The myth of America’s sunbelt; why Krugman and Avent shouldn’t mess with Texas

We all know about America’s sunbelt, that wide swath of states stretching from California to Florida.  This region has attracted droves of sun-seekers in recent decades.  Except it’s all a myth.  There is no sunbelt.  There are sun corners.  To prove this we’ll have to engage in a bit of detective work.

Let’s start with south central America, the huge region lying between Georgia on the east coast, and Arizona in the southwest.  South central America has 7 states, but initially I’d like to discuss just six of them: Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, which have a combined population of 21 million.  The recent census showed these six states grew by 6.6% since 2000.   That’s well below America’s 9.7% growth rate. If the term ‘belt’ means anything, it means a horizontal band.  And yet between Atlanta in the east and Phoenix in the west, we have a huge swath of the so-called sunbelt with net out-migration.  What gives?

My theory is that there are sun corners, and also one state that instituted such a pro-growth economic regime that it was able to overcome the disadvantage of lying in south central America.  What is that disadvantage?  I’m not entirely sure, but I’ll try to throw out some ideas.  My basic argument is that south central America is mostly hot, humid, flat, and boring.  Parts are also especially susceptible to temperature extremes, as the central US has a more “continental” climate than the corners.  It’s easier to make this argument vis-a-vis the southwest corner, which has a warm dry climate that many people like.  But the southeast can be hot and humid, so my theory doesn’t work as well there.  I’d like suggestions from my readers, but I still think the southeast is slightly more desirable than south central America.  Maybe it’s the thought that many of its metro areas are a short drive from either mountains or the ocean.  But I’m open to other suggestions.  Do you visualize it as being more desirable?  If so, why?

Now of course you’ve noticed one glaring flaw in my “no-sunbelt” hypothesis—Texas.  The 7 states of south central America contain four big boom towns (more than a million people), five if you consider Ft. Worth as a separate metro area.  All four are located on east Texas.  Is that a coincidence?  I doubt it.  Louisiana and Oklahoma are also oil rich, and New Orleans used to be an important headquarters for oil companies.  Oklahoma has two middle sized oil centers (Oklahoma City and Tulsa, which were once as big as Austin.  But the Texas boom towns have left all the others in the dust.  While the 6 states containing 21 million grew 6.6%, Texas (containing nearly 25 million, grew more than 20%.  BTW, although Texas is big, most is uninhabited desert—the big growth is in those 4 metro areas, a region no bigger than Alabama.

Paul Krugman and Ryan Avent point to the low cost of housing in Texas, and I’d never deny that’s a factor.  But housing is also dirt cheap in the other 6 south central states.  Again, don’t think sunbelt, think sun corners plus east Texas.  I think the main factor is that the Texas government has very pro-growth economic policies, such as the lack of an income tax.

The traditional argument against Texas being special is that there are other boom towns (Phoenix, Orlando, Atlanta, Raleigh, etc) that are in states that do have income taxes.  But notice they in are in the sun corners, not hot, humid, flat, boring south central America.

Now let’s extend south central America one tier to the north, by adding Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky.  These six states have two big boom towns, Denver and Nashville.  Colorado has an income tax, so that doesn’t fit my theory.  But is Denver really hot, flat, humid, and boring?  The only one of the states lacking an income tax is Tennessee, which contains Nashville.  In the northwest Washington has no income tax, and it’s most similar neighbor (Oregon) grows more slowly.  In New England New Hampshire is the only state without an income tax, and for many decades it has grown much faster than other New England states.  In north central America South Dakota is the state without an income tax, and it it sandwiched in between two slower growing Great Plains states.  Nevada lacks an income tax, and has been the fastest growing southwestern state for many decades–indeed the fastest in America.  Wyoming grew very fast, but so did other mountain states.   Alaska lacks a good comparison state.  The last state lacking an income tax is Florida, which has obviously grown very fast for a long time, although I’d concede it would have grown fast even with an income tax–climate matters a lot too.

PS.  I agree with Krugman and Avent that there is nothing special about Texas in this recession, nor would I have expected that.  It’s gained many more jobs than average, but has fairly normal unemployment.  It’s the long run trends that favor Texas.  I just wish more pleasant areas would institute more sensible economic policies (I’m looking at you California, where I intend to retire.)

