Update on the American Sunbelt
The census recently released its 2014 population estimates, which reveal some interesting patterns:
1. During the decade of the 2000s, 38.4% of US population growth occurred in just 3 states; Texas, California and Florida. In the past year that number rose to 47.2%, in the same three states. Florida passed New York to become the third most populous state. These three states are America’s future, and in a few years I’ll be heading out to the worst governed of the three. Speaking of bad governance, Illinois (which contains dynamic Chicago) lost population, while Michigan (home of Detroit) gained population. Ouch!
2. So the Sunbelt is alive and well? Not quite. All of the south central states other than Texas did poorly, with Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and Oklahoma all growing at less than the national average, and far less than Texas. New Mexico actually lost population.
3. So Texas must be booming due to the fracking boom? Nope. Texas’s population growth began slowing about 8 years ago, just as fracking got underway.
4. But wait; didn’t North Dakota have the fastest population growth of any state? Yes, but North Dakota only added about 15,600 people, versus 7,600 in South Dakota. So fracking probably added no more than 10,000 people. Even if you assume that Texas’s fracking industry is twice as large, it would have added only 20,000 to Texas’s population. (Probably less, as it discourages non-fracking business.) But Texas added more than 450,000 people. Fracking is a statistical error, nothing more. That’s why oil producing Oklahoma and Louisiana grew more slowly than the national average, despite the oil boom. (The data was from July 1, 2013 to July 1, 2014.)
5. Populations movements don’t affect politics, as the three big gainers are red, blue, and purple. But even if they were all red or all blue, it wouldn’t matter. If liberals move to a conservative state or vice versa, it changes the nature of that state. During my lifetime many strongly Democratic states have become very Republican, and vice versa. It will happen again. In the 20th century each party will win about 1/2 of the elections, just as in the 20th century. It’s all about the ideas, the horserace doesn’t matter. Which ideas will each party accept?
BTW, I saw this in The Economist:
Less than a decade ago UKIP was a Eurosceptic pressure group run by disenchanted Thatcherites, such as Mr Farage, and EU-obsessed academics. Now it is hoovering up support from disgruntled elderly and blue-collar voters. Yet the fact that it is also hoovering up their prejudices reflects how populist, not serious, the party is.
. . . Some Kippers claim that, in its blundering first stabs at policymaking, the party is simply listening to its new members too well. Yet there is no sense that, when it matures, it will reassert liberal principles””as Douglas Carswell, the party’s first elected MP, clearly wants. The truth is Mr Farage is more opportunist (he would say pragmatic) than liberal. He probably still doesn’t much care what UKIP’s economic policy is, so long as it hastens Britain’s departure from the EU. The result is that libertarian UKIP is likely to end up much like its nativist, authoritarian European cousins.
(Recall that outside the US “liberal” means pro-free market.) Now reread the first paragraph. Does this remind you of the evolution of a certain political party in the US in recent decades?
Update: Lars Christensen will begin doing Youtube videos.
Tags:
9. May 2015 at 11:28
“Does this remind you of the evolution of a certain political party in the US in recent decades?”
Yes, as the Republicans have gotten more blue collar and elderly voters, they’ve become… less tough on crime and more in favor of criminal justice and sentencing reform? (Especially among the Tea Party aligned senators.)
9. May 2015 at 11:36
The Republican Party in the Midwest at the state level has gained blue collar voters and thus become… much less friendly to organized labor, willing to rollback union rights (prevailing wage for construction just went away in Indiana) instead of simply blocking new rights (or helping to extend the, as in many Midwestern states.)
The federal Republican Party in Congress has always been more hostile to organized labor, but they were in opposition (and devoted to protecting Taft-Hartley.) The midwestern Republicans were often in power at the state level, but were far more friendly to labor.
9. May 2015 at 11:53
The Republican Party is a lot more pro free trade and even more pro immigration than a century ago, when it had a lot fewer blue collar supporters. Republican Presidents (of have been more pro immigration (and Democrats, pace, pro free trade) than their congressional party in recent decades. Such a trend seems to continue, for both parties, based on the declared candidates.
9. May 2015 at 12:07
That’s a horribly unfair characterization of Farage and UKIP. Farage, not David Cameron, is the one talking about enterprise and opportunity. He’s “populist” in the sense that the “working class boy for Brixton,” John Major, was. And opposition to the EU and the Blair-ite labor mix isn’t mere “prejudice;” if anything, the Economist’s blind loyalty to Brussels represents its own (elitist, anti-democratic) prejudices.
Further, UKIP have might quite a big deal about the fact that they want free trade with the rest of the world, not just the EU nations.
