The world is a laboratory and different nations are public policy experiments. Not surprisingly, the evidence from these experiments is that nations with more freedom tend to grow faster and enjoy more prosperity. Nations with big governments, by contrast, are more likely to suffer from stagnation.
The same thing happens inside the United States. The 50 states are experiments, and they generate considerable data showing that small government states enjoy better economic performance. But because migration between states is so easy (whereas migration between nations is more complicated), we also get very good evidence based on people “voting with their feet.” Taxation and jobs are two big factors that drive this process.
Looking at the census data and matching migration data with state tax systems, here’s what Michael Barone wrote. He finds (not that anyone should be surprised) that the absence of a state income tax is correlated with faster growth, which attracts people from high-tax states.
…growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England. Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.
And here’s Diana Furtchtgott-Roth, writing for Realclearmarkets.com. She uses the presence of right-to-work laws (which prohibit union membership as a condition of employment) as a proxy for the degree to which big government and big labor are imposing restrictions on efficient employment markets. Not surprisingly, the states that have a market-friendly approach create more jobs and therefore attract more workers.
The American people have been voting with their feet, the Census Bureau announced on Tuesday, leaving states with heavy union influence and choosing to live in “right-to-work” states with higher job growth where they cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. …As a result of geographic shifts in population uncovered by the 2010 Census, nine congressional seats will move to right-to-work states from forced unionization states. Some winners are Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and South Carolina, while losers include New York, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and New Jersey. Over the past 25 years job growth in right-to-work states has been over twice as high as in unionized states.
This leaves us with one perplexing question. If we know that pro-market policies work for states, why does the crowd in Washington push for more statism?
Welcome, Instapundit readers. Since many of you might not be regular readers of International Liberty, the important lesson to learn from the Census data is that federalism is good because state governments have to compete against each other, and this helps restrain the greed of politicians. The same principle operates at the international level, which is why tax competition is such a powerful force for liberty.
[…] We know, for instance, that people are leaving high-tax states and migrating to low-tax states. […]
[…] Mark said, people do “vote with their feet” for smaller […]
[…] That being said, Kansas clearly is moving in the right direction. All you have to do is compare economic performance in Texas and California to see that low-tax states out-perform high-tax states. […]
[…] That being said, Kansas clearly is moving in the right direction. All you have to do is compare economic performance in Texas and California to see that low-tax states out-perform high-tax states. […]
[…] steps to reduce their exposure to the greed of the political class. In other words, people can vote with their feet … and with their […]
[…] leur exposition à la cupidité de la classe politique. En d’autres termes, les gens peuvent voter avec leurs pieds… et avec leur […]
[…] other words, people can vote with their feet…and with their […]
[…] other words, people can vote with their feet…and with their […]
[…] We know, for instance, that people are leaving high-tax states and migrating to low-tax states. […]
[…] A better analogy might be to compare Detroit to other local governments. Some large cities in California already have declared bankruptcy, for instance, and you can find the same pattern of overcompensated bureaucrats and escaping taxpayers. […]
[…] […]
[…] written many times about how investors, entrepreneurs, small business owners and other successful people migrate from […]
[…] written many times about how investors, entrepreneurs, small business owners and other successful people migrate from […]
[…] We know, for instance, that people are leaving high-tax states and migrating to low-tax states. […]
[…] We know, for instance, that people are leaving high-tax states and migrating to low-tax states. […]
[…] know that people cross state borders all the time, and it’s usually to travel from high-tax states to low-tax states. And we’ve already seen some evidence that the state’s new top tax rate is causing a loss of […]
[…] know that people cross state borders all the time, and it’s usually to travel from high-tax states to low-tax states. And we’ve already seen some evidence that the state’s new top tax rate is causing a loss of […]
[…] know that people cross state borders all the time, and it’s usually to travel from high-tax states to low-tax states. And we’ve already seen some evidence that the state’s new top tax rate is causing a […]
[…] commented before about entrepreneurs, investors, and small business owners migrating from high tax states such as Californi… and nobody gets […]
Oh yes, you are free to move to Singapore, Germany, Brazil, Canada or wherever else the jobs are, BUT, if you are a US citizen you had better be prepared to renounce your American citizenship. Why, because as a US citizen you continue to be subject to Federal income tax on your world-wide income, no matter where you live and work.
And that is double taxation on top of the taxes you pay to your host
country. You will need to be compensated 2 to 3 times as much as citizens of any other country, which pretty well excludes the US citizen from going abroad to seek new opportunities. What employer is going to pay you a lot more just because you have a US passport?