PPS.  Yes, I know that New Mexico isn’t humid, but it’s also the only one of those states that grew slightly above average.  Consider it a transition state between true south central America, and booming Arizona.  And it has no big cities.

PPPS.  One thing that makes me think there really is something special about the Southeast is South Carolina.  For the other states I can imagine special factors (DC boosting Virginia, the Triangle Research Park, Atlanta–traditional capital of the South, etc.)  But even South Carolina is growing fast.


Tags:

 
 
 

40 Responses to “The myth of America’s sunbelt; why Krugman and Avent shouldn’t mess with Texas”

  1. Gravatar of Gabe Gabe
    19. July 2011 at 07:22

    Flat boring Alabama grew by over 7% between 2000-2010. That is much faster than any New England or Rust Belt State. Sounds like a Sun Belt typr gorwth to me.

  2. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    19. July 2011 at 07:24

    Wow, this is a lot of stretching…

    New Mexico’s growth was largely driven by extraction royalties (e.g. oil and gas and minerals). It also started incredibly poor. It also has large federal money influx as a percentage of overall state GDP (major national labs, air force).

    I’m sorry, how exactly is Raleigh or Atlanta a “corner”? Have you been to either? It’s not exactly coastal property. Or a ski bunny zone.

    There’s so much speculation here… where is Occam’s razor?

    Some other additional data pieces:

    The southeast and Texas, in general, absorbs far more in federal tax money than they lay out because wages were lower, income tax is progressive, and while they hate federal taxes they do a darn good job of getting the federal government to locate federal facilities in the south (especially the military). Ever been to Biggs? Hood? Norfolk VA?

    Also, Washington state has no income tax, but Oregon has no sales tax. Oregon has a LOWER total tax burden than Washington state. (What’s that sound I hear?) Maybe the reason Washington is growing faster is because, uh, it’s got some really big employers that have been in growth industries.

    Hey… that’s true of Texas too… Then there’s the catch up factor.

    But you want to focus on taxes and pro-business policies (not, for example, the increase in the price of oil over the last 12 years, with much of the US infrastructure and corporate ownership of firms like Halliburton concentrated in Texas).

    OK, so how do you explain this?

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/89702927.html

    Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, and Missouri also have low tax burdens like Texas. Other neighboring states have higher burdens. Does that predict growth?

    Also, how does one account for reverse causation (when states have fixed expenses, like debt payments or retirement obligations, and growth declines due to exogenous factors like industry concentration, tax rates go up to cover costs).

    Is there any evidence I could provide that could possibly convince you that simple supply side theories only explain a modest part of reality?

  3. Gravatar of Charlie Charlie
    19. July 2011 at 07:36

    Scott,

    Why is the lack of an income tax so growth promoting? Texas has very large property taxes. Last I checked it was middle of the road in spending. So the tax incidence should be substantial. Since people that make more money will tend to by bigger houses, taking into account tax incidence, it’s not obvious to me that it’s much less progressive (or that effective marginal tax rates are much lower). The could be. I just think it would require some careful study.

    What am I missing?

    Charlie

  4. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    19. July 2011 at 08:40

    For a Third World state, Texas has been doing quite well for itself. I wish them success.

  5. Gravatar of Jeff Jeff
    19. July 2011 at 09:20

    Paging Steve Sailer! Steve Sailer to the white courtesy phone!

  6. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    19. July 2011 at 09:32

    Gabe. The US grew at 9.7%. How can it be sunbelt if it’s growing well below the national average? That makes no sense.

    Statsguy; You said;

    “I’m sorry, how exactly is Raleigh or Atlanta a “corner”? Have you been to either? It’s not exactly coastal property. Or a ski bunny zone.”

    So you’d have no geographical preference as to living in Tulsa or Raleigh? I wonder how many peopel agree with you. You may not think those cities are close to the ocean or mountains, but compared to south central they are. I think most people would prefer then in pure geographical terms.

    As far as corners, I studied geometry in school, and learned that the center of the bottom of rectangle is not a corner, and the right and left corners of a rectangle are corners. The US is a rectangle, and the states I describe as south central are the middle 60% of the bottom. The right and left 20% are the corners.

    You said;

    “The southeast and Texas, in general, absorbs far more in federal tax money than they lay out because wages were lower, income tax is progressive, and while they hate federal taxes they do a darn good job of getting the federal government to locate federal facilities in the south (especially the military). Ever been to Biggs? Hood? Norfolk VA?”

