These states are America's worst for quality of life in 2025
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that for every 100 job openings, only 92 workers are available to fill them. That means the nation is short about 1 million workers. To try and meet the demand, companies are seeking locations that are attractive to prospective employees. That makes quality of life a business imperative.
Each year, CNBC's annual rankings of state business climates — America's Top States for Business —considers Quality of Life among ten categories of competitiveness. Under this year's methodology, the category makes up 10.6% of a state's overall score. We consider factors like crime, health care, air quality, and the price and availability of child care. We also consider inclusiveness of state laws, such as legal protections against discrimination. And with data showing younger workers considering reproductive rights in their choice of where they are willing to live, we factor those state laws in our rankings as well.
Some states are particularly welcoming to workers. These are not those states. They are the states with America's worst quality of life in 2025.
Just like in the rest of the country, violent crime in Oklahoma has been trending gradually lower in recent years. But at roughly 418 offenses per 100,000 people in 2023, the Sooner State's violent crime rate is the 14th highest in the country, according to FBI statistics. Of particular concern is a sharp rise in domestic violence homicides, which State Attorney General Gentner Drummond recently called an "epidemic."
"We must continue strengthening our statewide efforts to hold abusers accountable and to provide protection and support for victims," Drummond said in a statement in February.
Oklahoma offers limited protections against discrimination, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and it has one of the nation's strictest abortion bans.
2025 Quality of Life Score: 97 out of 265 points (Top States Grade: D-)
Strengths: Child Care, Air Quality
Weaknesses: Crime, Health, Reproductive Rights
Life can be rough in the Natural State, which has the sixth-highest percentage of adults in frequent mental distress, according to the United Health Foundation. Nearly 19% of Arkansas households are food insecure. That's the highest rate in the country. One in five Arkansans, and one in six Arkansas children, face hunger.
"It's clear that our state is in critical need of comprehensive solutions to address these sobering statistics and ensure that all Arkansans have access to sufficient and nutritious food," said Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who issued an executive order last fall directing state agencies to address the problem.
She has also signed legislation providing free breakfast for public school students regardless of their family's income.
The violent crime rate in Arkansas is the fourth highest in the country, and the state has among America's most restrictive voting laws.
2025 Quality of Life Score: 95 out of 265 Points (Top States Grade: D-)
Strengths: Child Care, Air Quality
Weaknesses: Health, Crime, Inclusiveness
The Heart of Dixie might pride itself on Southern hospitality, but its state laws suggest that the hospitality does not extend to everyone.
Alabama is one of just five states with no law protecting non-disabled people against discrimination in public accommodations, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
And in February, Gov. Kay Ivey signed the "What is a Woman Act," defining a person's gender based on the sex organs they were born with.
"If the Good Lord made you a boy, you're a boy," said Ivey. "And if he made you a girl, you're a girl."
Opponents said the law will be used to justify widespread discrimination against transgender people.
The state eschews most worker protections, according to Oxfam America, which ranks Alabama 49th on its annual Best States to Work scorecard.
2025 Quality of Life Score: 92 out of 265 Points (Top States Grade: F)
Strengths: Air Quality, Child Care
Weaknesses: Inclusiveness, Worker Protections
While the overall violent crime rate in Georgia is roughly in line with the national average, it has one of the highest homicide rates in the country.
That is but one factor in an overall unhealthy environment in The Peach State. More than 11% of the population lacks health insurance, the third-highest rate in the country. The state ranks 40th for primary care doctors per capita, and 48th for mental health providers, according to the United Health Foundation.
The Commonwealth Fund ranks Georgia 45th in its latest Scorecard on State Health System Performance, which grades the states on health care access, prevention and treatment, efficiency, healthy lives, and health disparities.
Georgia is another one of the five states with no anti-discrimination protections for non-disabled people, and it offers few protections for workers beyond a guarantee of equal pay based on race and gender.
2025 Quality of Life Score: 89 out of 265 Points (Top States Grade: F)
Strength: Child Care
Weaknesses: Worker Protections, Health, Inclusiveness
At around 521 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2023, the Pelican State has America's fifth-highest crime rate. And those statistics predate this year's New Year's Day attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, where a man drove a pickup truck into a crowd of revelers, killing 14.
Louisiana also has among the nation's strictest abortion bans, according to the Guttmacher Institute, banning the procedure in all except very limited circumstances.
