Most of what makes a state livable is not due to government. It is climate, natural resources, strategic location, immigration, etc. New York got big and wealthy because of its great harbor and location on the hudson river made it a great port to trade with Europe. Los Angeles grew because of its climate is great for shooting movies and it is by a great port to trade with Asia. Boston is rich because of its location and because Harvard and MIT are located there. Nothing to do with the governments. The south was sparsely populated for much of its history due to malaria being a danger.
However, if you look at the US in the modern era you can see that the more conservative states are thriving at the expense of the liberal states. In 1950 population between the northeast, midwest, and south was about equal. Now the south has as much population as the northeast and midwest combined. Since 1970 the population of Texas has gone up by almost 16 million while the population of New York has gone up less than 2 million.
In the fifty years prior to 1990 over 12 million people moved to California. In 1992 California voted Democrat in the presidential election and has gone that way in every election since. Since 1990 California has lost almost 3.5 million people to other states.
What happened to Detroit was a microcosm of what is happening all around the country. In 1960 Detroit was the richest city in America. In 1962 a democrat was elected and that party was been in power ever since. Now Detroit has the one of the highest tax rates in the country, one of the highest crime rates, some of the worst schools, and has lost over 900,000 people out of its 1960 population of 1.8 million. The city is now hugely in debt and bankrupt.
This is the most extreme example but it is far from isolated. Since 2000 Massachusetts has lost 5% of its population to other states.
Most of the migration is due to economic opportunity and not climate since the state with the best climate, California, has been hemorraghing people and states with horrible climates like Texas and North Dakota have been growing by leaps and bounds.
This has been the trend for the past 50 years, states that had great legacies of rich economies, good universities, and quality infrastructure have been in a downward spiral due to tax and spend liberalism. While states that used to be poor and backward have been surging, attracting huge numbers of dissatisfied blue staters.
Nice case of assigning the cause you prefer to the effect you see. You might as well say that California started losing population because they changed the actor playing Darrin on Bewitched.
Big City Liberal here (well, mid-sized city). What really bothers me is that the redder the state, the more likely it is that the state is a net taker instead of contributer when it comes to taxes. If you look at the states that take more than they put in to the common coffers, they are almost always red states.
What’s really annoying is we tried to play nice and support your regressive lifestyles by the sweat of our labor, but that wasn’t enough for you all. You had to start trying to tell us who to marry and what god to worship and had the temerity to talk about small government, all the while sucking at Uncle Sam’s tit with your pork greasy lips.
A lot depends on what kind of jobs you’re up for; totally unskilled and uneducated people probably don’t have much going for them in that regard- they’re probably limited to the same things you see illegal immigrants doing- unskilled construction work, landscaping and kitchen work.
Texas has a pretty robust blue-collar sector; I imagine that’s part of the reason we’re doing as well as we are. My suspicion is that there are jobs out there- they may not be the ones you want to do, but there are jobs out there for just about everyone who wants one around here.
Texas is only really hot in the summer. Most of the year it’s pleasant enough to sit around without sweating, and most of the state never gets very cold. Hell, my father grows citrus trees in his back yard in Houston, and hasn’t had any freeze for the past decade.
Love this post.
It is not just California. Since 2000 the states losing the most population to internal migration have been New York, California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut. So a red state would have to be hit with a hurricane and have its largest city flooded to be as bad as a blue state to live in.
The states gaining the most from internal migration during the same time were Florida, Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington. The only way for a blue state to be as good at attracting people to live in as a red state is to have the foresight to have Bill Gates born in your state.
If the least educated blue staters moved to the red states it would boost the average intelligence of both places.
In all seriousness, what is often in play is demographics. The nation is aging. Old folks don’t like cold weather. Simple as that.
Yes they do, and as others have already pointed out, they are by no means crazy or stupid to do so. The rural lifestyle really does have a lot of advantages over the urban, though which anyone actually prefers will depend a lot on their temperament and what they have grown up accustomed to.
