Here is an interesting graphic about the recent population mobility trends in the US, following the recent crisis or an illustration of how people reacted to the recession by voting with their feet.
From mint.com, ``In times of plenty, relocating for work usually means a better job or a higher standard of living. But in today’s tough economy, many are finding that they just can’t find work or maintain their standard of living where they currently live. It’s especially bad in New York and California, two places where the economy is suffering and the cost of living remains high. Many of these financial refugees are ending up in Texas, a place where the cost of living is low. And many of those that are relocating are in the very lowest income bracket, a further indication that money is their motivation for moving." [emphasis added]
The Wall Street Journal has a better perspective:
``But first the biggest loser, which was Michigan for the fourth year in a row. More than two families left the state for every family that moved in. The fall of GM and Chrysler has obviously hurt. But two-term Governor Jennifer Granholm has also made her state the test case for the policy mix of raising taxes on higher incomes, increasing regulation, and steering taxpayer money at favored programs like job retraining and renewable energy. It hasn't worked for Michigan, even with the auto bailouts.
``Ms. Granholm continues to be a regular economic policy adviser to the White House. Yikes.
``The next two biggest net losers were Illinois and New Jersey, while California and New York also continued to have far more departures than arrivals.
``Ten states gained net arrivals: Oregon, Arkansas, Nevada, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, Texas and North Carolina. Of those, only Oregon sways decidedly to the political left and it has benefited from the economic refugees fleeing California.
``Six of the eight states with no income tax were magnets for families, while eight of the 10 highest income tax states had more people packing. Democrats in state capitals and Washington have convinced themselves that "soak the rich" tax policies can help balance budgets, but the main effect seems to be to stimulate bon voyage parties.[unintended consequences of taxation-Benson]
``As for the biggest winner, well, our readers won't be surprised to learn that it was Washington, D.C. by a large margin. United Van Lines moved nearly seven families to the federal city last year for every three it moved out. As always when the feds gear up the income redistribution machine, the imperial city and its denizens get a big cut of the action.
``As in ancient Rome, the provinces are being required to send tribute to subsidize those living in the capital, which produces few services save transfer payments. No wonder the provincials are starting to rebel—even in Massachusetts."
My comment:
-Low taxes benefits from migration inflows
-High taxes suffers from population loss
-like maggots, political lobbyists, fast expanding government bureaucracy, and other political entities throng to the center where political favors are dispensed.
No comments:
Post a Comment