The state passed eight new voting laws last year that the Brennan Center for Justice deems "restrictive," including multiple crackdowns on absentee voting.
2025 Quality of Life Score: 87 out of 265 Points (Top States Grade: F)
Strengths: Child Care, Air Quality
Weaknesses: Crime, Inclusiveness, Reproductive Rights
The Beehive State derives its nickname from the industriousness of its workforce. But those workers get few protections in exchange for their hard labor.
Even as the cost of living rises in fast-growing parts of the state like Silicon Slopes outside Salt Lake City, the state has kept the minimum wage at the federal rate of $7.25 an hour. And unlike in many states, Utah prohibits local governments setting their minimum wages any higher.
With an average household size roughly 17% higher than the national average, according to Census data, Utah families have a lot of children to care for. And the state is doing poorly in meeting their needs. Utah ranks 48th in licensed child care centers per capita, according to Child Care Aware of America, which also says that a married Utah couple with a median income can expect to spend about 12% of it on child care.
2025 Quality of Life Score: 87 out of 265 Points (Top States Grade: F)
Strength: Crime Rate
Weaknesses: Child Care, Worker Protections, Air Quality
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines affordable child care as costing no more than 7% of a household's income. In Indiana, it costs twice that for a two-parent household. For a single parent, it can cost a stunning 46%.
Business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have identified child care as one of the major factors in getting people back into the workforce. It is also a major quality of life consideration for young families, and it is one of the areas where Indiana falls short. But it is not the only one.
Air quality is poor, according to data from the American Lung Association and First Street Foundation, with high levels of ozone and particulate matter. Indiana also has a strict abortion ban and limited anti-discrimination protections.
2025 Quality of Life Score: 73 out of 265 Points (Top States Grade: F)
Strength: Crime Rate
Weaknesses: Child Care, Reproductive Rights, Inclusiveness, Air Quality
The Lone Star State is consistently a top destination for skilled workers — they flock to Texas for its robust economy and one of the best job markets in the nation. But that does not mean that the quality of life there isn't lacking.
Despite world-class institutions like the Texas Medical Center and the MD Anderson Cancer Center, access to care for the average Texan is poor. According to the United Health Foundation, Texas has the nation's lowest number of primary care doctors per capita, the second-lowest number of mental health providers, and it consistently has the highest rate of people without health insurance.
The state has among America's strictest abortion bans, and crime is on the high side.
2025 Quality of Life Score: 72 out of 265 Points (Top States Grade: F)
Strengths: Child Care, Air Quality
Weaknesses: Health Care, Reproductive Rights, Worker Protections, Crime
Governor Bill Lee's 2025-26 budget, signed into law this spring, includes $175 million in grants to local communities to help them fight crime. By the numbers, that money is badly needed in the Volunteer State. Tennessee has America's third-highest violent crime rate, according to FBI statistics, making it a particularly dangerous place to live, and CNBC's bottom state for Quality of Life in 2025.
Tennessee has also been at the forefront of legislation limiting the rights of its LGBTQ+ population, beginning as far back as 2015. The state was among the earliest to codify a person's gender based on their anatomy, passing its law in 2023.
State laws guarantee equal pay and bar sexual harassment. But beyond that, there are few protections for workers in Tennessee.