    This is irrelevant, as the slow growing south central states also get tons of federal money.

    And although it might explain San Antonio, nobody could seriously argue it explains the fast growth of the other three.

    You said;

    “Also, Washington state has no income tax, but Oregon has no sales tax. Oregon has a LOWER total tax burden than Washington state.”

    Completely irrelevant to my argument, as no income tax is far more pro-growth than no sales tax. Oregan has about a 9% income tax. I’ll take any sales tax–even 40%, over a 9% income tax.

    You said;

    “But you want to focus on taxes and pro-business policies (not, for example, the increase in the price of oil over the last 12 years, with much of the US infrastructure and corporate ownership of firms like Halliburton concentrated in Texas).”

    Actually I did address that issue, perhaps you didn’t read my post.

    BTW, Texas grows fast whether oil prices are high or low–that only explains a small portion of its growth. And ask yourself why oil companies headquarter in Texas. Why did some move from New Orleans to Houston, long before Katrina? There are a number of oil headquarters in Oklahoma, why doesn’t that state grow fast? Perhaps the income tax?

    So basically you have no explanation as to why Texas grows really fast during high oil prices and low, and the rest of the south central region doesn’t. I do have an explanation.

    Charlie. The income tax deters saving and investment, and also highly productive workers. And Texas is a low spending state, not in the middle of the pack.

    Benjamin, I recently visited Dallas, Houston and LA. At least in terms of roads I wouldn’t say Texas is the third world state.

  7. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    19. July 2011 at 09:33

    Jeff, Wait! I said I wished Mankiw had a comment section, please don’t bring it over here!

  8. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    19. July 2011 at 09:34

    Jeff, Ignore my last comment, I was thinking of my next post.

  9. Gravatar of joe c joe c
    19. July 2011 at 09:46

    I totally see the correlation.

    I grew up in and worked in Oregon most of my life (Portland area) and Washington literally has everything better than Oregon, more business, more sports teams, more population better schools etc.

    Also, I have heard the “well Texas has no income tax but they have high property tax” argument for years now. The problem is housing is so low in Texas that you still pay a lower overall dollar amount in property taxes than any west coast or east coast state. Also, Texas specifically, was able, for the most part, to avoid to the housing mess because of much more restrictive borrowing practices (go figure in a conservative state).

    Phoenix has exploded and they have an income tax…but it is very minimal…between 2-4.5%, the same goes for NM.

    People who move to the “corners” not only get much more sunshine but much lower taxes relative to the NE or NW.

  10. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    19. July 2011 at 10:04

    Try along the border. The colonias of Texas are interesting. Reminds me of rural Thailand. Given birth rates, Texas will be Tejas, maybe in our lifetimes.

    A deeply ingrained Texan sense that government should be corrupt will then join with the Latinate sense of stewardship, that has worked so admirably in Greece and South America.

    And just like Hispanola, Tejas will have the rich and poor.

    But, it still will be one of the better places in the Third World.

  11. Gravatar of Sean Brown Sean Brown
    19. July 2011 at 10:27

    Benjamin, have you been to rural Mississippi, Kentucky, etc.? With dramatically lower rates of Social Security, Welfare, or food stamps, those communities would likely be similar to the colonias. Not saying this makes them “OK” but they aren’t exactly an unprecedented level of development.

    http://www.sos.state.tx.us/border/colonias/faqs.shtml

    Looks like colonia residents are 1.6% of all Texas residents.

    BTW, Ben, there are extremely dangerous or terrible neighborhoods (what I would call third-world) in nearly every state with significant population. The existence of third-world neighborhoods is very bad but it doesn’t make the U.S. a 3rd-world country.

  12. Gravatar of Steve Steve
    19. July 2011 at 10:53

    Minor point here, but you list Orlando as among the boom towns in states with income taxes. Florida does not have an income tax.

  13. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    19. July 2011 at 11:01

    Benji,

    Texas rocks.

    It has nothing to do with “corrupt government”

    It has to do with a sense that “losers are losers” or “no free lunch” or “freedom from, not freedom to” or just a full-blown DISTRUST of government.

    Texans know in their bones that public employees are servants, that they DESERVE to be treated as servants, and there will be no time in our lifetimes where that changes.

    Right now, Texas is doubling down on this culture – dude, “loser pays” how awesome is that!!!

