American South's Regional Economy Falling Behind

[136or142]

Richard Florida?  Lmao

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.

[136or142]

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.'

[136or142]

Richard Florida?  Lmao

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.

[136or142]

Richard Florida?  Lmao

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.

[136or142]

Richard Florida?  Lmao

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  

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?

[136or142]

Richard Florida?  Lmao

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.