The Census Bureau last week released county and city populations for the last of the 50 states from the 2010 Census last week, ahead of schedule. Behind the columns of numbers are many vivid stories of how our nation has been changing — and some lessons for public policy, as well.
Geographically, our population is moving to the south and west, to the point that the center of the nation’s population has moved to Texas County, Missouri.
That sounds like the familiar story of people moving from the Snow Belt to the Sun Belt, but that’s not exactly what’s happening. Instead, the fastest growth rates in the 2000–10 decade have been in Texas, the Rocky Mountain states, and the South Atlantic states.
Advertisement
We’re familiar with the phenomenon of people moving to the West Coast. But the three Pacific Coast states — California, Oregon, and Washington — grew by 11 percent in the last decade, just 1 percent above the national average, while the South Atlantic states from Virginia through the Carolinas and Georgia to Florida grew by 17 percent.
In 2000, the South Atlantic states had 121,000 more people than the Pacific Coast states. In 2010 they had 2.8 million more.
What’s been happening is that people from the Northeast and the Midwest have been flocking to the South Atlantic states, not to retirement communities but to Tampa and Jacksonville, Atlanta and Charlotte and Raleigh, which are among the nation’s fastest-growing metro areas. The South Atlantic has been attracting smaller numbers of immigrants, as well.
Coastal California, in contrast, has had a vast inflow of immigrants and a similarly vast outflow of Americans. High housing costs, exacerbated by no-growth policies and environmental restrictions, have made modest homes unaffordable to middle-class families who don’t want to live in Spanish-speaking neighborhoods or commute 50 miles to work.
California, for the first time in its history, grew only microscopically faster than the nation as a whole (10 percent to 9.7 percent). Metro Los Angeles and San Francisco increasingly resemble Mexico City and São Paulo, with a large affluent upper class, a vast proletariat, and a huge income gap in between.
Public policy plays an important role here — one that’s especially relevant as state governments seek to cut spending and reduce the power of the public-employee unions that seek to raise spending and prevent accountability.
The lesson is that high taxes and strong public employee unions tend to stifle growth and produce a two-tier society like coastal California’s.
The eight states with no state income tax grew 18 percent in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8 percent.
The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew just 6 percent.
The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew 7 percent.
Now some people say that low population growth is desirable. The argument goes that it reduces environmental damage and prevents the visual blight of sprawl.
But states and nations with slow growth end up with aging populations and not enough people of working age to generate an economy capable of supporting them in the style to which they’ve grown accustomed.
Slow growth is nice if you’ve got a good-sized trust fund and some nice acreage in a place like Aspen. But it reduces opportunity for those who don’t start off with such advantages to move upward on the economic ladder.
The most rapid growth in 2000–10, 21 percent, was in the Rocky Mountain states and in Texas. The Rocky Mountain states tend to have low taxes, weak unions, and light regulation. Texas has no state income tax, no public-employee union bargaining, and light regulation.
Texas’s economy has diversified far beyond petroleum, with booming high-tech centers, major corporate headquarters, and thriving small businesses. It has attracted hundreds of thousands of Americans and immigrants, high-skill as well as low-skill. Its wide-open spaces made for low housing costs, which protected it against the housing bubble and bust that have slowed growth in Phoenix and Las Vegas.
The states, said Justice Brandeis, are laboratories of reform. The 2010 Census tells us whose experiment worked best. It’s the state with the same name as the county that’s the center of the nation’s population: Texas.
—Michael Barone, senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. COPYRIGHT 2011 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
We love when people move here (to Texas) when they come with three basic ideals:
1) Government should be small;
2) People should be free; and,
3) Texas is better than the place you just left. If it had been good, you would have stayed there, right?
Um, just going to sweep Texas' 27 billion dollar budget deficit under the rug? It's pretty easy to attract all that growth when the government goes broke subsidizing it....but it's ok if you are a republican.
Good article - although you overstate Texas' insulation from the housing bubble/bust. It's still happening in terms of values, but has less impact due to good employment numbers.
Lurker, you ought to catch a clue. Do some research on the Texas budget "deficit" and you will see that it will easily be remedied by conservative fiscal policy and the state's rainy day fund. That is because they have not locked themselves into untold years of ungodly spending and unsustainable giveaways to government "workers."