    Look, there’s no real sense here that things need to change, in fact if anything Texas is getting really strong feedback that we are winning…

  14. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    19. July 2011 at 11:37

    Morgan-

    Mi casa es su casa. Tejas es muy, muy bueno.
    Hermosa e grande e rico.
    En la beinte anos, Tejas es El Centro de la Trios Mundos.

    Odios.

  15. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    19. July 2011 at 12:18

    Sean Brown-

    What you say is probably true.

    I doubt the (linked) estimate of colonia population is accurate; probably an order of magnitude low.

    There are Third World regions of Southern California too. Some say Los Angeles is a Third World city, what with underground workers and economies, and dizzying wealth distribution.

    In my limited travels, nowhere in the USA did I feel so close to the Third World as in Tejas.

  16. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    19. July 2011 at 12:44

    Benji,

    like gays, Hispanics become conservative the moment they have basic social equality.

    Other languages don’t bother me, I’ve found anyone interested in dollars learns to speak my language, haven’t you?

    And as long as I protect the dollar, Texas will definitely become center of the world – everyone, (even liberals) will adapt, adopt, and modify.

  17. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    19. July 2011 at 12:50

    Benji, where exactly in the third world have you traveled?

    I mean once someone is shitting in a hole, and cooking over dung, you have to have pretty big liberal blinders to compare it to even tent city in downtown LA.

  18. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    19. July 2011 at 12:57

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/18/crossroads-gps-courts-hispanic-voters/

  19. Gravatar of Gabe Gabe
    19. July 2011 at 13:17

    Scott,
    Bama grew below the national average but well above the average of New England and hte Rust Belt…The national average was pulled up by Texas, Florida…take them out and Alabama is above average.

  20. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    19. July 2011 at 13:31

    Morgan-

    Mexico, SE Asia.

    Many parts of Bangkok look the same as Los Angeles or Texas (changing out language etc).

    Rural Thailand of rural Texas along the border are a lot alike.

    I expect Thailand has a much brighter future than Texas. Thailand position in the Far East, its location as a low-cost manufacturing platform near an increasingly expensive China, its sensible fiscal policies (balanced budgets), its sensible trade policies (roughly open, but they run a surplus) and a good work ethic all mean Thailand will thrive in years ahead.

    Texas is a corrupt backwater state, soon to Latinized with attendant sensibilities towards government (meaning Government as Gong Show). The Texas GOP is a confederacy of strumpets, grifters and carnival barkers, easily purchased by anyone with money, booze, drugs and call girls.

    In the heat and humidity, cheaply built Texas housing quickly moulders into mush, with “water bugs” (meaning huge cockroaches) ruling the roost, chasing off mice and small cats.

    To top it off, I am not sure there is a single good restaurant in all of Texas. Stale grease and weak iced tea do not a meal make.

  21. Gravatar of spencer spencer
    19. July 2011 at 13:35

    Do not forget that long term growth trends favor the poor areas because of convergence. Real per capita GDP is 126% of the national average in Massachusetts and 63% of the national average in Mississippi. Massachusetts is a post industrial economy where the growth industries are education, technology, medicine and money management — all industries that depend on a highly educated labor force. By contrast, Mississippi is an early industrial economy in direct competition with China, Mexico and other cheap labor economies. It is like my sons sister in law– a high school graduate working in Mass as a hair dresser. She moved to Nevada and became a dealer and a real estate agent on the side. The average income and IQ of both states rose as a result of her move. Massachusetts has its problems of what do do with people like her as she does not qualify to work in the advance education industries. But as a highly educated member of the Massachusetts elite,do you really want to go to work at the local state college in Mississippi even if real GDP growth is faster in Mississippi? I do not see many money management firms relocating from Boston to the sun belt.

  22. Gravatar of joe c joe c
    19. July 2011 at 13:55

    Benjamin:

    Like Texas is the only state with corrupt politicians.

  23. Gravatar of Charlie Charlie
    19. July 2011 at 15:49

    “Charlie. The income tax deters saving and investment, and also highly productive workers. And Texas is a low spending state, not in the middle of the pack.”

    Scott,

    Property taxes also deter saving and investment, as well as highly productive workers. Just do a thought experience imagining very high property taxes. People would save less, invest less, and shift toward more leisure consumption. It’s also a tax on capital, which many models argue should be zero (even if the only other option is income taxes).