But somehow nobody in Washington has been able to figure out why the US has a massive $758 billion trade deficit and Great Depression era unemployment, while all of our high-wage industrialized competitors are racking up record trade surpluses and experiencing the lowest unemployment rates in years
[…] commented before about entrepreneurs, investors, and small business owners migrating from high tax states such as Californi… and nobody gets […]
[…] too much of the Kool-Aid being served by his new friends on the left. There is a wealth of data on successful people leaving jurisdictions such as California and New York that have confiscatory tax […]
[…] Kool-Aid being served by his new friends on the left. There is a wealth of data on successful people leaving jurisdictions such as California and New York that have confiscatory tax […]
[…] that’s even being reflected across state lines here at home. There is a wealth of data on successful people leaving jurisdictions such as California and New York that have confiscatory tax […]
[…] that’s even being reflected across state lines here at home. There is a wealth of data on successful people leaving jurisdictions such as California and New York that have confiscatory tax […]
[…] too much of the Kool-Aid being served by his new friends on the left. There is a wealth of data on successful people leaving jurisdictions such as California and New York that have confiscatory tax […]
[…] Or I could expose their economic illiteracy by pointing out that higher tax rates would accelerate the emigration of investors, entrepreneurs, small business owners, and other rich taxpayers to zero-ta…. […]
[…] Or I could expose their economic illiteracy by pointing out that higher tax rates would accelerate the emigration of investors, entrepreneurs, small business owners, and other rich taxpayers to zero-tax…. […]
Regarding the discussion going on here, I think the clue is URBAN – RURAL. We know RURAL places are mostly republican and URBAN places mostly democrat. The same things happens in my country, the cities tend to be socialist.
Take a look at Ukraine and the mass murder of millions by hunger that the Stalin regime perpetrated: According to Wikipedia Stalin starved the cities and showed there propaganda movies where the ukranian farmers where showed as the robbers of the cities’ food
Actually those farmers were not robbers but instead they owned the food they actually produced. Their “crime” was being the owners of capital. But with city starving and such propaganda Stalin pushed city dwellers to go to rural places to steal the farmers’ production and to enforce “theft of property laws” that in some cases made the ownership of food by farmers a crime punishable by death. Moreover hordes impeded farmers to flee Ukraine. In such a way mass murder by hunger was achieved. So the URBAN – RURAL antagonism is clear here.
Many farmers are business owners and are their own bosses. A small town means means that businesses or businesses branches are mainly small. Perhaps the proportion of business owners in RURAL places is much higher than in URBAN places: One of the reasons for being a business owner is avoiding having a boss with enormous power over you. So people who hate to have a boss with enormous power over them -or who hate having politicians and bureaucrats with colossal power over them- may become business owners. Of course such capital owning independent people will rarely accept the usual leftist capital ownership demonizing nonsense and the usual leftist drive for total power and control over people.
Since in the cities are most of the big factories and enterprises then the left used the demonization of the ownership of capital to allege that “the people” -i.e. the government- should own capital and not the “exploiting capitalists”.
Someone that has no capital, because he is an employee and payroll taxes -and other taxes- leaves him practically without capital, will never fight very hard against capital confiscation leftist theories.
In Latin America things are much worse since IMO exorbitant tax rates and regulations -that cannot be paid or avoided by the less productive- impede tens millions to own a formal business, bringing tens millions to poverty and “feeding” the leftist capital ownership demonizing drive.
[…] According to Census Data, People Vote with their Feet for Less Government The world is a laboratory and different nations are public policy experiments. Not surprisingly, the evidence from […] […]
[…] Mitchell provides a bit of ground truth that we’ve recently seen demonstrated via the census numbers: The world is a laboratory and […]
If we know that pro-market policies work for states, why does the crowd in Washington push for more statism?
Assuming that’s a rhetorical question. Do you think they want less power?
Uriel, gazer, Val, hitnrun, Joseph Hertzlinger, backhoe1, et al.:
I’d expand the concept to many of my European friends who emigrated with me to the US to escape their typical comfortable but mediocre and stagnant careers in Europe:
Their typical lament at California cocktail parties:
“Such a rich country could sure afford more Welfare Policies…how come these American cowboy rednecks don’t get it?… ”
I believe that unrestricted emigration and immigration is the fundamental missing element in international liberty (Mr. Mitchell’s well selected central theme). However, I might just support one single question on the US Visa application: “Have you ever been a Useful Idiot?” 🙂 (*)
(*) BTW, they once used to ask “Have you ever supported worldwide communism?”. I think my proposal would be a reasonable replacement. Or perhaps, in order to be less discriminatory towards foreigners the question should be: “Other than Hope and Change, have you ever been a Useful Idiot?”