Billy the kid.... I'm sorry, you're right it was those durn libruls that ran Texas into the ground in the late 90s and early 2000s I mean just look at who was in charge then. It's clear now that real 'mericans like Rick Perry must now step in and eviscerate k-12 and higher education as well as Health and human services to close the enormous deficit. no stim dollars this year to paper over the budget. But hey, the world is only 5000 years old and all the book learning one needs is in the bible.
But again...nowhere in that article above was this massive hole mentioned. As I said, it's easy to grow your state when it's subsidized by the state government through artificially low taxes. Eventually the chickens come home to roost. It will be interesting to see if the magical growth continues when the effects of 35 billion in cuts in an attempt to close the massive deficit are felt.
Lurker: For a state the size of Texas, 27Billion is not that large a deficit. You may not have noticed, but there is a recession going on, thanks to the liberals in congress, and this recession is hurting everybody, even the good conservatives of Texas.
If you could get past your disdain for anyone who isn't you, and learn a few facts, you wouldn't embarras yourself anywhere near as often.
I cannot help but notice the comments on Texas' deficit.
In my opinion, the issue between Texas and say an Illinois and/or a California is, simply, how to fix the deficiency.
At the end of the day, taking money from individuals at a higher rate i.e. taxation cannot fix the problems of California or Illinois or any other state that does not curtail its spending or future entitlements.
Thus, all things being equal, if most or all states have deficits based on economic conditions, I want to be in the one with lower taxation so I can keep more of my hard earned money.
I am still the best decision maker when it comes to spending and controlling my property i.e. income.
I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as fast as I could.
As for the budget deficit the lurker mentioned first off, the $27B is a liberal canard while the real number is a still significant $15B. More importantly, that is an expected budget shortfall not a current deficit and is one that the government is required to solve rather than let it continue to get worse like it does other places.
Mark W...since it's all about size for you, Texas' deficit is larger proportionally than California's. So if Cali is doing everything wrong what does that say about Texas?
Boilermaker... to a point we agree. However, the article purports that Texas is some sort of economic marvel, which is completely meritless if one simply reviews the fact that Texas subsidized growth through artificially low taxes and has resulted in an inability to support itself. A reckoning is coming to Texas and it remains to be what cuts to basic services the residents will accept. But as the enormous deficit was not a product of librul socialist muslins trying to death panel grandma we don't hear about it in these pages. these pages pretend it's not there or, if mentioned at all, it can be fixed by firing some teachers and giving the top 1% another tax cut. Everyone wants to go to the party but no one wants to stay and clean up.
and PS...MarkW Since Obama was inaugurated---you know, AFTER 8 years of GWB, the Dow Jones has increased more than 50% -- from 8,000 to more than 12,000; the wealthiest received a massive tax cut; the top marginal tax rate was three times less than during the Eisenhower years and substantially lower than during the Reagan years. I mean, what more can you ask for from those dirty libruls?
TomS...and I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. It's a 15 billion dollar shortfall to MAINTAIN current service levels at the last bi-annual budget. Now throw in the needs of a million or so new residents from that magical growth the last two years and it goes to 28 billion--just to keep today's service levels. Plus there is a 4.3 billion dollar shortfall to even get through the end of the fiscal year(because of over estimated revenue predictions in the last budget).
Politifact and various other places do a nice summary of why the 27 billion is closer to reality than 15.
But again... why is this discussion only happening in the comments section?
Justalurker,
The "echo chamber" comment was pretty funny, coming from a liberal who uses the same talking points, same half-truths, and same arguments as all his friends on MSNBC.
The future will show whether more liberal ideas or more conservative ideas will triumph. SO FAR, we in Texas seem to be winning, but who knows, maybe some day your side will win the debate. Maybe. In the meantime, we dummies will stick it out here, to misquote an old Lance Rentzel joke.
Tanker... care to refute my position or simply wish to hurl pejoratives?
I would put my conservative credentials up against anyone's here starting with decorated service in the Marines and ending with my entrepreneurial occupation. It would of course be futile to engage in that sort of discussion because I rely on reality and facts, not obfuscation and denial.
