the Congress too(?) who “gets to decide.” Why did you ask if you already knew?

          • Supporting overt racism with the stated intent of reversing racism.

            An idea only a progtard would entertain.

          • jim_m

            Once upon a time the argument was that the playing field wasn’t level. That is no longer the case. What it has done is breed a dismissal of black achievement because they are given opportunities at the expense of others and a sense of entitlement by blacks who expect that things should just be handed to them.

            Where the left goes wrong is their assumption that this country has not changed in the last 60 years. The left wants to be perpetually marching in Selma, perhaps because they weren’t there the first time around.

            While the motives were not racist when affirmative action was instituted the motives behind the arguments to maintain it are. Your mistake is in thinking that the two are the same.

          • Brucehenry

            See my reply to Hawk.

            Once again, sheeesh, you may think affirmative action is outmoded but many liberals disagree. You say the playing field is level but others don’t think so. It’s not that hard.

          • jim_m

            The field is level if what we are looking at is hiring etc. There is no need for set asides or quotas anymore. There is no need for a law that tips the scales in favor of blacks when everyone is well aware of the laws against discrimination and we have had nearly two generations grow up that view racism and discrimination as wrong.

            What you are doing is perpetuating a cult of victimhood claiming false status as victims of racial discrimination. It doesn’t happen like the left claims that it does. Evidence for that is found in the multitude of fake racial hate crime committed by lefties across this country so they have something to protest. There simply isn’t the racism in this country anymore so you have to go out and make it yourselves.

            The only people keeping this country racist are you and your lefty friends.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes that is a widely held and tiresome viewpoint but by virtue of the sheer number of morons who espouse it is has attained some legitimacy.

            I think we’re done here.

          • So you’re done here? I can help you with that…

          • jim_m

            Yeah, run away rather than confront the fact that the left has promoted more racial hate in the last 2 decades than anyone else.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, call it running away if you wish. I told you before I wasn’t interested in discussing the merits of affirmative action, but only the motives of those who support or oppose it. We have done that but you continue to try to make me defend the policy itself. Not gonna.

            What I am telling you, HAVE told you repeatedly, is that there is an honest difference of opinion here. You say the playing field is now level,and can point to evidence supporting this view, but others can point to evidence that it is not. For instance I’m sure you’ve seen stories of the resumes, identical except that one will have “black” names like Shaneequa Johnson and others will have “white” names like Susan Price. Who do you reckon gets more interviews?

            The debate won’t be settled in Wizbang’s comment section. For you, with your reflexive hatred of all opinions not your own, it is ALREADY settled and you are infuriated that the rest of us dummies don’t see it your way, I get that.

            So yeah, I’m done with this thread. Tell your fedora-sportin’ buddy not to get hysterical.

          • jim_m

            And what I am telling you is that those who claim there is a difference are the ones who are invested in there being a difference and for that difference to be maintained.

            As long as we continue the so called “remedies” to historical discrimination the field will never be level and a perception that blacks are less competent will be perpetuated.

            But then, as I said, that is what your side wants and needs.

          • So, ‘quite a few’ isn’t sufficient. But how many times have the right been broadly tarred (so to speak) with the actions of one?

            Would it be fair to judge everyone on the left by you? Or Lee Ward?

            To be honest, I think a lot of people on the left look for simplicity. They don’t want to evaluate a situation or condition, so they flock in the direction they see others that think like they do going. They trust the group consensus.

            For example, Palin’s stupid. Everyone knows Palin’s stupid. She can see Russia from her house, and that’s just stupid. They know she’s stupid, and you can’t tell them otherwise, because all their friends think she’s stupid – so they must be right and she IS stupid.

            But an honest look at her record shows very clearly she’s far from stupid.

            And everyone knows Obama was a genius, a very accomplished man. Why was he so smart? Because everyone they knew agreed he was smart. Everyone supporting him said he was – so he was… right?

            And… well, his record’s speaking for itself, isn’t it? As I’ve posted elsewhere, his resume was thin as discount single-ply toilet paper. But it didn’t matter.

            And I hoped he would be capable and competent, because the alternative was unthinkable.

            Well, it’s not so hard to think that any more…

            Is that the big difference between left and right, maybe? Left is idealistic and ‘herd following’, while the right is more realistic… or even pessimistic, because they understand that good intentions don’t guarantee good results?

          • jim_m

            And if you think that Illinois dems don’t believe that communism is the way to go, then you haven’t met Karen Lewis President of the CTU.

