Happiest cities to live in 2025

Moonbeam · May 26, 2025

fskimospy said:
I think if you’re going to present the choice you should present it more holistically. Sure people generally want a bigger house all else being equal but the whole point is all else isn’t equal.

I don’t want a homeless person outside my door (although that never happens) but I do want good bars and restaurants, culture, access to good jobs, and access to services. I grew up in suburbia so I know it just fine and it was…just…awful. What a nightmare of a way to live.

That’s always been my point though. Maybe other people love living that way, and if so they should do that. This is why I think the government should not ban any type of living and just let people choose.

i think I have always understood where you are coming from and your view comports well with what I regard as liberal thinking and is a pro individual anti authoritarian moral opinion. The problem I have is that I don't know what you do. That is to say I do not know, I lack the belief, that what you believe is actually moral. We pass authoritarianism laws and make rules for our children because ignorance can lead to self harming. We don't allow kids to smoke and drink. We have sanitation laws, all kinds of regulations that limit our freedom either to prevent interfering with the freedom of others or because we want to be our brothers keepers. We even transfer decision making from mentally incapacitated people to 'responsible' adults in the belief it is in their best interest.

I think you believe that what you are saying serves the best interest of people but I don't know that. How would I know what is truly the good. Why would I believe what I believe is factual. What if city life has a negative impact of the mental health of children. If such could be proven do you think the proof would not be suppressed, denied, ignored if for no other than utilitarian reasons. In many ways I grew up wild and believe that had profound mental benefits. Blue sky, wilderness, etc. Alone and unsupervised I got to explore me, to be what I wanted to be. I look at children growing up today with a great deal of pity. I have read planty to suggest there are others who feel that a city is no place for a kid to grow up in. Why would people even dream of sending their kids to camp in the summer? Perhaps what a city is is a place holder where the joy of being in the natural world is suspended in order to survive economically, And then the habituation sets in.

Sorry you were miserable in the suburbs. You might have been better off in the country.

PS: I was probably eight years old when I first saw what self hate looks like talking about this has reminded me. My friends an I were exploring gun bunkers on the coast line of Point Loma Ca having crawled under the barbed wire fence blocking access to government land where we found a bird nest he pulled down having tiny new born baby birds scatter on the ground. I saw my friend go into a fit of despair and remorse, guilt over what he had just done. It was painful to see him suffer so much. There was no way to undo what had accidently been done.

fskimospy · May 26, 2025

Moonbeam said:
i think I have always understood where you are coming from and your view comports well with what I regard as liberal thinking and is a pro individual anti authoritarian moral opinion. The problem I have is that I don't know what you do. That is to say I do not know, I lack the belief, that what you believe is actually moral. We pass authoritarianism laws and make rules for our children because ignorance can lead to self harming. We don't allow kids to smoke and drink. We have sanitation laws, all kinds of regulations that limit our freedom either to prevent interfering with the freedom of others or because we want to be our brothers keepers. We even transfer decision making from mentally incapacitated people to 'responsible' adults in the belief it is in their best interest.

I think you believe that what you are saying serves the best interest of people but I don't know that. How would I know what is truly the good. Why would I believe what I believe is factual. What if city life has a negative impact of the mental health of children. If such could be proven do you think the proof would not be suppressed, denied, ignored if for no other than utilitarian reasons. In many ways I grew up wild and believe that had profound mental benefits. Blue sky, wilderness, etc. Alone and unsupervised I got to explore me, to be what I wanted to be. I look at children growing up today with a great deal of pity. I have read planty to suggest there are others who feel that a city is no place for a kid to grow up in. Why would people even dream of sending their kids to camp in the summer? Perhaps what a city is is a place holder where the joy of being in the natural world is suspended in order to survive economically, And then the habituation sets in.

Sorry you were miserable in the suburbs. You might have been better off in the country.

PS: I was probably eight years old when I first saw what self hate looks like talking about this has reminded me. My friends an I were exploring gun bunkers on the coast line of Point Loma Ca having crawled under the barbed wire fence blocking access to government land where we found a bird nest he pulled down having tiny new born baby birds scatter on the ground. I saw my friend go into a fit of despair and remorse, guilt over what he had just done. It was painful to see him suffer so much. There was no way to undo what had accidently been done.