Appreciate your comments on the issue and I do not necessarily disagree with you concerning "a reckoning coming to Texas." That may or may not be, only time will tell. To reiterate, it is the political and economic philosopy the state uses to deal with the deficit that is the difference between "red" and "blue" states.
At the end of the day, most limited government conservatives, such as the many who occupy the Lone Star State, want the basic services government should provide e.g. protection of property, not the all encompassing nanny state entitlements.
The ideal of not needing or wanting the nanny state to control all or most aspects of our invidual lives is one of independence. Like I said, I am still the best decision maker when it comes to my property and if I am not, then it is my mistake and I better learn from it.
But hey, that is why we vote and have discussions such as these. If you or anyone else wants to pay higher taxes because you want more services and thus the government to control more aspects of life, then go to a Illinois or a California, if not go to a low tax, limited government state such as Texas.
Boilermaker... I think you and I differ on the margins. My point is simply Texas has subsidized it's growth by keeping taxes at unsustainable levels. At some point you have to pay for schools, roads, cops and all the other civil servants and public services that make a state go and--per the article-- attracted a ton of new residents. That is different than saying Texas should be a nanny state. Texas is about as far from a nanny state as one can get and yet still finds itself in a nanny state sized hole because it refuses to align revenue with it's spending requirements. Firing teachers is not going to solve the budget problem when you have 80,000 new students you didn't have at the last biannual budget.
Justalurker,
1) I say liberal, that's perjorative. You say "librul", "'mericans", "all book learning is in the Bible" in snarky fashion and that is relying on reality and facts?
2) Nothing in USMC service(decorated or not) or how you earn your living is a solid indicator of conservative or liberal persuasion. Talking about eviscerating K-12/higher ed/HHS, "tax cuts for the rich", "GWB was a dunce", "top marginal tax rates are better than Reagan/Ike", etc. certainly sounds like liberal speak, since a conservative would say none of those half truths. If I misjudged you, my apologies and I welcome a fellow conservative to NRO.
3) Texas has a big deficit. Too much spending, not enough income. Your point is well taken. I question the various levels and do not agree with the $27B, much less the $35B. Agenda seems to drive the difference in the different figures. Adding $12B or more to adjust for the larger population growth is hard to defend.
I hope this demonstrates my interest in a conversation based on facts and well-considered opinions.
First, you keep saying that Texas has "subsidized" its growth through low taxes. That's a non-sequitur and it makes you sound pretty foolish.
The strict definition of "subsidy" is a monetary assistance granted by the government to group or activity to promte some cause (usually a generic common good argument). Keeping taxes low to attract skilled workers and incentivize business development is NOT a subsidy, but rather a governance philosopy. So stop using the word incorrectly.
Second, as another commentor pointed out below (and you completely ignored), Texas has more than enough cash on hand in its rainy-day fund to plug the deficit hole. Your argument that "artificially low taxes and has resulted in an inability [of Texas] to support itself" is baseless. You see, all those pro-growth "subsidies" you're railing against actually brought in enormous revenue over the past decade from immigration inflow, new business investments, and industry expansion into areas such as biotech and nanotech (Dr. Smalley of my alma mater Rice University was a pioneer in this field). Coincidentally, that's the very subject of Mr. Barone's article.
Don't get me wrong, the deficit is a big problem. But it's not anywhere close to the "reckoning" you purport it to be, because Texas' frugality has put it in the driver's seat of this problem, rather than strapped into the passenger seat and praying for a miracle like our friends up north and out west. There will be layoffs. There will be cuts in government. There will be much grinding and knashing of teeth from the usual suspects. But, Texas has been down this road before and, amazingly, the sky hasn't fallen in on us. In fact, Texas continues to grow.
You may believe that cuts to education and other services mean the end of gravy train. You may even be right. But I think after all the sturm and drang of the budget debate is over, Texas will be just fine. I think this because, again, we've made cuts like this before and the world didn't end.
Finally, spare me and everyone else the "my team is better than yours" hogwash. Cut out the "libruls" and "'Merican" labels in your screeds. This is NRO; up your game.
