Rankings are only as objective as the criteria used to create them. Choose one set of measurements, and a state can look like a paradise. Choose another, and that same state can suddenly appear to be one of the worst places in the country.
That criticism has been directed at CNBC after the outlet published its list of “America’s 10 Worst States to Live in for 2026.”
The rankings placed Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Missouri, Utah, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Texas, and Tennessee at the bottom of the list.
The reaction from many conservatives was predictable. Rather than debating the rankings themselves, they questioned the assumptions behind them.
CNBC explained that its quality-of-life score relied on measurable factors including crime rates, air quality, healthcare, and childcare costs and availability. It also incorporated categories such as the inclusiveness of state laws and reproductive rights into the final rankings.
Critics argue that while some of those metrics are objective, others reflect political values rather than universally accepted measures of quality of life. They contend that weighting those categories heavily can shape the outcome just as much as any hard data.
The political pattern also attracted attention.
Every state included in CNBC’s bottom 10 voted for President Donald Trump in the 2024 election. For critics of the rankings, that overlap was difficult to ignore.
Another set of rankings tells a very different story.
U.S. News & World Report recently identified the nation’s fastest-growing states using factors such as GDP growth, net migration, and increases in younger populations. Its top 10 included Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Idaho, North Carolina, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, and Montana.
Three of those states—Texas, Tennessee, and Utah—also appear on CNBC’s list of the country’s worst places to live.
Supporters of those states argue that population growth offers a useful measure of how Americans actually view different parts of the country. People generally relocate in search of jobs, affordability, lower taxes, or a better quality of life, and states attracting large numbers of new residents are often seen as succeeding in those areas.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis made that point directly after CNBC released its rankings.
“If Tennessee was really the worst state to live in people wouldn’t be moving there in large numbers, which they are,” DeSantis wrote on X. “Typical nonsense.”
Others responded with humor.
OutKick founder Clay Travis and former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines, both Tennessee residents, jokingly embraced CNBC’s ranking, suggesting that if liberals believed the Volunteer State was such an undesirable place to live, they should simply stay away.
At the center of the debate is a broader disagreement over what defines quality of life.
Some rankings emphasize social policy, healthcare access, environmental measures, and legal protections. Others focus more heavily on economic growth, job creation, affordability, migration patterns, and whether people are choosing to move into a state rather than leave it.
Those differing priorities often produce dramatically different results.