I think that the fact that many big-city liberals seem to be incapable of understanding that goes a long way toward accounting for the Tea Partiers’ rage, and the actual irrationality about many aspects of policy that this rage leads them into.
Cite?
Hint: It’s not that simple. If it were, you wouldn’t be seeing a massive job shift to the South by younger, working people.
This is not really true. Texas and Utah are very red state that pay more in than they take out. California, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts all pay less than they take out. Overall the trend is for red states to take more. This is because red states are mostly states that used to be poor and are getting richer, while blue states are states that used to be rich and are getting poorer. If trends continue in twenty years those of us in red states will be subsidizing your lattes and arugula. It seems disengenous to vote for high benefits and then when you get your way to whine about it. If you don’t want to subsidize other people, an easy way to do so would be stop voting to subsidize other people.
We all know retirees that have gone to Florida. Many younger workers are being siphoned off to work in the energy industry as witnessed by the boom in ND caused by spikes in oil prices . Just as Moses led the Jews to the one place in the Middle East without oil, progressives have found that they live in states with little in the way of oil reserves. Also, the economic slump has forced many to find work where they can, and go to states with weak unions and take whatever the companies feel like giving them.
So you agree. It isn’t “simple as that”.
Absoutely. Retirees are but one part of the puzzle. I was mistaken with the simple as that comment.
Oh, okay. Damn civil of you.
Since 1980, those in the 25-44 age bracket are three times as likely to move between states as those in the 65 plus bracket. According to census data 3% of households in the younger demographic moved each year, while only .9% of those in the retirement age bracket moved.
The economic slump has considerably slowed internal migration as it is harder to sell a house and move than it was before the slump.
Welfare for the old is another subsidy to the red states. Mostly because people either move there when retired due to low taxes (reasons for which are given above), and also in the midwest because the young are moving out.
I’m pretty sure Florida would be a lot bluer than it is if so many hadn’t retired here. Due to the conservatism of retirees in part, but also because the huge social security payload (combined with soaking the tourists) means that taxes can stay very low. Except in the rural center we don’t have as many social conservatives here: on the coasts and the I-4 corridor it tends to be low-government libertarian types, many of which probably get a false idea of how easy it is to run a government from living in Florida.
But it’s the liberal folks who want to federalize everything*, no? So, who is to blame for that situation?
*not literally, but close enough for, well, government work!
Real Big City (4th largest in the country) Liberal here. If you look at a non-idiotic mapof the 2012 election you’ll see that the Red State/Blue State dichotomy is simplistic–it’s only meaningful for counting Electoral Votes. Please note that our cities tend Blue, as do the sparsely settled Border counties.
Texas Democrats certainly have our work cut out for us. We’ll gladly support Wendy Davis for Governor, even though it’s been a long time since Anne Richardson held the office. Joaquin Castro has been rumored to have an eye on the loathsome Ted Cruz’s Senate seat, although that’s years away. His twin brother Julian is doing well as mayor of San Antonio & may have a bigger future, too.
In the meantime, we’ve got a lovely autumn & a mild winter coming after our famously hellish summer. My mayor, US Rep, State Senator & State Rep are all Democrats; Mayor Parker is also a lesbian.
The state has vegetarians, vegans, observant Jews & a growing Muslim population. But, yes, lots of us do eat pork. Haven’t you ever tried carnitas?
To be honest, I’m not sure I completely understand the source of Tea Party rage. Do they reserve the same rage for Wall Street types as they do for Big Government?
Oil reserves are mostly in Alaska, Texas, the Dakotas, and off shore. Off Shore oil is mostly in the Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and Southern California. California has more off shore oil accessible than Texas does on shore. It also has as much oil on shore than the entire eastern seaboard has off shore. Most of the off shore oil on the Atlantic seaboard is off New England and New Jersey.
Except for Alaska, Texas, and North Dakota energy is a small part of the picture. As California shows, even states rich in energy resources can still fail if the government tries hard enough.