    But you are right, Texas is a low spending state.

  24. Gravatar of B B
    19. July 2011 at 15:56

    “I’m looking at you California, where I intend to retire.”

    As my home state continues to implode, I wonder if you’ll change your mind? As a retiree you won’t be nailed too hard by California income taxes. But sales tax is 8-10% in most places and will probably be higher by the time you arrive. State and local services are also pretty awful.

    Personally I wouldn’t mind living in Austin or Nashville. I’ve heard great things about both cities.

  25. Gravatar of adam adam
    19. July 2011 at 16:22

    Wouldn’t the correct comparison be in towns along borders in adjacent states? Because otherwise there seem to be many, many more variables in play. For Washington/Oregon, for instance, how does growth compare along the border between them? What’s the difference in population growth, etc? If we look at the Portland metro area, the population grew 15% vs. 12% for Vancouver (on the Washington side of the river) and 10% for the city proper. So why did Portland suburbs in Oregon grow faster than ones in Washington? The point is, there are a lot of other things to consider than this simple analysis of income taxes, etc.

    I would be interested to see other comparisons in other states. This analysis seems like it misses a lot.

  26. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    19. July 2011 at 16:36

    Benji, Thailand is full of pedo tourists, and corrupt like the Johnson administration.

    Having left 15 years in LA for 4 in Austin, I’m comfortable saying the food here is far superior.

    The only things I miss were to go orders of Lobster Boniato Mash at Asia De Cuba and Chin-Chin’s Chinese Chicken Salad. Basically, everything else in LA has been replaced favoorably.

    Even our P. Terry’s trumps In-n-Out. Mexican in LA was gringo in any comparison.

    And it is obvious you just don’t seem to understand the joys of having the workers at day-to-day places like Home Depot be funny, helpful and make public outings an overall positive.

    People here are just hungrier.

  27. Gravatar of Jeff Jeff
    19. July 2011 at 16:44

    Scott,

    You might take a look at retiring to a place like Rosarito, about twenty miles south of Tijuana. My brother retired there and it is really beautiful. Right on the beach, great views, near-constant ocean breezes, and he hardly ever needs to turn on the heat or the air. He makes biweekly or so trips to the Costco in San Ysidro for stuff he can’t get at the big supermarket in Rosarito.

    You could probably afford to live right on the beach in Baja. Entertainment and restaurants cost less than half as much as San Diego, and housing is about a third as much. All kinds of labor-intensive services, like maid services, are dirt cheap.

    Foreigners cannot buy beachfront property, but they can get 50 year leases that are renewable in perpetuity. Banks will set them up for an annual fee that isn’t horrendous.

    If you’re interested, I can put you in touch with people who can tell you more about ex-pat life in Baja.

  28. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    19. July 2011 at 18:31

    Thanks Joe.

    Benjamin. Here’s how I look at the border. Are the people better off than before they moved there? My hunch is that the answer is yes. But we need to do something about McAllen’s Medicare program.

    Steve, Yes, Orlando is a mistake, what was I thinking?

    Gabe, Below average is below average.

    Spenser, But this post is on population, not income.

    Charlie, I don’t agree on property taxes, I think they tax housing consumption, which is fine (or land, which is even better.)

    B, Austin would be OK with me, but . . .

    I hope I get hammered by income tax, if I don’t have enough income I’ll be in trouble. 🙂

    I don’t care much about sales taxes, as I don’t buy much, and what I do buy is off the internet, or foreign travel.

    Adam, That’s a very good point. I know that New Hampshire towns do way better than nearby Mass. towns.

    Jeff, Thanks, but it’s probably going to be LA.

  29. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    20. July 2011 at 07:29

    Jeff, my immigration solution is to make is super easy for US citizens to OWN OUTRIGHT (backed up by US force) beachfront in Mexico.

    I call it Manifest Destiny Mexico. Mexico is just a really big Florida.

    In return for a treaty that Mexico signs giving us right to buy beach front property outright, we open our borders.

    We start broadcasting English lessons 24/7 over Mexico and SA, and we use tax policy to promote moving Seniors to condos they leave their children. Cheap living, cheap medical, cheap land… and our citizens will stop worrying about what they lose with immigration.

  30. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    20. July 2011 at 08:03

    Morgan, Put aside the fact that the Mexicans would never accept your idea. You said;

    “Mexico is just a really big Florida”

    No, Mexico is 100 times more beautiful, and has a way better climate.

  31. Gravatar of B B
    20. July 2011 at 08:42

    Krugman posted a frustrating follow-up on the Texas issue today:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/more-on-the-texas-story/#more-22273

    “Well, it could be either a rise in supply or a rise in demand (or, of course, both); the way you tell the difference is by asking what happens to wages.”

    Then proceeds to draw two simplest cases. Supply curve shifts right or demand curve shifts right. Wages in Texas are falling, ipso facto it’s the supply curve story.

    His supply curves and demand curves seem to have a slope of about 1 and -1 respectively. I wish he had drawn a third graph with a shift in BOTH supply and demand. Perhaps the shift right in supply being larger than the shift right in demand by 2:1. Causing a large increase in employment with a smaller decrease in wages. If the slopes of his supply/demand curves are accurate, but employment growth far outpaced wage decline, then there’s more going on.

    The overall lesson is: never reason from a price change. Get more data.

    Wages fell and employment increased. What happened?
    a) Only supply curve shifted right.
    b) Only demand curve shifted right.
    c) Both demand and supply curve shifted right.
    d) Not enough information.

  32. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    20. July 2011 at 09:52

    Krugman’s mistake is more basic.

    Like Mundell says, the premise behind a free trade zone is pegged currency. When you enter into a free trade – it is meaningless if you are going to let your currency float.

    We enter into these agreements KNOWING that states, nations with cheap labor will exploit that, and that capital and labor will flow freely to find greatest returns individually.

    There is no such thing as a race to the bottom, there are only glorious productivity gains, as costs of goods go down.

  33. Gravatar of The Engineer The Engineer
    20. July 2011 at 13:06

    Hey Morgan, I love ya’ man. In a heterosexual way, of course.

    I too think that Mexico should become the 51st state. We get cheap labor, they get retirees looking for a cheap place to live (and, perhaps, law and order).

    Hell, throw Canada in too. Let’s make this NAFTA thing real.

  34. Gravatar of Mick M Mick M
    20. July 2011 at 22:03

    Hey Scott, I know I’m late to the party but, Colorado has the taxpayer bill of rights which has helped decrease (or, keep low) the overall tax burden from the state government. So Denver need not be a mitigating factor to your argument.

  35. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    21. July 2011 at 07:14

    B, That’s a silly argument, as you say. Texas has a business model that’s very attractive to low skilled workers. Is that a bad thing? They provide upward mobility to lots of hispanics and poor southern whites, is that a bad thing?

    Morgan, Mundell is wrong.

    Mick, Good point.

  36. Gravatar of Jason Jason
    21. July 2011 at 18:20

    San Antonio, Austin, Dallas and Ft. Worth are all along the edge of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system where rivers cut across them. Farther west it is drier and the aquifer is deeper. Farther east was (originally) pretty dense pine forest. (Tulsa and OKC are also on aquifers.)

    Houston is effectively on the coast due to the Houston Ship Channel (bypassing Galveston to its relative demise).

    The biggest (modern) oil boom places were farther away from these cities (and primarily near Midland-Odessa in West Texas, Carthage in East Texas and Newark in North Texas).

    So it’s not a coincidence, but it’s not oil; it’s water.

  37. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    21. July 2011 at 18:39

    Scott, c’mon man! FREE TRADE means pegged currency. Tariffs and money printing are brother and sister.

  38. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    22. July 2011 at 12:38

    Jason, Thanks for the info.

    Morgan. No.

  39. Gravatar of TheMoneyIllusion » The sensible centrist TheMoneyIllusion » The sensible centrist
    16. August 2011 at 08:23

    […] a lot of debate about Texas.  Although I don’t like Perry, I do like the Texas model.  I did a post defending Texas a few weeks back; here are a few […]

  40. Gravatar of Al Al
    9. March 2014 at 16:29

    Morgan Warstler, I lived in Austin and Los Angeles, and Los Angeles food is superior, by some margin, if you simply list restaurants and assign values. From Urasawa to N/Naka and Yamakase, Providence and Valentino’s, Jitlada and Renu Nakorn, hidden gems in Koreatown, Thai Town, and East LA, the bench is very deep and wide. If you include San Gabriel Valley, then the comparison is even more lopsided.

Leave a Reply