Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 21, 2019, 07:13:53 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  American South's Regional Economy Falling Behind
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: American South's Regional Economy Falling Behind  (Read 836 times)
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,327
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 10, 2019, 05:01:10 pm »

The South's Economy Is Falling Behind: 'All of a Sudden the Money Stops Flowing'

Quote
The American South spent much of the past century trying to overcome its position as the country’s poorest and least-developed region, with considerable success: By the 2009 recession it had nearly caught up economically with its northern and western neighbors.
 
That trend has now reversed. Since 2009, the South’s convergence has turned to divergence, as the region recorded the country’s slowest growth in output and wages, the lowest labor-force participation rate and the highest unemployment rate.

Behind the reversal: The policies that drove the region’s catch-up—relatively low taxes and low wages that attracted factories and blue-collar jobs—have proven inadequate in an expanding economy where the forces of globalization favor cities with concentrations of capital and educated workers.

“Those policies worked before, then they became fundamental constraints on the [South’s] long-term growth,” said Richard Florida, an urbanization expert at the University of Toronto.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,626


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2019, 06:20:31 pm »

This author should have read my thread from 14 years ago:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=17443.0

It is rather a myth that "low taxes and low wages" as policy are what drove the growth of the South. For one, although unions were suppressed in the South, for the most part "low wages" was simply a reality. Second, the South's forward zoom occurred mostly during the New Deal and World War II, with massive government investment. That laid the foundation for postwar growth.

If left to the market, underdeveloped areas will remain relatively underdeveloped, and rural areas will suffer from devastation. The South increasingly lagged the North for well over a century despite relatively free market conditions in the 19th century. Government investment can help kickstart growth in new areas. Universities, military bases, and highways have helped the geographical spread of economic growth. Take Houston for instance- the Houston Ship Channel, Addicks and Barker Resevoirs, the University of Houston, Texas Medical Center, and Johnson Space Center are at the center of the region's non-oil economy, and all of them started with a government contribution or initiative.

Incidentally, Elizabeth Warren's Green New Deal would help the South. It would invest $400 billion in Green R&D and $1.5 trillion in government procurement, distributing money specifically to rural areas and land-grant universities, of which the South has about two dozen. This would be an opportunity for Houston to further diversify its energy economy away from fossil fuels.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,121
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2019, 08:48:41 am »

Richard Florida?  Lmao
Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,289
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2019, 03:31:09 am »


It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 43,160
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2019, 04:05:58 am »

Its what I have long said about underdeveloped commodity based economies. Cutting taxes makes no sense for Saudi Arabia or Kansas, since what they need to do is invest the oil/agra profits into education and infrastructure to diversify and grow their economies. Unfortunately that doesn't fit within the think tank boiler plate bs backed by trillions of dollars in special interest money and reinforced by Soviet style purification rituals. That is why we get politicians with a block of wood for a brain, who know only to spout what they are fed via soup spoon, pushing the same agenda in Kansas as they are in Ohio with little to no consideration for local context.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,289
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2019, 04:31:34 pm »

Its what I have long said about underdeveloped commodity based economies. Cutting taxes makes no sense for Saudi Arabia or Kansas, since what they need to do is invest the oil/agra profits into education and infrastructure to diversify and grow their economies. Unfortunately that doesn't fit within the think tank boiler plate bs backed by trillions of dollars in special interest money and reinforced by Soviet style purification rituals. That is why we get politicians with a block of wood for a brain, who know only to spout what they are fed via soup spoon, pushing the same agenda in Kansas as they are in Ohio with little to no consideration for local context.

And Alberta and Australia.  The (left wing) Australian economist Richard Denniss has written several articles on when a state gets captured by its dominant industry (or what it perceives to be its dominant industry) and prostrates at the feet at that industry.

In Alberta, the new Conservative Premier Jason Kenney, just announced a $30 million fund giveaway to the oil industry to 'correct false messages put out against oil by environmentalists.'
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,121
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2019, 02:17:49 pm »


It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale. 

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already. 
Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,289
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2019, 04:42:24 pm »


It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale. 

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already. 


It's unfortunate the article triggers you. 

1.It does include Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. Leaving out Florida and Texas would only necessarily be a problem if they were included previously. 

