Yeah, but it’s easier to use glib catchphrases like “correlation not causation,” than to actually argue from your side. As Ahnuld famously said, it’s tempting to “kick the can down the alley.”
Well not only did Prop 13 cap property taxes, it made it virtually impossible to raise other taxes which could surely be done without driving old people out of their homes. In any event this is not a debate about Prop 13. My point is that California is not a good example of tax-and-spend. It's budget system is defined by one of the biggest successes of the anti-tax movement in US history. If you want to compare Texas to a classic tax-and-spend state Massachusetts would be a better example and I doubt Texas would come out ahead.The listof US states by per capita income makes for interesting reading. Of the top 10 states, 8 are blue states. The other two are Virginia which is trending blue and Alaska which is an oil-rich anomaly. Of the bottom ten states, 9 are red (NM is the exception). If red states have developed some kind of economic success formula it’s clearly not visible in the per capita income numbers.
The list may also suggest a reason for migration patterns. Clearly poorer states will tend to have lower costs and wages. So as mentioned earlier it makes sense for retirees to move there. It also may make sense for some firms to move jobs there to take advantage of the lower costs. Neither implies some kind of superior model; it’s simply a process of regional convergence.
Wrong. They have a negative “net internal migration” from 2000-2007 according to the article’s census link. Talk about cherry picking stats. The actual population influx was 2,681,560 during this period. The actual migration influx was 583,434.
So says the article. Even if this is true (how do you define lowest government size?), the correlation is not that amazing since 23 states (plus DC) had negative net internal migration. If what you say is true, why aren’t more people moving to Wyoming and Alaska? Alaska had a negative net migration, despite have the best tax rates in the country.
Well let’s look at two cites to see how much water this claims holds.
Census Data
Tax Data (from The Tax Foundation)
Since the Census data goes from 2000-2007, and the Tax data is by year, let’s just look at one year during this period covered (2004), along with the net internal migration.
The 17 states with the lowest tax burden were (in order): Alaska (−5,125), Wyoming (9,601), Nevada (364,683), S. Dakota (2,516), New Hampshire (35,682), Tennessee (217,129), Florida (1,286,175), Texas (582,078), Alabama (59,843), Montana (30,446), Louisiana (−335,216), Arizona (655,354), N. Dakota (−19,531), Indiana (−16,431), Washington (155,491), New Mexico (24,955), and S. Carolina (228,133). Assuming you go by the tax burden being indicative of government size, the stat in the article is not true for 2004.
On the other side, the 17 states with the highest tax burden were (in order): New York (−1,449,169), Connecticut (−78,064), New Jersey (−377,159), Washington DC (−43,431), Rhode Island (−30,249), Maine (31,390), Wisconsin (−5,618), California (−1,223,992), Maryland (−54,415), Nebraska (−36,717), Idaho (100,415), Ohio (−301,848), Utah (30,709), Pennsylvania (−44,416) , Hawaii (−20,583), Kansas (−67,315), and Vermont (−379). That part seems to fit.
More importantly, when you look at the total net migration (international and internal), only 14 states (plus DC) had negative numbers: Alaska, DC, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mass., Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, NJ, NY, ND, Ohio, and Rhode Island. You can find 2 states on the first list, and 6 on the latter. The other six are in the middle. When you just look at the raw population numbers, only 2 states shrunk during that time period: North Dakota and Louisiana. So all of those other states had higher populations in 2007, than they did in 2000. If you have the inclination, you can run a regression to see how they correlate, but I doubt it would overlap too much. The general trend seems to be people moving away from condensed urban areas (NJ, NY, DC, CA, RI, MA) to more rural, up and coming areas (particularly in the South and Southwest).
Regardless, I’m sure there are numbers that validate the op-ed’s numbers, but the problem is that you both are only looking at the ones that validate your preconceived notion that big government is bad. I could have just as easily said California is a model situation since it accounted for 13.3% of US population growth from 2000-2007. All depends on whether you look at the numbers to justify your conclusion or if you draw your conclusions based on the numbers.
It’s a race to the bottom in many cases. Companies locate where labor is cheap, labor laws are lax, and unions are rare. Hell, we could say China is better than Texas because more manufacturing is moving there. The red states are the US equivalent of the third world.
And I’d be interested in how many are new hires. I think a lot of the correlation could be explained by corporations choosing the cheapest states to operate in while their employees naturally follow.
And I generally agree with Sam, I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. It is entirely possible that people prefer to live in less tax/less service states. I just don’t think this evidence on its own shows that.
Interesting article in Time last week.
Yes convergence happens internationally as well and poor countries with the basics in place will grow faster than rich countries. Mind you, on the whole it’s a positive process which allows poor countries to catch up with the rich. Convergence in the US is also broadly a positive force but it isn’t evidence of a superior economic model. If the red states catch up with the blue states and then continue to grow faster then we can talk.
I’ve lived in both places. I liked both places.
Well, let’s compare California to New York, then. This articleis about a report from a conserative think tank which shows that New York is losing its high income residents to other states. One and a half million people left from to 2000 to 2008, most of them from the upper income brackets, which substantially reduced the state’s tax revenues. There was still a two per cent increase in population, mainly because of an influx of more than eight hundred thousand immigrants. In other words an affluent white population is being displaced by poorer non-white populations.
Which raises a question about California. How many of those leaving California are whites who don’t want to live where whites are the minority?
I’ve said before, taxes are a red herring. People go to where the jobs and housing are. Most people don’t make major life decisions based on tax rates.
The tax rates, however, may be a critical factor in determining where the jobs and housing are.
His point (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is NOT necessarily about the “moving”. It points more to the financial aspects of the piece.
The federal government robs Peter to pay Paul. That creates an incentive to move from Peterville to Paulistan.
Let’s get some perspective on states and how many people are moving out. Check dis out.
California lost 1.8% of its population, and Wyoming lost 1.3%. Minnesota and Nebraska lost pretty much identical numbers. Alaska barely has anyone left, and they pay people to live there. Hippie Oregon is in the top 6 of states gaining population. Washington State grew at the same rate as Texas.
If you look over to the “magnet and sticky states,” you’ll see that Texas retains 76% of the people who were born there. California ranks fourth on that list of “sticky” states with 69%. Small government states like Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho are places where people born there are most likely to leave.
What does this all mean?
Nothing.
My point was to correct a factual error in the OP. Sorry if that was somehow unclear.
If he hadn’t made the point, I would have. You made it sound like the L.A. Times newspaper itself was editorializing that California was “not worth it” – that it was the paper’s official position. And that would have been shocking. But if some random writer says so, well so what.
I don’t know how significant that all is, because New York City supposedly has had an increase in wealthy immigration. Upstate certainly has people leaving but I am not sure how that applies to the city.
NO! You must choose between Good and Evil!
One is clearly wrong and one is clearly right.
The article says they are moving to Florida (obviously for the weather) and nearby blue states like Connecticut and Pennsylvania. These are clearly not havens of conservative ideology so it’s not particularly relevant to the argument made in this thread.
And frankly I don’t think racializing this argument helps your side.