Population Declining in States With Relatively High Dependence on Government

[Origanalist]

Michael Barone | Jan 17, 2014


The Census Bureau's holiday treat is its release of annual state population estimates, to be digested slowly in the new year.

The headline from this year's release is that population growth from July 2012 to July 2013 was 0.72 percent, lower than in the two preceding years and the lowest since the Great Depression 1930s.

This reflects continuing low, below-replacement-rate birth rates and lower immigration than in 1982-2007. Net immigration from Mexico evidently continues to be zero.

The nation's economy may be growing again, but Americans -- and potential Americans -- are not acting like it. There's a parallel here with poll results showing that majorities still believe we are in a recession that the National Bureau of Economic Research says ended in June 2009, nearly five years ago.

Sluggish population growth is matched by sluggish geographic mobility. The Census Bureau reports that only 4.8 million Americans moved across state lines in 2012 -- about half the percentage that did so in the boom years of the 1990s.

Americans were similarly immobile, indeed even more so, in the 1930s (the Okies fleeing the dust bowl for California were a picturesque but demographically minor exception).

Numbers can seem cold and impersonal, but beneath these numbers is a picture of a pessimistic, risk-averse people.

But not uniformly, and not everywhere. Population growth has been accelerating in states that depend heavily on the private sector and declining in states with relatively high dependence on government.

This reflects the wearing off of the effects of the big jump in government spending triggered by the 2009 stimulus package and a heartening, though limited, resurgence of the private sector as government spending has slowed.

Thus population growth has slowed, though remaining above the national average, in the District of Columbia (where it has surged through gentrification), Maryland and Virginia.

Growth rates have declined as well in other states with high levels of public sector and federal contract jobs -- New Mexico, Alaska, Mississippi.

But growth rates have increased significantly in most of the Midwest and Rocky Mountain heartland. That has been especially true in the nation's growth leader this decade, North Dakota, with its Bakken shale boom.

Growth has accelerated in Colorado, Arizona and Nevada, which are finally recovering from the collapse of their housing markets in 2007-10. Colorado and Arizona have been attracting migrants from other states, while Nevada's growth is fueled mostly by immigrants.


continued.....http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2014/01/17/population-declining-in-states-with-relatively-high-dependence-on-government-n1780368/page/full

[oyarde]

I imagine this trend will continue in the most tax oppressive and high cost of living States.Wages will not be going up over all . Only way to have some wealth is seek lower taxes and cost of living . That will also be where the jobs will be. Businesses will factor taxes in opening facilities .

[Deborah K]

No mention of Cali??

[gwax23]

Population growth ties hand in hand with economics.

History will show that big government tends to lower the population growth of its nations, if not drive it into the negatives (stalin, Hitler) Smaller populations = easier to control. Hence the push for things like abortion. Lastly the big welfare state destroys the family. Create high divorce rates, single parents, and reduces the need to have a large family because the state will supposedly take care of you in old age etc etc. That and the simple fact that inflation, lower purchasing power and higher costs of living are making it too expensive to even have kids.

[Zippyjuan]

Interesting that people are leaving the "welfare states". I thought that was supposed to attract more people?

[Deborah K]

Interesting that people are leaving the "welfare states". I thought that was supposed to attract more people?

People with earning power are probably moving to places where the tax base is lower.

[oyarde]

Interesting that people are leaving the "welfare states". I thought that was supposed to attract more people?

I think it will no longer attract those who have to pay for it.

[Occam's Banana]

And so the infection spreads, until one by one ...

http://neofilm.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/independence-day-spaceship.jpg

[DamianTV]

Welcome to the Population Winter. Happened in Russia already, currently happening in Japan.

[Henry Rogue]

Population growth ties hand in hand with economics.

History will show that big government tends to lower the population growth of its nations, if not drive it into the negatives (stalin, Hitler) Smaller populations = easier to control. Hence the push for things like abortion. Lastly the big welfare state destroys the family. Create high divorce rates, single parents, and reduces the need to have a large family because the state will supposedly take care of you in old age etc etc. That and the simple fact that inflation, lower purchasing power and higher costs of living are making it too expensive to even have kids.
This may be so, but the government also promotes population expansion. Tax deductions for dependents, daycare and education costs covered collectively, welfare subsidies increased with expansion of child dependents and possibly immigration inflow if immigrants recieve government subsidies. I dont know if negative population incentives trump positive incentives or the other way around, but central planners, particularly multiple central planners tend to contradict themselves, regardless if the consequences were intended or not.

[silverhandorder]

This may be so, but the government also promotes population expansion. Tax deductions for dependents, daycare and education costs covered collectively, welfare subsidies increased with expansion of child dependents and possibly immigration inflow if immigrants recieve government subsidies. I dont know if negative population incentives trump positive incentives or the other way around, but central planners, particularly multiple central planners tend to contradict themselves, regardless if the consequences were intended or not.
When society is relatively wealthy higher tax load tends to suppress population growth. Because the poor are a relatively small part of population.

[Henry Rogue]

When society is relatively wealthy higher tax load tends to suppress population growth. Because the poor are a relatively small part of population.
Higher tax loads also tend to make a wealthy society poor.

[gwax23]

This may be so, but the government also promotes population expansion. Tax deductions for dependents, daycare and education costs covered collectively, welfare subsidies increased with expansion of child dependents and possibly immigration inflow if immigrants recieve government subsidies. I dont know if negative population incentives trump positive incentives or the other way around, but central planners, particularly multiple central planners tend to contradict themselves, regardless if the consequences were intended or not.


There aims might be contradictory and change. Communist Regime in Romania for example encouraged population growth in order to have more cannon fodder for their army... etc etc.

Now Romania has huge population declines and low birth rates.

The evidence is clear across the board. Regardless of what the planners intents are their actions inevitably lead to population decline. Many have embraced it now because its easier to control, and the population tends to age and the elderly tend to vote for bigger governments. I can go on theres plenty of more reasons.

Growing populations tend to signify growing economies and prosperity, declining populations the opposite. Look at Michigan, New York, The rust belt, eastern europe, even western Europe. Many of these places population is only stable because of immigrants. Further the only reason people are immigrating there is due to a shortage of labor cause by the low growth rates.

[Henry Rogue]

There aims might be contradictory and change. Communist Regime in Romania for example encourage population growth in order to have more cannon fodder for their army... etc etc.

Now Romania has huge population declines and low birth rates.

The evidence is clear across the board. Regardless of what the planners intents are their actions inevitably lead to population decline. Many have embrace it now because its easier to control, and the population tends to age and the elderly tend to vote for bigger governments. I can go on theres plenty of more reasons


Growing populations tend to signify growing economies and prosperity, declining populations the opposite. Look at Michigan, New York, The rust belt, eastern europe, even western Europe. Many of these places population is only stable because of immigrants. Further the only reason people are immigrating there is due to a shortage of labor cause by the low growth rates.
I'm sure you're right about the result, Detroit illistraights your point nicely. I doubt central planners are capable of controlling a population. Market forces trump any central planning, but they could distort a population, just as they distort a market.

[AngryCanadian]

But Texas's demographic numbers suggest that traditional American optimism and willingness to take risks are not altogether dead. They're alive and thriving just north of the Rio Grande.
Right...