2025 Quality of Life Score: 61 out of 265 Points (Top States Grade: F)
Strength: Air Quality
Weaknesses: Crime Rate, Inclusiveness, Worker Protections
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
8 minutes ago
- New York Post
Anti-Trump DA Alvin Bragg sure acts like he has something to hide — we're suing to find out
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg holds potentially hundreds of communications appearing to link his office to senior Biden administration officials and other political actors in connection with his unprecedented criminal prosecution of then-former President Donald Trump. We've asked for those records, and he's not turning them loose. So we're taking him to court. Last September, America First Policy Institute launched a formal investigation into the people and motivations behind Bragg's decision to prosecute Trump. Advertisement Our effort had a simple goal: figuring out whether Bragg's case was a routine legal probe — or lawfare, a politically engineered hit job orchestrated to influence the 2024 election. The charges brought against Trump were extraordinary. Never before has a question of federal campaign-finance law — which the FEC declined to pursue, no less — been morphed into a state-level misdemeanor, already time-barred under New York law, then Frankensteined into a felony by alleging it was committed to conceal some other crime never defined by the prosecution, nor unanimously agreed upon by jury. Advertisement Confusing? That's the point. Bragg's office thrives on obfuscation. Public records should be accessible. Criminal prosecutions should be transparent. This case was neither — and still isn't. We were drawn to investigate because we saw just too many coincidences to ignore. Michael Colangelo, a top DOJ official with a focus on white-collar crime, left his Biden administration post to join Bragg's office just months before Trump was indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Advertisement Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over Bragg's prosecution, had a history of political donations to Biden and to political groups opposed to Trump, the defendant before him. He was officially 'cautioned' on that by the state ethics board. Merchan's daughter Loren worked on Kamala Harris' 2020 campaign and during Trump's trial served as president of Authentic Campaigns, a progressive political consulting firm hired by the Biden-Harris ticket. It all paints a curious picture: A DA who campaigned on a promise to take down Trump, aided by a Biden DOJ veteran, bringing legally contorted charges before a judge with clear partisan connections. Advertisement If this wasn't coordinated, it's one lucky political pile-up. The American people deserve answers. In pursuit of those answers, and in defense of the public's right to know, AFPI submitted a request to Bragg's office under New York's Freedom of Information Law in September 2024. We sought any records that could shed light on whether political influence or coordination played a role in Bragg's decision-making. Our request was specific, lawfully submitted and directly tied to one of the most consequential legal proceedings in modern American history. Ten months later, no records have been produced. None. Though they apparently exist. Instead of providing transparency, the DA's office has engaged in delay, double-talk and silence. We've asked for a list of responsive documents. They won't give one. Advertisement We've asked which of our specific requests the withheld documents pertain to. They won't say. We know, based on our investigation and his office's limited correspondence with us, that the DA possesses hundreds of records of communications with or about political agents who should have had no influence in a 'routine' prosecution, like Lauren Merchan's Authentic Campaigns. Bragg refuses to explain why the public isn't entitled to see them. There is no legal justification for this blackout. No privilege excuses total stonewalling. Advertisement There is only evasion. It's been nearly a year. The records exist, and the DA cannot explain why they remain secret. That alone should raise alarms. AFPI has now turned to the courts to compel compliance. The law does not permit selective transparency by the Manhattan DA. It does not allow politically sensitive cases to be shielded from scrutiny. Advertisement As the New York Legislature declared when it passed the state's open-records law in 1977, 'The people's right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents leading to determinations is basic to our society.' We agree. Advertisement That's why on July 17, AFPI filed its petition in New York County Superior Court requesting that Bragg's records, whatever they may reveal, be released to the public. The law demands openness, and we intend to see it enforced. Jessica Steinmann is executive general counsel and Jack Casali is an attorney at the Center for Litigation at the America First Policy Institute
Axios
8 minutes ago
- Axios
Salt Lake City named USDA hub in federal reshuffling
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is moving most of its employees from Washington, D.C., to five hubs, including Salt Lake City. Why it matters: Shifting operations to Utah's capital could give the state's farmers and ranchers more access to federal officials — and potentially shape policies that better serve the Mountain West. The big picture: The move, announced Thursday by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, will close nearly all USDA offices in D.C. It is part of the Trump administration's effort to cut costs and consolidate the federal government. The other agriculture hubs include: Raleigh, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Indianapolis; and Fort Collins, Colorado. Despite the relocation, USDA has maintained that its critical functions "will continue uninterrupted," according to a news release. Reality check: While Utah's cost of living is lower than D.C.'s, it still has one of the nation's most expensive housing markets. Salt Lake City's federal salary locality rate is about 17%. Zoom in: Utah's farmland totaled about 10.5 million acres in 2023 — one-fifth of the state's total land area, according to the University of Utah's Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Utah ranks 25th among U.S. states for total farmland. What they're saying: Utah Republican leaders, including Gov. Spencer Cox and U.S. Sen. John Curtis, celebrated Rollins' Thursday announcement. "The USDA's decision to refocus on its core mission, supporting farmers, families, and rural communities, is long overdue," Curtis posted on X. "Utahns are the best at advocating for and advancing American agriculture." The other side: U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called the decision a "half-baked proposal," warning it could affect the USDA's "ability to provide critical services for Americans" and farmers.
17 minutes ago
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
BOSTON -- A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was 'thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.' "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.' Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. 'That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,' the judge wrote. 'In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.' Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
