In contrasting Texas’s explosive population increase in Texas with the lackluster growth in California, Michael Barone offers some statistics on how how each states’ public policy impact their economic growth:
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.
Sometimes, I think that Democratic politicians and their allies don’t see the link between the policies they advocate and the deficits their states are experiencing, not to mention between said big-government policies and the economic health of their various jurisdictions.
Stand by for some unionist bed-wetter to tell us that without unions, the Koch brothers would have us slaving in their nut mines and ripping out our heats Temple of Doom Style.
Here’s an article, the head of the Michigan Teacher’s Union describes a bill in the legislature to permit the outsourcing of janitorial work in public schools as an “attack on education. In what way is hiring private contractors to pour sawdust on kidpuke an “attack on education?”
I believe liberal politicians do see the link between the policies they advocate and the deficits their states experience. I think they just don’t want their followers to.
Hi Dan,
Two things leave me more than unimpressed with this linked article.
First, the article says that:
“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.”
Out of curiosity, what does “growth” mean here? After all, if we are talking “growth in population” it is not at all clear to me that this is a good thing at all. Or, is this growth in economic activity? I deduce that growth is in people.
“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.”
Second, really? On what reading of this article is there any evidence advanced to support that claim? You have a correlation, but no causality being established here. More people are living in these states. Great. Are they buying houses or renting them? I have no idea, the article doesn’t say. If so, how is this related to public sector unions? What differential in wages for a given cost of living is operating here? Of course, you can make an argument to support the claim (and folks do on this site), but honestly, what exactly is in the article you link to that supports this contention? An example of evidence?
The Democrat politicians don’t care; they must have their union collusions & kickbacks. Ethics & the economy be damned.
Cas demonstrates economic ignorance once again. Growth is the amount of growth in GDP.
Hi VK,
“Cas demonstrates economic ignorance once again. Growth is the amount of growth in GDP.”
I am open to being corrected. Please show me in the article the evidence for your claim?
Cass,
The evidence IS the growth of population. Do people move to places that are less economically advantageous for them? Especially by such large percentages? If you would like to claim that the growth in these areas population in from an economically draining reason (welfare hunters or whatnot), then that would need to be substantiated. I am willing to be corrected too…It’s how I increase my understanding. Barring that…
To address one of your other questions/points: Population growth as it applies to economic growth is relevant whether people buy a house or rent..the money they earn is being pumped into that states’, localities’ economy. This is true if they are making a house payment or paying rent….as well as buying groceries, entertainment, and everything else people spend their money on.
As someone who lives in Wisconsin we (wisconsinites) for years have complained that Wisconsin all but exports our great college graduates…people don’t want to stay in such an aggressively taxed state.
Hi Nathan,
I think you make a good point–population growth could be based on economic growth–it is just that the article doesn’t talk about GDP growth at all, as far as I can see. My request for evidence is directed at VK’s claim that it is all about GDP growth. Population growth doesn’t equal GDP growth. And lower welfare, unions, etc is also not lower GDP growth, though it may play a role in GDP growth. The article is based on Census data (as far as I can tell). I don’t remember Census data dealing with GDP, correct me if I am wrong.
VK is very quick to speak of ignorance, but not very quick to back a claim when called on it.
Oh they see, them. They just dont care.
They think the only reasons their policies dont work is because they dont have enough control yet. And so the crimes they commit with unions are just a means of getting the control they need for the greater good.
I have no idea why I put that comma there. typo I guess
Hi Cas,
My personal point is the specificity of a GDP measurement is not necessary to substantiate Mr. Blatt’s post. I don’t presume to speak for VK. That is not a rebuke of you or him. I just don’t want to misrepresent the direction of my comments to you or VK. But to the point….
If population growth reasonably substantiates an indication of economic growth in these cases (and I believe they can for the reasons I mentioned) then the lack of an exact(ish) measurement such as GDP is peripheral to the point of Mr. Blatt’s posting. The “how much more” economic growth each percentage point of increased population substantiates would only be necessary if there was a claim as to how much economic gain the population increases represent. As far as I can tell, there has been no such claim submitted.
I do want to sincerely congratulate you on engaging in a polite and fruitful discussion. Thank You
It´s either egoism or ideology that is the driving force behind the radical left. It´s egoism to want what they want now without giving a damn who is adversely effects. It´s ideology in wanting to take from the haves in order acheive the final ends; equality, when everybody is poor.
