Dr. Richard Vedder, Director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity and Professor Emeritus of Economics at Ohio University, penned an article on “Fleeing Leviathan” on March 30 at Forbes:
My good friend Wendell Cox has sent me his analysis of recent Census Bureau data on population movements in the U.S. metropolitan areas from mid-2013 to the middle of 2014.The 10 biggest percentage gainers in population (Austin, Houston, Raleigh, Orlando, San Antonio, Denver, Las Vegas, Nashville, Phoenix, and Dallas-Fort Worth) are all outside the “old” areas of the industrial Northeast and the Midwest, although, interestingly also, none are located directed on either ocean or the Gulf of Mexico. The northeast/Midwestern metro areas generally had large net outmigration of native born Americans. Some no doubt interpret these results as a continuation of the centuries long Westward Movement, while others probably note the generally milder, more desirable climates in the high growth cities. But is the climate really that especially great in Las Vegas, home of many triple digit torridly hot days in the summer, or even in Denver with its typical 60 inches of annual snowfall?
Neglected from most commentaries, is that the high growth areas are ones where government is kept small and impediments to personal freedom are likewise minimal. While only 18 percent of American states have no state income tax, some 70 percent of the top 10 growth cities were in those states (Texas with four, and Florida, Nevada, and Tennessee with one apiece). The states with high growth metro areas that do have income taxes – Arizona, Colorado, and North Carolina – all have ones with low rates – a top rate below five percent.
Less than half of the American population live in the now 25 states with “right to work” laws, where workers can choose not to join or pay dues to a labor union if she or he wants. Yet nine of the 10 highest growth metro areas are in right to work jurisdictions – Denver is the only exception. Similarly, nine of the 10 cities have Republican governors (again, Denver is the exception), probably consistent with policies of lower taxation, regulation, and government spending.
Moreover, the data show that areas where advocates of big governments have been particularly successful politically have had big losses. New York City, in a high tax state with an ultra-liberal mayor, had the biggest out-migration of any of the large (over one million population) metro areas. Chicago, in a state which had a 67 percent income tax hike under its recently dethroned liberal Democratic governor and has another liberal icon as a mayor (Rahm Emmanuel), has had its “growth…virtually stalled” notes Cox. And Los Angeles, once a magnet for Americans on the move, now has substantial out-migration – again, another increasingly leftish state.
Political observers often note that the Republicans must win greater acceptance among minority (especially Hispanic) voters to win the presidency. That is no doubt true. Yet there is another less often heard lesson: the population is moving toward states less enamored with governmental tax and spend policies, so in 2022 there should be more electoral votes in those GOP friendly jurisdictions.
My friends in the higher education community are fond of noting that people love the ambiance around universities and favor moving to university towns with their array of cultural activities, ranging from opera to quasi-professional football, not to mention the economic synergies associated with matching academic scientific prowess with commercial innovation. The four large metro areas with the greatest concentration of prestige universities and resultant intellectual firepower are probably Boston (Harvard, MIT, and many other good schools), San Francisco/Bay Region (Cal Berkeley and Stanford), New York (Columbia, NYU) and Chicago (University of Chicago, Northwestern and, stretching a bit, Notre Dame). Three of these four areas had net out migration of population in the latest year. The notion that “spending on high quality public services like superb universities will attract human capital and innovation” sounds nice, but it is not particularly supported by the evidence on domestic migration.
I think migration is the ultimate expression of human preferences. When people move, they are saying “We think life will be better elsewhere,” and usually they are taking a financial and often other risks in making the move. The strong move to liberty loving, low tax havens suggests that on balance the American population still has a good bit of the rugged individualism with a disdain for collective authority that has been present since the colonial era. The political process is imperfect, and this individualistic American spirit does not prevent the election of persons with a collectivist orientation, most notably Barack Obama. But, despite the Obama aberration, the population data do not bode well for the Democratic Party if it nominates someone dedicated to sustaining and enhancing the welfare state that Obama has fervently advanced.
Comments