10 Times Shreveport Was Rated Poorly In a WalletHub Study
Shreveport can be really hard on itself. I mean, really hard on itself. Little issues, that might cause a small stir in some cities, become Earth shattering game changers in Shreveport. Partially due to conditioning, and partially due to cynicism.
Perhaps one is caused by the other.
This issue might also play a factor in creating a vicious cycle. Shreveport does something wrong, it hates itself, it eats more cake.
So it's not really a shock to anyone when a story comes out that paints Shreveport in a negative light. In fact, it feeds into this systemic issue in a lot of corners. People don't get upset and say "that's not our Shreveport" they usually go "yup, that sounds about right".
I wish it wasn't this way. I've said before, I wish Shreveport would adopt a more "Shreveport vs. Everybody" attitude, but I think we're passed that point. I will still push for that, I will still suggest that's the way we should all feel. But when we read stories like the following, and they go "OH YEAH, THAT'S US", we'll be where we are.
Here is a quick list of 10 times WalletHub has caught Shreveport in a bad spot:
Not that this one is particularly bad. Shreveport comes in at #20 on this list, behind New Orleans and Baton Rouge, so it's not even the worst in the state of Louisiana. But #20 of 150 isn't great either. WalletHub describes their criteria:
"Our data set ranges from “violent crimes per capita” to “excessive drinking” to “potential cheaters.” Scroll down to see the baddest of the bad cities, expert recommendations for overcoming humanity’s devilish nature and a full description of how we ranked the cities."
Not being a big "foodie" city doesn't hurt my feelings, and actually, Shreveport is the 28th Worst Foodie City, so not super horrible. But when we also make (Spoiler alert) the Fattest City list, you'd expect a better result here.
Out of all of these, this might be the most depressing. Shreveport makes the Top 25 of the Neediest. Here's how Wallet Hub put this one together:
"WalletHub’s analysts compared the 150 most populated U.S. cities based on 21 key indicators of economic disadvantage, such as child poverty, food insecurity and uninsured rates."
Here comes a Top 10 finish, for all the wrong reasons. Shreveport ranked inside WalletHub's Top 10 Worst Places To Start a Career. Their metrics on this one were as follows:
"WalletHub’s data team compared the relative market strength and overall livability of the 150 largest U.S. cities to help recent college graduates find the best cradles for their burgeoning careers. We examined each city based on 23 key metrics that range from the availability of entry-level jobs to monthly average starting salary to workforce diversity."
Has the list so far made you a little sad? Well, that seems about right. Shreveport hits #143 of 150 on the Happiest Cities list. Which makes it another Top 10 finish on the wrong side in the study. Here's how WalletHub got to their findings:
"As this study aims to illustrate, we can either attain or merely aspire to a happy life, depending on where we choose to live. WalletHub’s data team drew upon the various findings of positive-psychology research in order to determine which among 150 of the largest U.S. cities is home to the happiest people in America. We examined each city based on 30 key indicators of happiness, ranging from depression rate to income-growth rate to average leisure time spent per day."
This is another really sad one. I don't think anyone sets out to make it hard for people with disabilities. But Shreveport ended up at #144 out of 150 on WalletHub's list. Here's how WalletHub came to this result:
"With the physical and economic challenges of managing a disability in mind, WalletHub’s analysts compared the 150 most populated cities across 28 key indicators of disability-friendliness. Our data set ranges from physicians per capita to rate of workers with disabilities to park accessibility."
If you start to notice, Shreveport's spots on the list keeps trending down the further we get on this list. For families, Shreveport hits #147 out of 150 on this list. Here's WalletHub's standards:
"With that in mind, WalletHub’s analysts compared the 150 most populated U.S. cities based on 41 key metrics that take into account essential family dynamics, such as the cost of housing, the quality of local school and health-care systems, and the opportunities for fun and recreation. While obviously not perfect — given the intrinsic value of each city, personal preferences and the limitations of publicly available data — our findings will hopefully give prospective movers a sense of the areas that offer the greatest opportunity to achieve WalletFitness™and, of course, live a long and happy life."
So we break the trend of where Shreveport lands on the list, only because of the seriousness of this topic. Shreveport is stressed. Absolutely. I personally feel it. Shreveport is the 10th Most Stressed City based on WalletHub's metrics:
"To determine the cities where Americans cope best, WalletHub’s analysts compared 150 cities across 30 key metrics. Our data set ranges from average weekly work hours to debt load to divorce and suicide rates."
Bossier ends up getting name-checked here. Shreveport and Bossier get put together on this one, and it's not the best spot for that to happen. Shreveport and Bossier end up at #5 as one of the Fattest Cities in America. Here's how WalletHub rated these cities:
"To identify them, WalletHub’s analysts compared 100 of the most populated U.S. metro areas across 17 key indicators of weight-related problems. Our data set ranges from share of physically inactive adults to projected obesity rates by 2030 to healthy-food access."
You might have caught this one a couple weeks ago. Shreveport didn't end up just in the Top 10, or the Top 5, Shreveport landed at #1. Shreveport is the SLOWEST Growing City in America. Here's how WalletHub ended up with that:
"To determine where the fastest local economic growth has occurred in the U.S., WalletHub’s analysts compared 515 cities of varying population sizes based on 15 key measures of both growth and decline over a period of seven years. Our data set ranges from population growth to unemployment rate decrease to growth in regional GDP per capita."