9. May 2015 at 12:15
Liberals who move to Texas become Libertarian. The ACT of moving is a deep psychological act, that creates SO MUCH cognitive dissonance, the brain elves come out and make you let go of previous belief liberal fiscal govt.
Your brain let’s you keep your social liberal beliefs, as such you become Libertarian.
The Internet does this to people to, just not as abruptly as moving to Texas.
9. May 2015 at 12:20
Don’t know Morgan. Migration seems largely like Dr. Heidegger’s experiment. People leave failed blue states because jobs are moving elsewhere, so they vote for the same policies that drove them away in the first place. That’s why VA, NC, CO, NH, etc are now purple.
9. May 2015 at 13:49
Jim, that’s nice, but when you see the world of brutal hurt delivered onto California friends forcing them to say Texas is better, forcing them to admit, over and over – no sir it sticks.
Look at Scott, he’s not going to change his opinion at all, he’s moving somewhere bad for the weather.
As I noted recently, nobody moves to Texas for the weather.
Another good example is Hispanic population here, it’s FAR MORE impressed with Texas business first attitude than you see in other states, bc it works.
9. May 2015 at 13:52
Jim, another good example is Uber – overnight liberals and progressives underwent a deep psychological shift, and through their brothers in Taxi biz to the wolves.
ALL humans can be MADE into anything. Cannibals, heroes, gay, French – anything, but they must be reprogrammed – the brain elves HAVE to come out and rewire you.
A liberal moving to Texas is basically a shiny new immigrant to the US, a refugee.
9. May 2015 at 15:52
Interesting that according to the estimates Chicago gained population. So Illinois’ losses are not related to their big city. And Detroit lost population which again had no bearing on the state as a whole. But what does it mean to reinforce your prior beliefs?
9. May 2015 at 15:53
3. Is that growth in comparison to the U.S. overall? Or are we pulling a Roegoff?
9. May 2015 at 16:02
Benny, You said:
“Interesting that according to the estimates Chicago gained population. So Illinois’ losses are not related to their big city.”
Isn’t that what I said?
9. May 2015 at 16:27
Scott-Take heart—most of California’s medium-sized cities appear well-governed. Pasadena, Culver City, Beverly Hills, Carson. Size and government are a regrettable combination.
9. May 2015 at 20:21
Sumner as political analyst…booorrriiing. Bring back the old, wrong, Sumner!
9. May 2015 at 22:19
Fracking’s a statistical error? That’s not helpful to your buddies in the GOP! LOL
Rick Perry’s entire campaign-every 4 years he tries-is based on the idea that all that fracking in the state is thanks to his GOP supply side genius.
9. May 2015 at 22:20
Also the fracking boom is the reason that Obama is a job killer according to the GOP-we could have this huge boom if he’d just do Keystone.
9. May 2015 at 22:28
“In the 20th century each party will win about 1/2 of the elections, just as in the 20th century. It’s all about the ideas, the horserace doesn’t matter. Which ideas will each party accept?”
What’s interesting is that the parties have had a rough parity since 1968 but prior to that, America had always been a country with one party dominance at the national level.
Kevin Phillips had predicted an ‘Emerging Republican Majority’ based on this history.
He was proved right that the GOP would dominate Presidential politics for the next 24 years but the GOP was unable to take back Congress.
By the time they took back Congress in 1994 the Democrats had figured out how to win the Presidency again.
But prior to that, there had always been a majority party and minority party-the GOP dominated since Lincoln won in 1960 till FDR; the Dems dominated until 1968.
Since then it’s true that two parties have been locked in a terminal thumb war where each side struggles to gain a clear advantage. Many prophecies of ’emerging majorities’ for both parties come and go but until the present they haven’t materialized.
The parity of the parties might show that Americans are more divided than ever.
10. May 2015 at 06:41
Mike, You said:
“Fracking’s a statistical error? That’s not helpful to your buddies in the GOP! LOL”
You really are a moron. The GOP claims the growth in Texas is due to good government, not fracking. You could find a good argument if you tripped over it. I can understand that you have never received any training in economics, but politics? Is there anything you are good at?
10. May 2015 at 06:56
Mike Sax is right, the GOP in Texas indeed takes credit for the fracking boom as an example of their good governance. #ssumnerNameCallingAgain
10. May 2015 at 09:07
Texas has good government? Now who’s the moron? I take your immediate recourse to puerile insults as your own mental limits.
In any case, you’re uninformed. The GOP has taken credit for fracking in Texas and elsewhere-lack of regulation, etc.
They also do use it as an argument for Keystone. If you don’t know this then I got bad news for you: you’re the moron.