            You may have also forgotten that obama shared an office with avowed communists and domestic terrorists Mike Klonsky and Bill Ayers.

          • Retired military

            Substitute lefty for tea party and communism with racism and you could have a post made by at least half a dozen former lefty posters on this site and one or two current ones to include Chico.

    • Out West that’s referred to as “Californication.”

      Though one should remember that most “Californians” weren’t born here and did not come of age here. They’re the fruits, nuts, and flakes of the other 49 states.

      • Alpha_Male

        Is it safe to compare them to African locusts? About every decade or so they hatch, breed, move and destroy large areas, then go to ground for said decade to rinse and repeat the same behavior?

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Would that they would disappear for a decade. We could maybe fix the mess they make in one year.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Your question answers itself with three possibilities. If they continue to support the politics and economics that have destroyed their home states, they are: 1) Too damn stupid to know any better; 2) Proving their insanity by supporting the same policies, but expecting different results; and/or 3) All of the above.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Kinda like locusts.
      They see your success and have decided to eat it. ALL.

      Actually more like ticks or fleas.

      Once liberals learn that the ‘host’ cannot afford to offer them the paradise they want, they pick a new host, infest it completely, suck it dry then move on again.

  • Hank_M

    Guess this all explains Obama’s brilliant economic record as President.

  • 914

    I would not live in Barackistan either.

  • Sky__Captain

    Looking over the list of most desirable states to move to, I note that Washington DC is on said list.
    Whyinthehell would anyone want to move to DC?!?

    • To suck on Uncle Sugar’s hind teat.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Oh, I don’t think they’re relegated to the “hind” teat.

    • Alpha_Male

      Wouldn’t you have to question a list that has DC listed as a state? I do believe it’s a federal district and outside the purview of any state govt.,

      • warnertoddhuston

        It has less to do with “states” per se and more to do about where people are moving and people move TO something because there is money and jobs to be had. Currently, DC is giving out quite a lot of both.

  • LiberalNightmare

    The question is, is the population loss due to 0bama’s failed policies? Or simply to the gun violence casualties in gun free chicago?

    • jim_m

      Chicago reached it’s peak population around 1950 at 3.6M people. It has lost nearly a million since then and 200k in the last decade. In 2011 the population fell bellow that of Chicago in 1920.

      The majority of the recent population decline has been in black neighborhoods so they are leaving the city one way or the other. Most likely they are just fed up with the corrupt city government letting them continue to be slaughtered like animals by the street gangs that the city has no interest in stopping.

  • 914

    Illinois has the most underfunded pensions in the country and faces a deficit growth of $17 millionper day.
    The state also has the worst funded teachers pensions in the country.
    Illinois was identified as one of the worst states in the union for its oppressive, jobs-killing lawsuit climate
    Illinois had more home foreclosures than almost every other state.
    Illinois ranks as the 49th worst debtor state in the nation.
    Illinois was ranked the 48th worst state for business.
    Illinois ranked 48th for unemployment making it among the worst five states for joblessness.
    Its government also has one of the worst rankings for state transparency and accountability in the nation, too.
    As to big city stats, Chicago tops the nation with the highest unemployment rate.
    Illinois has the worst credit rating
    Illinois Tops Nation in Growth of Food Stamp Recipients
    Mercatus: Illinois ranks at the bottom of the most free states

    Obama built that!

  • What are you, prejudiced against the hygienically challenged or something?

    (Cue sad music, lead in with puppy’s pleading eyes, transitioning to a close-up shot of Mandy’s puppies… then pull back, showing the bad complexion and greasy hair.)

    “This is Mandy. Her lifestyle is such that she can’t even scrape up the price of a bar of soap or a bottle of cheap shampoo without working as a stripper. Please, dig deep into your wallet and put $5 in her G-string as you get your lap dance. She’ll thank you, and her future customers will appreciate it too.”

  • jim_m

    Illinois ranked 48th for unemployment making it among the worst five states for joblessness.

    Technically, that makes it one of the bottom 3.

    And if Illinois is one of the worst in the US, what does that make it globally? Pretty bad apparently

    A new study by the World Bank and the International Finance Corp. found that the U.S. ranks well behind countries like Rwanda, Belarus and Azerbaijan in terms of how easy it is for an entrepreneur to start a newbusiness. The U.S. did narrowly beat Uzbekistan, though.

    • Facepalm.

      That’s what happens when you get a critical mass of bureaucrats.

      Corruption can be prosecuted – but what can you do against someone who just wants to ‘help’ you using all the means of government at their command?