2.The purpose of this study was not to engage in 'bashing the South' but to examine how low tax, anti union, limited business regulation states have been doing.  I'm sure you can find flaws in the methodology, but the key takeaway that seems to be very difficult to dispute is that this right wing economic vision is not producing positive results for most people.
Logged
Snowguy716
snowguy716
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,380
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2019, 06:03:22 pm »


It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale. 

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already. 

This isn’t a comparison of the rural south to the urban south.  It is a comparison of all the south to the nation as a whole.  Even if the south is more rural than the national average, it doesn’t negate the fact that the region is falling behind.  Texas is not comparable to the rest of the south...neither is Florida.  Midland and Fort Worth are not the south...  Houston perhaps.

To me it seems as soon as the GOP really took over down south, the gains in prosperity reversed.  And the more prosperous parts edge ever closer to the Democrats.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,121
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2019, 11:11:30 pm »
« Edited: June 13, 2019, 11:15:52 pm by Del Tachi »


It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale.  

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already.  


It's unfortunate the article triggers you.  

1.It does include Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. Leaving out Florida and Texas would only necessarily be a problem if they were included previously.

So?  Texas is roughly the size of all the states you named combined.  Florida adds another 22 million people.  Omitting these states is a big problem for conclusion validity.  You can't say "the South" is falling behind when you're not even considering 40% of its population.

Quote
2.The purpose of this study was not to engage in 'bashing the South' but to examine how low tax, anti union, limited business regulation states have been doing.  I'm sure you can find flaws in the methodology, but the key takeaway that seems to be very difficult to dispute is that this right wing economic vision is not producing positive results for most people.

Except that's not what its doing.  This article makes no attempt to actually quantify the effects of such policies, at least not empirically.  And if it wanted to actually contribute in that sense, they would need to look at a lot of non-Southern states with similar approaches (i.e., Ohio, Kansas, Utah, Arizona, etc.)  This article is just a flashy headline meant to get clicks, not anything resembling real science.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,121
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2019, 11:14:52 pm »


It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale. 

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already. 

This isn’t a comparison of the rural south to the urban south.  It is a comparison of all the south to the nation as a whole.  Even if the south is more rural than the national average, it doesn’t negate the fact that the region is falling behind.  Texas is not comparable to the rest of the south...neither is Florida.  Midland and Fort Worth are not the south...  Houston perhaps.

To me it seems as soon as the GOP really took over down south, the gains in prosperity reversed.  And the more prosperous parts edge ever closer to the Democrats.

Economic divergence is affecting all regions of the country.  Rural areas everywhere are falling behind while urban ones zoom ahead.  Omitting Texas and Florida from this "analysis" just to produce the results you want doesn't make any sense when these states are still some of the most "low-tax, anti-regulation" states in the country.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,289
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2019, 09:52:03 am »


It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale. 

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already. 

This isn’t a comparison of the rural south to the urban south.  It is a comparison of all the south to the nation as a whole.  Even if the south is more rural than the national average, it doesn’t negate the fact that the region is falling behind.  Texas is not comparable to the rest of the south...neither is Florida.  Midland and Fort Worth are not the south...  Houston perhaps.

To me it seems as soon as the GOP really took over down south, the gains in prosperity reversed.  And the more prosperous parts edge ever closer to the Democrats.

Economic divergence is affecting all regions of the country.  Rural areas everywhere are falling behind while urban ones zoom ahead.  Omitting Texas and Florida from this "analysis" just to produce the results you want doesn't make any sense when these states are still some of the most "low-tax, anti-regulation" states in the country.

The main difference is that rural populations as a percent of overall populations are declining outside of most of the South.  You mentioned Minnesota.  The rural first district is becoming more urbanized and the rural resource based 8th district is becoming more Duluth and Minneapolis/St Paul Exurban based.

Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,121
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2019, 11:45:11 am »


It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale. 

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already. 

This isn’t a comparison of the rural south to the urban south.  It is a comparison of all the south to the nation as a whole.  Even if the south is more rural than the national average, it doesn’t negate the fact that the region is falling behind.  Texas is not comparable to the rest of the south...neither is Florida.  Midland and Fort Worth are not the south...  Houston perhaps.