10. May 2015 at 09:09
Scott you ought to try therapy. I’m not usually even a fan of it but I’d be fascinated to know how someone gets this hypersensitive.
10. May 2015 at 09:14
I know providing links to you is probably a waste-you don’t really want to know anything but your own ideology-but here Perry clearly takes credit for fracking and uses it as an argument for Keystone.
http://bakken.com/news/id/222176/gov-rick-perry-wants-use-shale-revolution-american-weapon/
How you don’t know this is hard to get. I mean even a casual watching of C-SPan would make you aware of this argument
10. May 2015 at 09:37
Here the GOP plans to use fracking as a basis for their 2016 campaign.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/new-energy-paradigm/in-2016-republicans-will-have-fracking-on-their-side-20140612
If it’s bad argument their the morons not me as it sure isn’t my argument
10. May 2015 at 10:58
@Mike Sax
“Also the fracking boom is the reason that Obama is a job killer according to the GOP-we could have this huge boom if he’d just do Keystone.”
-As usual, I agree with Sumner. You’re just supporting Sumner’s points. Besides, as Bob Murphy has pointed out, the fracking boom can’t be due to Obama; the only lands where oil production has fallen in America are owned by the Federal government.
10. May 2015 at 11:05
No wonder you agree with Sumner, you’re as confused as he is.
I never said the fracking boom was due to Obama, my point is that the GOPers say it’s due to them.
10. May 2015 at 11:31
I don’t know, I feel disenfranchised by the Republicans due to all the corporate welfare and/or honest natural monopolies, especially in defense, finance, telecommunications and health care. You look at Democrats and it’s unions and lawyers, in addition to Republicans’ special interests (though sometimes to a lesser degree).
And at the local level Democrats have just been awful. They have impoverished many Americans by actively discouraging more density.
Both parties embrace special interests such as farm subsidies. The sugar subsidies and tariffs have been reduced, I think, but two brothers in Florida still get millions from government protection. One brother is high up in the Republican party and the other is high up in the Democratic party.
I understand you can’t keep perfection as the only standard, but the most harmful government policies are generally Micro rather than Macro (the big exception is monetary policy and unemployment). There seems to be little headway, while many of my “pro-government” ideas are antithetical to 99% of the libertarian party members. I’m not sure what to do about it.
11. May 2015 at 05:49
Mike, You said:
“I know providing links to you is probably a waste”
From you? Yes, it’s a waste of time.
Matt, Good point.
11. May 2015 at 08:47
What makes California the worst of the three? The amazing thing thinking about the difference between Cali & Texas is they had a great Party switch in 80 – 92 timeframe in which both states went through significant local recessions. (Texas earlier and Cali. later) That said it was Texas that got the big S&L bailouts to cushion their recessions while California was nailed by the great defense company drop with less government spending. (The legend of Prop 187 and the loss of Rs with Cali minorities did not happen until after the Prop. 187 won. It is the West “Where you print the legend.”
Otherwise has North Dakota population finally passed their 1930 US Census highpoint?
11. May 2015 at 10:21
Hey Morgan, how come you live in Austin, the only liberal bastion in Texas…
11. May 2015 at 14:35
California is definitely best place to live if you are in the top 10 percent.
11. May 2015 at 16:59
It’s a waste of time as you don’t care about the facts anyway. It makes no difference whether it’s me or anyone else who sends a link, just that you are intellectually dishonest down to your toes. If this were not the case you wouldn’t have to resort to childish snark.
I don’t take it personally if you don’t like my links as you rarely provide links for your own facile claims
As for your personal slurs about me, I guess I get the chance to quote the great Dan Quayle:
‘I wear your scorn like a badge of honor.’
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-06-14/news/9202220786_1_indiana-national-guard-pit-puppy-elite
Now there’s a link for you.
I can’t wait to here your next response-probably along the lines of ‘I’m rubber and you’re glue.’
11. May 2015 at 17:08
By the way it’s ironic that you say I’m ignorant of economics. All the conversations I’ve had with prominent economists-many with names that we all recognize-say the same thing about you.
The find you even calling yourself an economist an embarrassment Most of them don’t even bother to respond to your jibes about all these alleged victories you’ve racked up and all the bets you’ve won from Krugman as your antics are that puerile.
11. May 2015 at 17:09
Meanwhile you’re blessed hobby horse of NGDP futures doesn’t work and everybody knows it. Even Kenneth Duda knows this.
11. May 2015 at 20:39
I LOVED Lars’s analysis of Saudi Arabia / oil, thanks!
12. May 2015 at 05:57
Collin, I plan to live in California someday, so I certainly wouldn’t call it the “worst of the three.”
Mike, What’s sad is that you don’t even know why you are not welcome here.