Forbes has the most amazing interactive map relating to population shift county by county. First, choose a county and click on it. Then move your cursor to any highlighted county and click on it. Be sure to note the average income in the movement.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html
People move for a variety of reasons, but the two biggest are for employment opportunities and retirement. When people from New Jersey flock to a condo retirement in Florida, they calculate their tax savings and it helps propel them. Does New Jersey get an equal replacement moving in? The map will help you decide.
Hi Nathan,
Thank you for your reply.
“If population growth reasonably substantiates an indication of economic growth in these cases (and I believe they can for the reasons I mentioned) then the lack of an exact(ish) measurement such as GDP is peripheral to the point of Mr. Blatt’s posting.”
One thing to bear in mind–increased population can lead to increased economic growth just by the presence of extra effective demand (leading to increased output, etc), as you point out. But it doesn’t have to. I think of less developed countries that have been mired in poverty, even as their populations increase. I grant that this is not the case here, but this is one reason why I wanted more care with this approach. It is not enough to claim that A led to B. I do not think that population increase, on its own, is enough evidence.
“The “how much more” economic growth each percentage point of increased population substantiates would only be necessary if there was a claim as to how much economic gain the population increases represent. As far as I can tell, there has been no such claim submitted.”
First, Texas may be the “bomb” on all this! But that wasn’t what I was arguing about. Maybe I am just missing something I said earlier that you see more clearly (in what I wrote), but the issues I raised were on the causality-correlation issue. I didn’t (I think) make a claim about “how much” economic growth was associated with the population increase and public policy choices. Rather, do public policy choices and growth in population lead to eco growth, or vice versa, or both (in mutual entailment)? I do not think the article does a good job on that issue, in terms of evidence of causality. A different article might do this job much better.
“I do want to sincerely congratulate you on engaging in a polite and fruitful discussion. Thank You ”
And thank you. Is it really rare in your experience to have civil conversations across the political divide?
Hi Cas @#3:
The first paragraph of the article which Dan linked:
What is there to say?
Cas,
I think that any decrease in economic growth corresponding to an increase in population growth would be enough of an anomaly in America to require substantiating of that correlation…However, the reverse being a reasonable enough conclusion as to be self evident (to an admittedly undetermined degree)
“I didn’t (I think) make a claim about “how much” economic growth was associated with the population increase and public policy choices.”
It was my understanding that you were saying that without that level of specificity the claim that an increase in population correlating to economic growth is not valid. Perhaps I was misunderstanding your point.
As to civil discourse across political lines my experience has been (in order of prevalence)
Avoidance – fair enough. I’ve done it and I empathize with anyone not wanting to go down that conversational hi-way out side of forums like this.
Confrontational – including every logical fallacy, sweeping generalizations and flat out play ground fighting. I defer to Ayn Rand’s approach in such situations
Open Discussion – I was friends with several political junkies in college..we all got along well even in our political conversations because we all accepted that no one was going to change anyone’s mind….we ultimately just sharpened our debate skills on each other for fun. We laughed at ourselves and each other when some gaff or scandal took place on either side.
Hi Heliotrope!
As my discussion with Nathan has made clear, it is about economic growth and population growth, and their relationship.
Can you believe Florida opprssives are going apeshit because Gov. Scott wants state employees to have random drug tests like the rest of the proletariat?
How can these lame-brained bastards claim they’re for “the little guy” all the while squealing, like Ned Beatty, that they’re too good to be subject to the same rules?
Where’s the equality?
Hi Nathan,
“It was my understanding that you were saying that without that level of specificity the claim that an increase in population correlating to economic growth is not valid. Perhaps I was misunderstanding your point.”
Actually, I was Kvetching about the lack of clarity the article had in using the term “growth” along with the ambiguity of collating causality with correlation. As far as I could tell, the article did not actually make clear what “growth” was here–“growth in population” and/or “growth in economic activity.” If I am wrong about that, okey dokey. I grant that correlation was evident throughout the article, but no causality was shown for the claims made. I agree, one can make an INFERENCE about the claim constructing a causal or correlative argument (as you have done), but the author does not actually do the work to make the causal argument.