If people prefer that which the leaders do not like, it is obviously necessary to eliminate that which disproves their beliefs while never admitting even to themselves that it does so. Not perplexing at all–it worked for Stalin and Mao after all.
Strike “Liberty” with “corporatism” and this article makes sene. Otherwise, there’s no intelligible story here.
Maybe you don’t know what “liberty” is.
“Uriel
Unfortunately, many of those voting with their feet are “Locusts”; i.e., leftists who will move from States which they themselves have destroyed by repeatedly voting for leftist policies, to new States which have prospered by avoiding those same leftist policies, where they will proceed to repeatedly vote for leftist policies which will inevitably destroy their new home States, at which point they will move to …. you get the idea.”
Yep- that is exactly what I’m seeing on the Georgia coast– refugees from out big cities- and elsewhere– fleeing same, landing here, and saying
“Hey, nice place to live… beautiful weather, low taxes, cheap houses… if only it had ___”
The blank to be filled in always involves more government interference, more laws & regulations, and higher taxes- “for our children”– and making Our Space more like the ones they just ruined and fled…
[…] DAN MITCHELL: According to Census Data, People Vote with their Feet for Less Government. […]
Dan I prefer the locution that you MUST join their UNION CLUB to work for the employer before you get YOUR paycheck after your CLUB has taken YOUR MONEY. Happy Boxing Day.
I think the way leftists explain their decision is that they think they’re just escaping overcrowded conditions. Most of the places they’re leaving tend to be crowded as well as highly taxed.
What happens to the job growth comparison is government employees are not included in the growth? Would the “right to work” states be triple or quadruple the union states?
Uriel, unfortunately, is right. This is the other side of the so-called culture wars: “behind enemy lines” as far as the media is concerned, the side of the clash they scarcely cover.
Affluent voters (who can afford to relocate) move to a new locale and promptly start voting for the same policies that turned the place they left into the an economic sinkhole and a fiscal disaster area. This is not a conscious lunge for leftism, I don’t think; not even the dumbest liberal is going to vote for higher taxes in his new tax haven. But they will vote for a credentialed, urbane Democrat over the disdain of the locals, who they consider a bunch of stupid hicks.
Uriel said: “leftists who will move from States which they themselves have destroyed by repeatedly voting for leftist policies, to new States which have prospered by avoiding those same leftist policies, where they will proceed to repeatedly vote for leftist policies which will inevitably destroy their new home States”
Yes indeed. Happening in Nevada right now – witness Clarke county and its re-election of dingy harry, outlawing smoking in restaurants, and a host of other kalifornia ideas from the kalifornians coming here in order to flee kalifornia. The funny thing is they will say how much they like the differences in Nevada, then say they want these bizarre kalifornia things – not even realizing the contradiction.
Uriel points out the real problem.
It’s no use glorying in the fact that the states with low taxes get higher growth and attract more people. Over time they end up overtaxed just like New Jersey and North Carolina.
No, what low tax states like Texas need to do is to put in super-majority requirements against spending increases, limits on the growth of local government and limits on public pension spending.
And then make sure that the federal government does not bail out the spendthrift states like NY CA and IL. In short order their own dwindling populations will see the light and sort out their states.
Until that happens, don’t get complacent
“This leaves us with one perplexing question. If we know that pro-market policies work for states, why does the crowd in Washington push for more statism?”
Why does this perplex you? The crowd in D.C. pushes for Statism because they’re Statists. What works for the people is of no concern; what works for them is what matters, and what works for Statists is Statism. Where’s the perplexity?
Unfortunately, many of those voting with their feet are “Locusts”; i.e., leftists who will move from States which they themselves have destroyed by repeatedly voting for leftist policies, to new States which have prospered by avoiding those same leftist policies, where they will proceed to repeatedly vote for leftist policies which will inevitably destroy their new home States, at which point they will move to …. you get the idea.
Government people, politicians and bureaucrats, get Marxist dogma taught to them in college, just as my daughter had. The problem is that she is working as a waitress part time and learning about the real world and private enterprise, while they have never held a real job and know nothing but government. In a way, it is not their fault; it is ours for giving them so much power. If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you are a government functionary, every problem has the same solution; more government.
[…] DAN MITCHELL: According to Census Data, People Vote with their Feet for Less Government. […]