I know. I understand that you think the government should force people to live in ways you approve of. What I’m telling you is that it’s evil. It’s against everything we stand for.

All I would ask of you is to allow people to live how they want to live. Can you accept that? Just don’t ban people from living in ways you don’t like.

I mean I don’t try to ban living like you do so it seems reasonable that you don’t ban how I live, right?

Kaido · May 26, 2025

Moonbeam said:
Does not really being alive create that feeling?

It's a "different strokes for different folks" thing. I live adjacent to NYC & Boston and visit as often as I can. My city-dweller friends wouldn't trade it for the world! But I can only handle that many people in small doses before my ADHD gets over-stimulated & I need to bug out lol.

I've lived all across the nation & have been fortunate to have been to many states & experienced many ways of living. I have friends who live in vans & RV's, apartments, high-rises, houses, and houseboats. I know people who have bugged out to the middle of nowhere Alaska & others who made it to housing at the edge of Central Park. Some people are free spirits and some people love the hustle & bustle of living around millions of people. All depends on what YOU like!

Moonbeam · May 27, 2025

fskimospy said:
I know. I understand that you think the government should force people to live in ways you approve of. What I’m telling you is that it’s evil. It’s against everything we stand for.

All I would ask of you is to allow people to live how they want to live. Can you accept that? Just don’t ban people from living in ways you don’t like.

I mean I don’t try to ban living like you do so it seems reasonable that you don’t ban how I live, right?ome

I am not going to try to ban anything. I told you I voted against the only measure I have ever been able to vote on regarding my personal benefit. I voted against a measure that actually passed anyway and had it not would have forced me out of my home decades ago.

I would never have been able to pay the property tax on my home commensurate with the growth of its value based on location demand. As I did not vote my own self interest or know that values locally would rise as they did, my location determined long before by my parents whom I wanted to live close to, I apologize to you for being someone you have referred to as evil.

My point to you has always been that the phenomenon you refer to as NYMBYism is exactly how people are. You will find very few, unlike me who will vote to sacrifice their own home to move somewhere of far less value so the people with much more income can move in.

But this is not the issue I wanted to make to you. You are still pretending to know that the equal reciprocity you suggest, you live where you want and I live where I want is actual sanity. What if you want to raise your children in a house of horrors and for the sake of your children because you are mentally ill and don’t know it, I pass a law outlawing the building of houses of horrors. Are you entitled to abuse children?

What if your environment exists simple because the Frankenstein monsters that grew up with you in those conditions are just as blind to what they are doing as you. What you are saying is that if there are people who don’t buy your certainty that houses of horrors are not bad for kids they should have no voice. I insist on telling you I am simply not convinced by your logic. You know things I do not and you can’t prove you know them.

I believe that the environment we grow up in directly affects our mental health and that societies advance by fostering happier people that support and nurture human needs. You believe your understanding is superior to mine regarding life in cities. I would hear the same conviction from a drug addict on the bliss of getting high.

I have doubts and lack your moral certainty. I am far more certain I do not believe as you do. You have a kind of faith I do not. I know I do not share your faith and that’s all.

Heartbreaker · May 27, 2025

Fenixgoon said:
Notice how every city on the list...is..well...a city. They're not towns or villages. These are major metro areas.

They aren't actually doing a survey for happiness. If you check the methodology, it's just a set of somewhat arbitrary criteria, many of which will exclude smaller communities. The more of these things on the list, the higher you score.

These include GDP/person, Patents, R&D spending, Company HQs located there, advanced public transit systems, etc.. These simply don't exist in small towns in any meaningful way.

So essentially its a list of criteria, for happiness in Big Cities, so naturally small towns don't make the cut.

People could well be happier in small towns, but they don't have a lot of GDP generated, or patents, or major corporate HQs, etc... So they would fail to make the list.

It really should be titled the happiest Big City list.

That being said, in actual survey of happiness, people tend to be happier in cities than rural areas. This is actually surveying happiness, and not just scoring cities on a list of criteria:

The Degree of Urbanisation's Effect on Happiness

A new analysis reveals that people who live in cities report higher levels of happiness than those in rural areas.

news.gallup.com

But again, another caveat, a lot of that tends to be economic. People have better economic outcomes, in more dense areas with more opportunity.