To me it seems as soon as the GOP really took over down south, the gains in prosperity reversed.  And the more prosperous parts edge ever closer to the Democrats.

Economic divergence is affecting all regions of the country.  Rural areas everywhere are falling behind while urban ones zoom ahead.  Omitting Texas and Florida from this "analysis" just to produce the results you want doesn't make any sense when these states are still some of the most "low-tax, anti-regulation" states in the country.

The main difference is that rural populations as a percent of overall populations are declining outside of most of the South.  You mentioned Minnesota.  The rural first district is becoming more urbanized and the rural resource based 8th district is becoming more Duluth and Minneapolis/St Paul Exurban based.

The Urban South is growing at the expense of the Rural South as well, my friend:



Rural populations as a percent of the overall population have been declining everywhere in the United States for about 200 years lol

I'm just still very confused at the point that you're trying to make Huh 

Logged
Snowguy716
snowguy716
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,380
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2019, 02:54:57 pm »

The point we’re making is that unlike the 1930-2009 periods, the South, being defined as VA, WV, TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, AR, OK, and KY...which includes NOVA, Charlotte, Atlanta, New Orleans, Nashville, Memphis...the trend has reversed and that section of the country is now falling behind.  Especially against the Northeast, which also has lots of rural areas. 

It doesn’t include TX or FL, nor does it include MD or DE.  Arguably it shouldn’t include OK either.  But I doubt OK being left out would change the numbers much.
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,845
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2019, 09:41:27 am »


It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale. 

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already. 

This isn’t a comparison of the rural south to the urban south.  It is a comparison of all the south to the nation as a whole.  Even if the south is more rural than the national average, it doesn’t negate the fact that the region is falling behind.  Texas is not comparable to the rest of the south...neither is Florida.  Midland and Fort Worth are not the south...  Houston perhaps.

To me it seems as soon as the GOP really took over down south, the gains in prosperity reversed.  And the more prosperous parts edge ever closer to the Democrats.

But ... I thought all of the Democrats who were in charge were pretty much just Republicans anyway, so is there really a correlation in change in control? Smiley
Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,289
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2019, 03:01:13 pm »


It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale. 

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already. 

This isn’t a comparison of the rural south to the urban south.  It is a comparison of all the south to the nation as a whole.  Even if the south is more rural than the national average, it doesn’t negate the fact that the region is falling behind.  Texas is not comparable to the rest of the south...neither is Florida.  Midland and Fort Worth are not the south...  Houston perhaps.

To me it seems as soon as the GOP really took over down south, the gains in prosperity reversed.  And the more prosperous parts edge ever closer to the Democrats.

Economic divergence is affecting all regions of the country.  Rural areas everywhere are falling behind while urban ones zoom ahead.  Omitting Texas and Florida from this "analysis" just to produce the results you want doesn't make any sense when these states are still some of the most "low-tax, anti-regulation" states in the country.

The main difference is that rural populations as a percent of overall populations are declining outside of most of the South.  You mentioned Minnesota.  The rural first district is becoming more urbanized and the rural resource based 8th district is becoming more Duluth and Minneapolis/St Paul Exurban based.

The Urban South is growing at the expense of the Rural South as well, my friend:



Rural populations as a percent of the overall population have been declining everywhere in the United States for about 200 years lol

I'm just still very confused at the point that you're trying to make Huh 



I thought I had a better point, but the Southern States have had better population growth than I thought.

1.Alabama 36th/50
2.Arkansas 29
3.Georgia 10
4.Kentucky 34
5.Louisiana 27
6.Mississippi 40
7.North Carolina 14
8.Oklahoma 24
9.South Carolina 18
10.Tennessee 23
11.Virginia 13
12.West Virginia 50?
Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,289
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2019, 07:18:48 pm »


It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale. 

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already. 


I mostly agree with this.  However accurate the data may be, that definition of South is so obviously gerrymandered to produce a negative result that it's laughable.  Excluding Texas and Florida while including all of West Virginia, Kentucky and Oklahoma is unjustifiable. 

The article itself mentions that adding in Texas and Florida (as well as Delaware) wouldn't change the results significantly.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC