Jonah, that’s a very interesting post. We’ve seen, over the past 50 years, Americans moving en masse to lift onerous tax burdens from themselves — from high-tax states like New York to extremely low tax states in the Southwest in particular. That’s one of the reasons those places have become more resolutely Republican and why states like New York are becoming more resolutely Democratic — because the constituency that is most directly affected by high taxes skedaddles, leaving those who like them freer to levy them. And drive still more people and businesses away.

However, some things are going to happen over the next 50 years in those extremely low-tax states. As they grow more populous, they have had to build major infrastructure to deal with the increase — waterways, roads, the like. And the thing about infrastructure is that as it gets old, it has to be maintained or repaired. Or replaced. And it’s expensive to do it. And nobody wants to. And the more people you have, the less those federal dollars to help you out cover the cost.

Plus, a lot more people means a lot more demand for social services. And people would rather not pay for social services — or think they’re not paying but forcing the cost onto government.

My point here is that Nevada and Utah and Idaho and Wyoming are going to start facing some of the public-spending issues that have bedeviled the old industrial states like New York and Ohio in the coming decades. And they will make some of the same mistakes New York made.

The question is: Will New York and Ohio and other places that have been in decline over the past 50 or more years — and will continue to decline still further — take advantage of the opportunity afforded them by the upward pressure on government in these places to offer competitive tax rates to businesses and individuals and engender a reverse migration within the United States?

It will only happen due to desperation. But nobody thought New York City could revive itself, either…