But there will also be individual effects.

I'm a nature loving introvert. I hated living in Toronto (Canada's biggest city, liked Ottawa much better, and liked Fredericton even better...). Just being an introvert puts me in a minority and I'd bet bigger cities are generally preferred by extroverts, and they are the majority...

Heartbreaker · May 27, 2025

K1052 said:
This is like a number one reason a lot of people move to large cities.

I'm pretty sure the number one reason, by a massive margin, is employment. I grew up in a very small town in the middle of nowhere. Everyone left for education, and the employment it would enable. If they could have gone straight a good job, they would have done that, but in those days it was recognized that a degree was ticket to a career, and that career would not be in a small town. Pretty much everyone I knew left my small home town.

fskimospy · May 27, 2025

Heartbreaker said:
I'm pretty sure the number one reason, by a massive margin, is employment. I grew up in a very small town in the middle of nowhere. Everyone left for education, and the employment it would enable. If they could have gone straight a good job, they would have done that, but in those days it was recognized that a degree was ticket to a career, and that career would not be in a small town. Pretty much everyone I knew left my small home town.

Yes, I think this is definitely true. Cities are the economic engine of the US and basically every other country because they are simply way, way more productive than rural areas and with that comes jobs.

K1052 · May 27, 2025

Heartbreaker said:
I'm pretty sure the number one reason, by a massive margin, is employment. I grew up in a very small town in the middle of nowhere. Everyone left for education, and the employment it would enable. If they could have gone straight a good job, they would have done that, but in those days it was recognized that a degree was ticket to a career, and that career would not be in a small town. Pretty much everyone I knew left my small home town.

The person I was responding to is retired. Small town life surely can be great if you have a decent income that is not dependent on employment. Really not so great if you need a decent paying job unless one thinks poverty is enjoyable.

brycejones · May 27, 2025

Heartbreaker said:
I'm pretty sure the number one reason, by a massive margin, is employment. I grew up in a very small town in the middle of nowhere. Everyone left for education, and the employment it would enable. If they could have gone straight a good job, they would have done that, but in those days it was recognized that a degree was ticket to a career, and that career would not be in a small town. Pretty much everyone I knew left my small home town.

Good news! The administration’s economic plan (sort of) is to recreate company towns where no one leaves.

fskimospy · May 27, 2025

K1052 said:
The person I was responding to is retired. Small town life surely can be great if you have a decent income that is not dependent on employment. Really not so great if you need a decent paying job unless one thinks poverty is enjoyable.

When people think about poverty they usually think about inner city poverty because that is the largest number of people in absolute terms. If you look at poverty by both the percentage of people living in poverty as well as the depth of that poverty the absolute poorest and most destitute places in the whole country are in small, rural towns.

Pens1566 · May 27, 2025

fskimospy said:
When people think about poverty they usually think about inner city poverty because that is the largest number of people in absolute terms. If you look at poverty by both the percentage of people living in poverty as well as the depth of that poverty the absolute poorest and most destitute places in the whole country are in small, rural towns.

And that's multiplied by the lack of infrastructure/support that is inherently missing in those rural areas. This will get even worse as funding/programs continue to be slashed indiscriminantly.

K1052 · May 27, 2025

fskimospy said:
When people think about poverty they usually think about inner city poverty because that is the largest number of people in absolute terms. If you look at poverty by both the percentage of people living in poverty as well as the depth of that poverty the absolute poorest and most destitute places in the whole country are in small, rural towns.

I think urban poverty is also simply more visible since you've got more people living on the street and the media actually covers it. Small town poverty is extremely real but virtually ignored.

Greenman · May 27, 2025

Heartbreaker said:
They aren't actually doing a survey for happiness. If you check the methodology, it's just a set of somewhat arbitrary criteria, many of which will exclude smaller communities. The more of these things on the list, the higher you score.

These include GDP/person, Patents, R&D spending, Company HQs located there, advanced public transit systems, etc.. These simply don't exist in small towns in any meaningful way.

So essentially its a list of criteria, for happiness in Big Cities, so naturally small towns don't make the cut.

People could well be happier in small towns, but they don't have a lot of GDP generated, or patents, or major corporate HQs, etc... So they would fail to make the list.

It really should be titled the happiest Big City list.

That being said, in actual survey of happiness, people tend to be happier in cities than rural areas. This is actually surveying happiness, and not just scoring cities on a list of criteria:

The Degree of Urbanisation's Effect on Happiness

A new analysis reveals that people who live in cities report higher levels of happiness than those in rural areas.

news.gallup.com

But again, another caveat, a lot of that tends to be economic. People have better economic outcomes, in more dense areas with more opportunity.

But there will also be individual effects.

I'm a nature loving introvert. I hated living in Toronto (Canada's biggest city, liked Ottawa much better, and liked Fredericton even better...). Just being an introvert puts me in a minority and I'd bet bigger cities are generally preferred by extroverts, and they are the majority...

I was a little surprised when I read through the information they looked at, as a lot of it didn't seem connected to happiness at all, and I did notice that the criteria pretty much exclude smaller city's and towns. I also question the entire idea of measuring happiness.

pmv · May 27, 2025

Heartbreaker said:
I'm pretty sure the number one reason, by a massive margin, is employment. I grew up in a very small town in the middle of nowhere. Everyone left for education, and the employment it would enable. If they could have gone straight a good job, they would have done that, but in those days it was recognized that a degree was ticket to a career, and that career would not be in a small town. Pretty much everyone I knew left my small home town.

Yeah. I'm a city-dweller by default, having been born in one, but the main reason to stay is economic (it's also why my forebears moved here in the first place).

In many ways would love to live somewhere remote, rural and full of 'nature' (not that the UK countryside is particularly 'natural' anyway, though - it's almost as much a creation of humans as are the cities). But only a lucky few can survive economically in such places. It's simply not an option for anyone but a privileged minority.

BurnItDwn · May 27, 2025

I have family that lives less than an hour from Denmark. its a nice little area IMO.

Denmark, Wisconsin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Moonbeam · May 27, 2025

What do you think the US would look like regarding where people live if the creation of products required for human needs were produced by robots owned communally by the citizens, and produced in quantities sufficient to satisfy everyone’s basic needs? Can’t we at least have a guaranteed universal income?

At present only employed people or those with investment income can satisfy basic needs without living on handouts and millions feel trapped in hated jobs as a result.

I just updated my phone to IOS 18.5. I want a new OS for the country. Our 18th century OS is out of date and is too slow to run modern aps.

biostud · May 27, 2025

Greenman said:
It's just hard for me to imagine any large city as being "happy". Obviously there are people that enjoy it, but I can't understand why.

Not all cities are the same you can try watching the first 11 minutes of this to see something about Copenhagen, and the rest if you want to learn more about the danish society:

Heartbreaker · May 27, 2025

biostud said:
Not all cities are the same you can try watching the first 11 minutes of this to see something about Copenhagen, and the rest if you want to learn more about the danish society:

Who would have thought that a society that promotes cooperation, with extensive safety nets, has the happiest people.

It's kind of the opposite of the USA, with the worship of greed and selfishness.

biostud · May 27, 2025

Heartbreaker said:
Who would have thought that a society that promotes cooperation, with extensive safety nets, has the happiest people.

It's kind of the opposite of the USA, with the worship of greed and selfishness.

Yeah, it is not as much that you are guaranteed happiness, but there are a lot a worries that don't need to take a lot of your time, and when they don't take up all your time, you can spend your time to pursuing what makes you happy instead. Or not....

Moonbeam · Jun 1, 2025

This City Was Just Ranked the Happiest in the United States

The recently released 2025 Happy City Index ranks cities based on the happiness of their citizens. The highest-rated U.S. city also happens to be one of the largest, liveliest cities in the world.

www.afar.com

ondma · Jun 2, 2025

I live in Minneapolis, ranking at the bottom of the "happy" cities list is probably about right. I have to say, I much more enjoyed living here in the 1970s and 80s than I do now. I was actually proud to live in Minneapolis then. I loved the educational, cultural and recreational activities, the lakes in summer and skiing in winter. Schools were great and crime was less prevalent than it is now, no matter what the statistics say. Of course, I was much younger then, so I could take better advantage of the available activities.

