5 ms·

I disagree with this in spirit. The rustbelt is not losing population but it is stagnating compared to rest of the nation. I'm from Ohio and I noticed something

by ardme 8y ago

I disagree with this in spirit. The rustbelt is not losing population but it is stagnating compared to rest of the nation. I'm from Ohio and I noticed something startling looking at population stats - before 1970 population was increasing at double digit rates many decades. After 1970, very low single digits (some decades less than 1% growth). In 1970 the population was 10,652,017, while in 2017 it is estimated at only 11,658,609. The population is barely replacing itself. If you look at other rust belt states you will see a similar trend, and I believe it is due to people moving away looking for work, starting in the 70s. The decline of the auto and manufacturing industries here is likely to blame. The same trends generally apply for Illinois, Michigan, Kentucky and Indiana. In Pennsylvania the trend started much earlier which maybe follows the steel industry decline. Anecdotally much more than half of the people I keep in contact with from high school and college in Ohio have moved away, myself included.

adventured 8y ago
That's why I was very specific when I pointed out that the population growth has been slow. There was no confusion about rapid growth (although some of these states are growing quite solidly, Minnesota for example). The parent was clear about the claim: Kansas and similar heartland states are losing population. It's false. Over decades there's a massive difference between gaining 0.3% (or similar) population per year and losing 0.3% per year. Kansas gained 1/3 more people over 50 years. Had that gone the other direction persistently, they'd barely exist as a state today. Contrast that with Germany over that time, which has seen maybe 5% growth. Germany would have loved to have 33% growth over 50 years. Or the Baltic states, which are more comparable in size to a Kansas - zero net growth over 50 years. Now that's stagnation. Or put it into more concrete economic terms. With the additional 1/3 more people, Kansas has an extra $38 billion in annual GDP output today, a total of ~$160 billion. Had they gently gone the other way, and declined slowly over time, it would be more like $60 or $70 billion today. It's a huge difference. They have a GDP per capita higher than Sweden, so when you can organically add 1/3 more people to that, it's a very meaningful economic result.
- lazyasciiart 8y ago
  The parent was specifically speaking about migration patterns, and Kansas is losing population through migration. It is currently able to make up for that loss through having babies, but that isn't very relevant to the argument on whether Americans are more likely to move to or from high-tax locations.

by ardme 8y ago

adventured 8y ago

That's why I was very specific when I pointed out that the population growth has been slow. There was no confusion about rapid growth (although some of these states are growing quite solidly, Minnesota for example). The parent was clear about the claim: Kansas and similar heartland states are losing population. It's false. Over decades there's a massive difference between gaining 0.3% (or similar) population per year and losing 0.3% per year. Kansas gained 1/3 more people over 50 years. Had that gone the other direction persistently, they'd barely exist as a state today. Contrast that with Germany over that time, which has seen maybe 5% growth. Germany would have loved to have 33% growth over 50 years. Or the Baltic states, which are more comparable in size to a Kansas - zero net growth over 50 years. Now that's stagnation. Or put it into more concrete economic terms. With the additional 1/3 more people, Kansas has an extra $38 billion in annual GDP output today, a total of ~$160 billion. Had they gently gone the other way, and declined slowly over time, it would be more like $60 or $70 billion today. It's a huge difference. They have a GDP per capita higher than Sweden, so when you can organically add 1/3 more people to that, it's a very meaningful economic result.

lazyasciiart 8y ago
The parent was specifically speaking about migration patterns, and Kansas is losing population through migration. It is currently able to make up for that loss through having babies, but that isn't very relevant to the argument on whether Americans are more likely to move to or from high-tax locations.