Now, I view Mpls less favorably. I just view it as "OK for a large city". I dont like the cold winters anymore, property and state income taxes are way too high, cost of living in general is higher than in a more rural area, and public safety and schools have declined. Even now, I dont think the city has fully recovered from the pandemic, and more notably the George Floyd riots. Probably the only thing that I would rate "outstanding" for Minneapolis is the availability of good medical care, a very important metric now though, since my wife has had several serious medical emergencies in the last couple of years, and we are both well into our 70s. All in all, not the hellhole that the MAGA crowd portrays it as, but not up to the standards it was in previous years. Being retired now, all else equal, I would definitely move to a region with lower taxes, overall cost of living and better climate. I remain in Minneapolis because my family is still here.

Torn Mind · Jun 2, 2025

biostud said:
Why? If something is legal, which is harmful, vote for politicians who are going to change the laws for the better. I thought it was how democracy works.

Vote for local politicians is a way to get nothing done but reward some corrupt monkeys and their developers.

People think gov is their wife. It's not. It's 2 dollar prostitute in a dank motel. It's transactional relationship.

pmv · Jun 2, 2025

Heartbreaker said:
Who would have thought that a society that promotes cooperation, with extensive safety nets, has the happiest people.

It's kind of the opposite of the USA, with the worship of greed and selfishness.

Denmark seems to score near the top on three categories - happiness, economic equality....and negative attitudes about inward migration. An awkward combo, from my perspective.

Denmark’s tough stance on migrants plays well at home. In Brussels, it could be a different story.

Mette Frederiksen must convince her European Social Democrats colleagues her domestic track record is a good fit for a top job in Brussels.

www.politico.eu

Denmark: Unprecedented measures to signal to migrants they are not welcome

Denmark used to have a reputation throughout the world as a liberal haven known for welcoming foreigners. However, this image has changed drastically in the past few years, as a series of new policies have made the Nordic nation rather unattractive for migrants and even for many refugees.

www.infomigrants.net

[I mean, the first two going together fits pretty well with what I tend to believe, but the last part seems like an awkward suggestion that it's a zero-sum-game. You either have domestic equality or you have openness to migrants - both the US and UK have more of the latter but very little of the former]

biostud · Jun 2, 2025

pmv said:
Denmark seems to score near the top on three categories - happiness, economic equality....and negative attitudes about inward migration. An awkward combo, from my perspective.

Denmark’s tough stance on migrants plays well at home. In Brussels, it could be a different story.

Mette Frederiksen must convince her European Social Democrats colleagues her domestic track record is a good fit for a top job in Brussels.

www.politico.eu

Denmark: Unprecedented measures to signal to migrants they are not welcome

Denmark used to have a reputation throughout the world as a liberal haven known for welcoming foreigners. However, this image has changed drastically in the past few years, as a series of new policies have made the Nordic nation rather unattractive for migrants and even for many refugees.

www.infomigrants.net

[I mean, the first two going together fits pretty well with what I tend to believe, but the last part seems like an awkward suggestion that it's a zero-sum-game. You either have domestic equality or you have openness to migrants - both the US and UK have more of the latter but very little of the former]

I have moved on immigration myself during the last decades as there is cultural clashes which have been ignored or not handled in the best way.

The major immigration challenges has been because of immigration from the middle east where, culture, language and educational level is very different from mainstream Denmark, and while I do like personal freedom it does require some sort of assimilation to make cultures which are so different work together.

The clashes are typically in the lower income groups which where people are already struggling and then they are also involuntarily being forced to deal with the difficulties of immigration, while those of us who are in the upper social classes can more or less ignore their struggles. Or so has it been, and I find it reasonable for everyone to take these challenges seriously.

biostud · Jun 2, 2025

Torn Mind said:
Vote for local politicians is a way to get nothing done but reward some corrupt monkeys and their developers.

People think gov is their wife. It's not. It's 2 dollar prostitute in a dank motel. It's transactional relationship.

In your political system maybe. Currently one of the Teachers at the high school where I work is member of the local city council, and previously another was mayor of the City and otherwise it is a broad mix from seven different parties, with different work backgrounds.

Happiest cities to live in 2025

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord

Elite Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Elite Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer