New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | November 18, 2004

Nick Gillespie asks why so few people want to live in America's most economically free state.

Comments

|11.18.04 @ 2:04PM|#

Makes a weird sort of sense, actually: To the extent that more people already want to cluster in New York for non-economic (in the colloquial sense) reasons, and are already willing to pay a premium to do so, New York can afford to tack on all sorts of burdensome taxes and regulations without, below some threshhold anyway, having to worry much about a sudden exodus. Policymakers in less dense areas where the primary attraction is that low cost of living are, as a result, relatively more constrained. And presumably there's a feedback effect, wherein people who settle or stay somewhere for that reason are more likely to exert political pressure to keep taxes and regs minimal.

|11.18.04 @ 2:11PM|#

The problem with the thinking underlying this piece - that people trade economic opportunity for cultural opportunity when they move to the metropolises - is that it isn't true. There is MORE economic opportunity in Massachusetts than in Nebraska, or in New Jersey than in Utah. With better infrastructure, better educational systems, and the higher quality of life that comes from government spending and regulation, the "low freedom" states have more to offer.

The exception being New Hampshire. That state's heavily populated area is actually within Greater Boston, allowing it to take advantage of both the region's high quality of life and economic opportunity (provided by the powerful dynamism of highly regulated Massachusetts), and the low business taxes and regulations of New Hampshire.

|11.18.04 @ 2:11PM|#

Yet another great argument for federalism.

|11.18.04 @ 2:22PM|#

You gotta be kiddin' me. If the hustle and bustle of city life is preferable to you, good on you. The greater freedom and less numbers of authoritarian assholes in the country are reasons enough for me to avoid the cities at all costs. Your mileage may vary. But extrapolating a trend is one thing, and asking "who would WANT to live there?" just makes you sound like a sanctimonious asshole.

|11.18.04 @ 2:23PM|#

I can't disagree with the core argument. But as Nick noted, a lot of the more economically free states are seeing much faster population growth than the less free locales. And as a result, the big cities in these places are becoming more interesting places to live. For example, it's hard to argue that Denver and Phoenix (in states ranked #2 and #11, respectively) aren't more culturally vibrant than they were in the past. And while places like Salt Lake City and Colorado Springs can't compare with New York and LA, they're still more likely to provide you with the intellectual, recreational, and commercial amenities associated with big cities than they were before.

|11.18.04 @ 2:24PM|#

Why don't many people want to live in Kansas? Because its boring, its flat and it sucks. :)

|11.18.04 @ 2:30PM|#

Here's the technical term I just coined for the phenomenon Nick's describing:
Massophilia Hysteria
That study finding Kansas best needs to adjust for Massophilia Hysteria.

Now here's where this thread should go.
Imagine the Reasonoid potential of population dense areas able to crank up freedom a notch.
What could such areas accomplish?
Abolish the Electoral College for starters?

|11.18.04 @ 2:31PM|#

I lived in Idaho for a long time, and have moved to Phoenix for law school. If I can find a way to profitably practice patent law in Idaho, I'll move back without a second's hesitation.

|11.18.04 @ 2:31PM|#

It isn't a big city thing, ugh. Phoenix, SLC, and Houston are big cities. Most of Jersey, Massachusetts, and California are suburban.

|11.18.04 @ 2:34PM|#

The problem with the thinking underlying this piece - that people trade economic opportunity for cultural opportunity when they move to the metropolises - is that it isn't true. There is MORE economic opportunity in Massachusetts than in Nebraska, or in New Jersey than in Utah. With better infrastructure, better educational systems, and the higher quality of life that comes from government spending and regulation, the "low freedom" states have more to offer.

I thought that was the whole point of the article? That economic freedom isn't the whole of economic opportunity? Maybe I'm missing something, but that's exactly what Nick is saying in this article.

|11.18.04 @ 2:34PM|#

"If I can find a way to profitably practice patent law in Idaho, I'll move back without a second's hesitation."

That's just it - you probably won't. The levels of innovation and economic dynamism necessary for such work are a lot rarer in "higher freedom" states.

|11.18.04 @ 2:34PM|#

Basically humans like to live near big bodies of water, for a variety of reasons, and that mostly explains their distribution.

|11.18.04 @ 2:36PM|#

grylliade, I think he was saying that economic freedom and opportunity aren't the only factors that people take into account. Lifestyle issues trump economic ones. But I didn't read the article as distinguishing economic freedom from economic opportunity.

|11.18.04 @ 2:39PM|#

I wouldn't really call Phoenix a big city. Sure, we've got a lot of people, but it's like one big suburbia that stretches from one end of the valley to the other. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of fun here, and it has gotten 'better' since I've been here (going on 20 years), but I would move to SF in a heartbeat if I could just find that job in porn. Anyone got any connextions?

|11.18.04 @ 2:46PM|#

Joe, you were doing good for one sentence. Then we jump, with no support, to - "... higher quality of life that comes from government spending and regulation ..."

Wha ... ?

Perhaps this would be more compelling if the states you're referring to hadn't also had warm-water ports, major industries, and economic ascendency back in the days of lasseiz faire.

But enough of taking the subject too seriously. Sure, government regulation may not be the only thing that differentiates the states paved in corn farmed by bible-thumping theists from those of asphalt and skyscrapers where stylish young people drink espresso in quaint neighborhood cafes. But what has ever stopped us from crediting a region's entire nature to a single aspect of its culture?

"With better [coffee shops], [more roasters], and the higher [twitchiness] that comes from [coffee consumption], the '[many Starbucks]' states have more to offer."

"With better [hemlines], [sharper colors], and the higher quality of life that comes from [designer-autographed buttocks], the '[stylish]' states have more to offer."

"With [more asphalt], [a] better [homeless community], and the higher [altitude of buildings] that comes from [high urbanization], the '[citified]' states have more to offer."

|11.18.04 @ 2:47PM|#

Sheah! "Economically Free" in that there are no jobs there - unless cow fucking pays a stipend or something... Screw Kansas in the ear hole.

|11.18.04 @ 2:53PM|#

"Basically humans like to live near big bodies of water, for a variety of reasons, and that mostly explains their distribution."

trainwreck,
I wonder if living by water is just a residual of the fact water, until recently, was about the only mode of communication and transportation.
So, according to my theory, water was/is an extension of Massophilia Hysteria.

|11.18.04 @ 2:54PM|#

First, I have also heard the statistic that certain places (mostly "red" areas and/or areas with less economic regulation) are experiencing faster rates of growth. However, most of those areas also have smaller populations than, say, NYC or LA or Boston or Chicago. When you start from a small baseline it's easier to achieve high percentage growth rates. Keeping those percentages high over time is more tricky.

Second, could it be that there's more economic regulation in NYC than Kansas because the NYC gov't can get away with it and the KS gov't can't? Think about it. NYC would have to become incredibly draconian before significant numbers of businesspeople would flee from Wall Street and the cultural attractions of living in NYC. New Jersey would have to become pretty damn draconian to prompt an exodus away from the pharmaceutical cluster there, as well as the cultural and financial attractions of nearby NYC.

KS, on the other hand, doesn't have a whole lot to attract people and businesses. Lower taxes and less regulation may be needed as a selling point.

|11.18.04 @ 2:56PM|#

Joe - didn't see your "isn't a big city thing" comment before I posted. But I'm sitting in California right now, and I see plenty of cities.

Perhaps the problem is this: I grew up in a spot with 6000 people, many of them owning multi-acre parcels, that called itself a "city." In California you pack 100,000 commuting urbanites into condos and postage-stamp lots and it still only qualifies as a "suburb."

|11.18.04 @ 3:02PM|#

Is this supposed growth being measured by absolute numbers or percentages? I've encountered several so called 'researchers' swap the two in order to make it fit their theory.

Adding 50 people to town A with 50 people gives that town a 100% population growth.
Adding 50 people to town B with 5000 people gives that town a 1% population growth.

You can doctor this either way - say that town A is attracting more people by quoting the percentage, or say that both towns are growing by the same number of people by quoting the actual numbers.

So in the case of 'economically free' areas gaining more population, which of the above two scenarios fits into their interpretation of the data?

|11.18.04 @ 3:04PM|#

Coastal areas have ports. The northeast is the most economically mature area because it is the oldest business area.

For counter arguments, take a look at The Triangle in NC. Relatively low levels of taxation and regulation are generating quite the boom there.

|11.18.04 @ 3:06PM|#

Another issue is that the "unfree states" are largely built out already. There isn't as much land available for development in Massachusetts or New Jersey, so the housing prices are higher. This likely explains part of the higher population growth rates in the "free states."

Business organizations regularly point to housing costs as an impediment to their expansion in Massachusetts - it's difficult to get people to relocate from other parts of the country, because it's so hard to get into a mortgage with the profits from your $100,000 3500 sq ft house in Kansas.

|11.18.04 @ 3:12PM|#

Jason, I'd have to say that the presence of UNC played a pretty significant role in the Triangle's development.

"The northeast is the most economically mature area because it is the oldest business area." Then why is the Potomac River/Chesapeake Bay area the equivalent of the northeast corridor? A couple possibilities - urban development patterns, as opposed to individualist plantation settlements; lack of natural resources in the north drove the earlier development of a commercial/shipping/manufacturing economy; more universities.

|11.18.04 @ 3:15PM|#

hmmm.

Internet + telecommuting + UPS + low level of regulations + low expenses = paradise to me.

What's that about telecommuting? Impractical? Oh, come on. Anyone with one functioning brain cell can identify a need, and with two more brain cells can figure out a way to supply it.

|11.18.04 @ 3:18PM|#

One type of cause and effect that should be considered is that, like ticks drawn to warm blood, the economic sucess of a region is exactly what attracts the parasites who want to rule and control. Rural Texas attracts people who wish to leave alone and be left alone while New York attracts those looking for a fiefdom.

|11.18.04 @ 3:18PM|#

Looks like Economicly Free = Free of an Economy.

Jeff Smith|11.18.04 @ 3:18PM|#

The truly implausible bit of Nick's piece
is the bit about finding a three bedroom
apartment in the DC metro area.

Jeff (who may leave the city of people
who make the pie smaller for some trendy
college town)

|11.18.04 @ 3:19PM|#

Everyone listen to joe and stay out of Idaho. You wont find a job. Also, its ugly here and the state is full of racists.

|11.18.04 @ 3:20PM|#

I think it's the wealth that attracts the big government. It would be relatively unrealistic to expect a lower wealth state to attract service programs it couldn't "afford". Likewise, once the state starts to offer these alleged services, the dirt balls who would try to suck up this available money are more likely to move in, and less likely to move out, which would drive population up further. In short, large governments linger in wealthy areas because there are enough people producing enough wealth for them to skim off the top.

|11.18.04 @ 3:21PM|#

Far be it for a city mouse to tell a country mouse anything, but as Max Beerbohm might say for the kind of people who like a place like Kansas, Kansas is the kind of place they like.

Having said that, I gotta say, as one who was born in NY and raised in NJ [Leonia to be precise] and yet, abandoned his roots to live elsewhere, I can sympathize with Gillespie's argument. My decision to leave the NYC area was based on a host of reasons, but one of them was that the place had just become too much of an overcrowded, expensive headache to be worth it [this applied equally to whether I was living in the city proper or an outer borough or the suburbs]. In moving to Seattle I gave up much of the dynamism that is NY, but there's more than enough here to keep me occupied and the cost of living, while not cheap, is a bargain. Also, I make more and spend much less of it on taxes. In short my overall quality of life has increased dramatically. I can now actually afford nice clothes, fancy dinners and a decent apartment within walking distance of my job and I could easily afford more than that if I weren't spending my money on DV equipment. Although I get the occasional stab of nostalgia for my home town [mostly when trying to find something like a halfway decent corned beef sandwich] I can't imagine moving back. In fact, I once calculated how much I would have to earn to achieve the same standard of living back East and it was close to twice my current salary! So, in choosing a place to live certain trade-offs have to be made, but there are still places where a bargain can be struck.

|11.18.04 @ 3:21PM|#

Beat you to it CPT Awesome :-P

|11.18.04 @ 3:28PM|#

"$100,000 3500 sq ft house in Kansas"

I know this is just a throw away line, but where in Kansas have you ever seen this? I live in Nebraska and I bought a 2000 sq ft home for $114,000.

|11.18.04 @ 3:38PM|#

"Jason, I'd have to say that the presence of UNC played a pretty significant role in the Triangle's development."

Maybe. There are a lot of places with state schools, though.

Generally, it is difficult to separate the cart from the horse in terms of the power of government goodies. Opportunity attracts people, and population density correlates with regulation. The Northeast has the advantage of history, not all of which was heavy in regulation. New York is heavily regulated by local standards, but it is also Ground Zero of American Capitalism, which is a more powerful economic contributor to the state than anything the government in particular has done. That concentration of wealth and innovative 'human capital' gives the entire northeast advantages it might not otherwise have. I think it is difficult to assign credit to regulations in general.

|11.18.04 @ 3:52PM|#

For counter arguments, take a look at The Triangle in NC. Relatively low levels of taxation and regulation are generating quite the boom there.

I would be interested in knowing what significant regulatory regimes are present in the New England states but absent in North Carolina. I also doubt that tax levels are all that low in North Carolina: the top income tax rate in Mass. is 5.3% vs. 8.25 in NC.

(Mass. gets more tax revenue than most states because wages and salaries are higher in Mass. than elsewhere, but its rates are relatively low.)

|11.18.04 @ 4:04PM|#

Someone should try to correlate 'economic freedom' against a 'social freedom' scale for states and see what trends arise.

fyodor|11.18.04 @ 4:05PM|#

But I didn't read the article as distinguishing economic freedom from economic opportunity.

The article focused on the former and said nothing about the latter. The greater concentrations of people in the less economicly free states play a large role in the greater economic opportunities there.

|11.18.04 @ 4:08PM|#

Jason, agreed, cause and effect is very tangled.

North Carolina's Golden Triangle was a government-created venture. The state decided it wanted a high tech cluster, and implemented a series of programs and incentives to make the area attractive to high tech companies.

However, lots of other regions have tried the same thing, and failed.

|11.18.04 @ 4:24PM|#

joe at 02:11 PM:


"There is MORE economic opportunity in Massachusetts than in Nebraska, or in New Jersey than in Utah. With better infrastructure, better educational systems, and the higher quality of life that comes from government spending and regulation, the "low freedom" states have more to offer."

I won't speak to Nebraska as they aren't even in the top 10, but I certainly dispute the claim that "there is more economic opportunity in in New Jersey than in Utah." Economic opportunity to find a good paying job or start a business seems much stronger, in Utah as measured by their respective unemployment rates, new business starts and home ownership rates, I'm thinking.

"With better infrastructure, better educational systems, and the higher quality of life that comes from government spending and regulation, the "low freedom" states have more to offer."

Does Jersey actually have better schools than Utah? I don't think so. I'm sure that they spend far more money per capita, but I'm also sure that Utah sports better achievement test averages etc. It's exactly the higher taxes and regulation that suppress a higher quality of life in the less economically free states. Look at states that have a "permanent underclass" demographic. They are the bottom 10 and not the top 10 states most economically free states.

Less regulation almost always confers economic benefit. This all just seems to be common sense. When businesses are in states that impose less costs of taxation and regulation, and less regulatory barriers to market entry, both these businesses and these relative savings are in the market to be bid for less expensive products for consumers to buy and higher wages relative to the local inflation rates.

Examine things like unemployment rates and home ownership rates in these top 10 states. I'll bet that there is a correlation with better results in these states vs the bottom 10.

|11.18.04 @ 4:37PM|#

A dynamic that probably happens in the bottom 10 states much more than in the top 10 most economically free states is that in these less free states businesses use the government to erect regulatory barriers against market entry from their potential competition.

|11.18.04 @ 4:44PM|#

At 04:24 PM, please make that: "Infact,it's exactly the higher taxes and regulation that suppress a higher quality of life in the less economically free states."

I know, speaking of quality, the quality of my posts would be better if I ever started using the Preview botton.

|11.18.04 @ 4:54PM|#

Rick, your comment about a "permanent underclass" points to yet another complicating factor: it is more expensive to provide the same services to different populations.

Lower levels of immigration, English as a second language, and poverty allow Utah to get more bang for its education buck. It is much harder to provide a good education to poor, Creole-speaking Haitian immigrants than to middle class Mormons. Espcially when the typical classroom includes Creole, Spanish, Vietnamese, etc etc speakers.

|11.18.04 @ 5:01PM|#

Nick Gillespie asks why so few people want to live in America's most economically free state.

I'm thinking that the top 10 states have seen bigger jumps in percent net immigration in, than the bottom 10. Here in Colorado, #2 on the list, we have had a large immigration into the state.

Constantine|11.18.04 @ 5:01PM|#

I don't think it's fair to ever compare Utah to anyplace. The racial and religious/cultural homogeneity can't really be replicated elsewhere.

That said, I would argue that schools are, on average, better in the NJ suburbs than in the Utah suburbs. At the same time, schools in Newark, NJ are probably worse than schools in Salt Lake City, Utah.

|11.18.04 @ 5:02PM|#

With better infrastructure, better educational systems, and the higher quality of life that comes from government spending and regulation, the "low freedom" states have more to offer

Comparing per-capita statistics on the "most free" Kansas to the "least free" New York, we see that:

- Kansas has more non-violent crime
- New York has higher average income.

But:

- New York has more violent crime.
- New York has a higher cost of living.
- New York's poverty rate is much higher.
- New York's students are lower achievers.
- New York regularly falls far below Kansas in health and quality of life rankings.
- New York has dramatically lower home ownership rates.

Plus, of course, the supposed advantages you're describing only appeal to people who pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits. Most successful people pay much more in taxes than they receive in benefits, because we have to carry the dead weight. We choose to stay in places like California or New York for cultural and environmental reasons; take away those reasons, and we'd have to be insane to want to live here.

|11.18.04 @ 5:37PM|#

"Everyone listen to joe and stay out of Idaho. You wont find a job. Also, its ugly here and the state is full of racists."

Are you in the Southern half of Idaho? The Coeur d'Alene area is anything but ugly, and Richard Butler finally died.

|11.18.04 @ 5:49PM|#

Don't overlook the inertia factor either. Only the most adventurous tend to migrate. At my 20th HS reunion we determined that 85% of the grads live within 20 miles of the house they grew up in.

Then there is also the "home & family" factor. People also tend to stay near the family and home.

Both the inertia and family factors favors states with larger populations, particularly Ca where ethnic minorities are a large chunk of the population and they tend to have larger families.

Third there's the weather. NYC doesn't have it like Ca BUT compared to the brutal prairie cold.....

My folks didn't leave St Paul for the opportunity of California. They left to get away from the bone numbing cold.

And you can't entirely discount lower taxes, less regulation, and quality of life issues. Both Nevada and Arizona have sucked a lot of money and productive people out of California precisely because the cost of living is much less and the schools are much better, particularly in Arizona. Comparatively speaking, you get a huge bang for your housing buck, taxes are much lower, the roads are much better, and despite the other growth issues like growing traffic and smog problems, both Arizona and Nevada offer much of what California does with little of the drawbacks of Kansas.

|11.18.04 @ 5:54PM|#

As with the last 10 Thanksgivings I'll be spending this next one in the town of Meade, KS. It's the county seat of Meade County, and it's situated in between Liberal and Dodge City, 45 miles to either.

It is dying little town. The downtown is empty. The successful business' consist of the truck stop, the Duckwalls, the gas station, and the Pizza Hut. I'm actually not sure about the Pizza Hut though, it didn't look as good as it used to. No one is moving there. Telecommuting isn't an option as high speed access isn't available yet. The local number for AOL has a long distance fee. UPS will deliver when necessary, but won't pick up regularly. The farmers that are left do alright, but there are fewer of them because they can do more with less. Service business' don't have much of a clientele, because there aren't many clients to serve. Opportunity is in short supply in Meade. Even in Dodge things don't look that great. There are two other successful businesses. There's the hospital, and the mortuary. Thanksgiving is a big time in Meade, it's when the young people come to visit their parents and grandparents. It's a nice place for Thanksgiving. It's quiet. People don't leave Meade for the culture of the bigger towns they leave it for the jobs.

|11.18.04 @ 5:55PM|#

Dan-

Are culture and environment really the only reasons for a successful professional to stay in CA or NY? The critical mass of people and businesses arguably creates economic opportunities that outweigh the costs of taxes and regulations.

As I suggested above, NY can get away with having taxes and regulations because people will do business there anyway. There's Wall Street, an international port, a lot of media companies, and other magnets for business that cancel out the effects of regulation. (They must cancel out the effects of regulation or nobody would do business there.) States like Kansas, on the other hand, have less to offer, so they have to compensate with lower government.

Or at least that's one theory.

|11.18.04 @ 6:07PM|#

Both Nevada and Arizona have sucked a lot of money and productive people out of California precisely because the cost of living is much less and the schools are much better, particularly in Arizona.

We used to ghetto-ize cities, now it's entire states. Upstate New York, where I am from, is largely a ghetto now. There is almost no reason to live there other than family, and almost anyone with the means goes away. I am not saying that people's choices to leave are bad, but... collectively, all those choices are ruining huge swaths of America.

|11.18.04 @ 6:11PM|#

What's the point of all of this again? Maybe we should resist the temptation to draw out of the study more than is actually there.

The study purports to analyze variables related to legal and systemic impediments to economic activity. Here in non-coastal, smaller town America, from the standpoint of such variables, it IS generally easier to do business. That's a fact-- and not a particularly earth-shattering one for those of us who work and dwell here. Ok, that's nice to know, and maybe there's a lesson there for the places with less "economic freedom."

But even if one believes that strictly economic rationality is the sole determinant of business growth, which it isn't, these variables would still not in themselves be decisive. Proximity to markets, availability of labor supply, and transportation costs are a few of many other factors that come to mind. And let's throw in the history of the development of our nation, too.

Only tangentially related to this discussion, however, is something else I can't resist pointing out. I guess it's more fallout from the recent elections, and it's apparent in the comments on this board. Namely, you coastal dwellers know very little about middle America. It's mostly because of your smug confidence which tells you there's nothing you can possibly learn from us, and so there's no need to bother. I find this quite ironic. It turns out that all you open-minded, tolerant, diversity-sensitive, coastal, urban sophisticates are just as provincial in your thinking as us simple-minded, culturally-deprived, middle Americans (with nothing else to do.)

|11.18.04 @ 6:39PM|#

Are culture and environment really the only reasons for a successful professional to stay in CA or NY? The critical mass of people and businesses arguably creates economic opportunities that outweigh the costs of taxes and regulations.

I don't think it really does for most industries and professions, no.

In my experience people seldom have any trouble relocating to, and finding a job in, areas outside of California. We, on the other hand, have a bitch of a time getting people to move *here* from other parts of the country -- on paper, this looks like an atrocious place to live in every respect. You have to actually come here and experience the weather and the culture to really see why anyone likes it here. That's why, even during the dot-com boom (1995-2000) California experienced *negative* net domestic migration, losing 755,000 people to other states. Only New York lost more people (874,000) to other states than we did.

|11.18.04 @ 6:45PM|#

Cripes Vince, apparently you didn't learn anything either. Dan, joe, myself and thoreau all live in blue coastal states. With the exception of joe all of use live in California. Sure, thoreau and I are a tad left leaning, but we don't have major prejudices about the middle part of America. I loved Montana, once I got used to being the only brown person in the area (same feeling I had in NH, except Montanans are nicer).

Middle Americans think they have us coastal folk figured out by watching crap like Desperate Housewives, the OC and NBC Nightly News (I went to high school in the OC and it ain't like that). We all don't live in crime infested hellholes. So lay off the holier than thou attitude, joe's just saying the same stuff he always does. No one elected him as blue state representative.

|11.18.04 @ 6:48PM|#

On a brighter note for KS, last Sunday's NY Times had an article about two executives choosing to locate their companies in the plains. One was a call center IIRC. Their rationale was to give back. Both were from there. They also sited work ethic.

Not to mention no competition from other employers.

|11.18.04 @ 6:49PM|#

Sarnath-
I'm what you might call a misanthrope. The fewer people in Idaho the better.

|11.18.04 @ 7:12PM|#

I'm delighted that Colorado came in #2 and I congratulate the people of Kansas. Of course, there are other things that I like about Colorado and Denver beside our relative economic freedom. There's the mountains, and the fact that Denver is the # 3 metro area in per/capita book consumption, behind only DC and San Francisco. This fact, no doubt, has a positive effect and adds to the dynamic cultural milieu here.

What might explain Denver's reading habits? I don't know. Colorado's per/capita education levels of the work force are among the highest in the nation. (Shit, I sound like a chamber of commerce ad) That might be a partial explanation. But, Colorado is near the bottom of state tax support for K-12 education, yet the schools are above average in achievement tests. And, it is only middling in its tax support of higher ed. So, the happy statistic of Denver's ravenous book consumption cannot be credited to state support of education.

Some places, like SF, have long literary traditions. But for Denver, perhaps our relative economic freedom is like a magnet that retains and attracts the type of creative folks who like to read a lot. Denver is also very high in internet usage.

BTW, I wonder if the Silicon Valley computer and internet revolution would be possible today given the amount of taxes and regulation that California imposes. If not, can, and will Arnold fix this?

|11.18.04 @ 7:23PM|#

Mo, thank you, I grew up in OC as well and it isn't anything like the show, then or now. Of course, the portrayal of expensive and upscale Chino Hills in episode one as a downscale dump amazed me as well. Episode one was about all I could take.

Deron, sorry to hear that everyone is, well, getting the hell outta Dodge. Sorry. :-)

|11.18.04 @ 7:30PM|#

Rick, Arnold is trying but it isn't going to happen. the budget is up 7 billion from last year.

|11.18.04 @ 7:32PM|#

There are a few states on that list that are nice places to live.

In addition to New Hampshire... Delaware!

I grew up there. It's actually very nice. Every other person starts their own business on the side because its so easy.

It's all coast. Cities in the north. Farms and beaches in the south. Trains and I95 connect it to the rest of the coast. Wilmington, DE is 1 hour from Philly, 2 hours from DC, and 2 hours from NYC.

At one time it had the most PhDs per capita.

The weather could be nicer.

|11.18.04 @ 7:35PM|#

Vince-

To echo what Mo said, I have nothing against Middle America. Hell, I grew up in Wisconsin.

Funny story that totally defies every stereotype about the coasts vs. the interior: Most of my family is from the midwest, and most of my wife's family is from the coasts. At the wedding, my best friend from Wisconsin brought his girlfriend. She had a fairly revealing dress and some piercings. My family thought it was hilarious, and my in-laws were scandalized.

Maybe folks from Middle America are just a bunch of rubes who giggle when we see cleavage, and the coastal elites understand that there's nothing funny about objectifying the female body.

Or maybe the stereotypes that you threw around in your post are a bunch of bullshit.

I vote for the second option.

|11.18.04 @ 7:50PM|#

Oh, I should add that one of the smartest and nicest people I know is my Buchanan-voting, religious fundamentalist uncle who works for an oil company and lives in rural Michigan.

On the other hand, the family that his son (my cousin) married into, well, those people are just plain nuts! They think my uncle is a satanist for some reason, and they're upset that my cousin isn't Dutch (and yes, they were born and raised in Michigan, but they still wish he was Dutch). Go figure.

More proof that even when people fit a stereotype the stereotype still tells you next to nothing about them!

|11.18.04 @ 7:51PM|#

I guess it's more fallout from the recent elections, and it's apparent in the comments on this board. Namely, you coastal dwellers know very little about middle America.

Oh, please. Us city-folk know all about middle America. We just don't want to live there.

|11.18.04 @ 7:55PM|#

Sarnath-

Best to let people think bad things about Idaho. Keeps people from moving there and screwing it up. I know, it's hard to swallow the insults, but think of the greater good. I grew up in Moscow, and I'm getting old enough to be annoyed by the changes and growth when I go home to visit.

I would move back in a second, but alas, no opportunities in my field of work.

|11.18.04 @ 7:57PM|#

"I would move back in a second, but alas, no opportunities in my field of work."

I'm sorry, I meant to say I would never move back to that back-water cess-pool.

I should learn to practice what I preach.

Justin Slotman|11.18.04 @ 8:15PM|#

Porn isn't made in significant quantities in New York, is it? I can't think of too many pornos that didn't have a palm tree in the background or a shot of the valley.

|11.18.04 @ 8:38PM|#

Porn isn't made in significant quantities in New York, is it?

Not since the 1970s, no. Although that reminds me of one of my favorite Woody Allen lines about NYC, from "Annie Hall":

"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here."

|11.18.04 @ 9:05PM|#

joe:

"Rick, your comment about a "permanent underclass" points to yet another complicating factor: it is more expensive to provide the same services to different populations".

Right, to compare Utah and New Jersey schools we'd have to try to look at examples from similar economic levels.

|11.18.04 @ 9:46PM|#

My favorite Woody Allen dialog is from "Play it again, Sam". Allen approaches a severely depressed girl in a museum looking at a painting....

Allan: That's quite a lovely Jackson Pollack, isn't it?

Girl: Yes, it is.

Allan: What does it say to you?

Girl: It restates the negativeness of the universe. The hideous lonely emptiness of existence. Nothingness. The predicament of Man forced to live in a barren, Godless eternity like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void with nothing but waste, horror and degradation, forming a useless bleak straitjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

Allan: What are you doing Saturday night?

Girl: Committing suicide.

Allan: What about Friday night?





One time a girlfriend and I memorized the lines and pretending not to know each other, had that conversation with other patrons in the museum watching and listening. If looks could kill, there would be one less libertarian in the world. One gal there turned to a friend and said something about guys being unbelievably uncaring. It was hilarious. Just thinking about it makes me want to do it again.

|11.18.04 @ 9:56PM|#

"I wonder if the Silicon Valley computer and internet revolution would be possible today given the amount of taxes and regulation that California imposes. If not, can, and will Arnold fix this?"

The millions of unskilled, illiterate, illegal aliens that stream across the Mexican border into CA each year are bound to create another high-tech revolution before the sun cools, expands, and burns us to a crisp.

|11.18.04 @ 10:40PM|#

I enjoy living in Denver and if I didn't live here, I would probably want to live in proximity to another large city or maybe a university town but: The internet is the great equalizer. It used to be that if you lived in a backwater place, you had to try harder not to be in the intellectual backwater as well. But no longer; ideas and the debates about them thrive in cyberspace, accessible to all with internet access. This fact has most certainly added richness to the exploration and discussion of myriad topics.

I'm grateful for economic freedom known as "capitalism" or "free enterprise" which engenders the discovery of new technologies and their dissemination into the hands of the many.

|11.18.04 @ 11:08PM|#

dead_elvis-

I�m a U of I alum. My wife grew up in St. Maries and her parents still live in Rose Lake. I�m going for a visit in a couple of weeks to hunt pheasant. Small world!

Nick Simmonds|11.19.04 @ 12:09AM|#

Well, duh. Population density isn't affected by any but the highest of taxes. It's the other way around; you pay a premium to live where everyone wants to live.

Geez, you'd think libertarians could manage a 101-level economics. This is just a supply-demand curve thing.

|11.19.04 @ 3:01AM|#

Wilmington, DE is 1 hour from Philly, 2 hours from DC, and 2 hours from NYC.

How in the living hell do you get from Wilmington to New York in two hours? It takes 75 minutes just to get north of Trenton.

- Josh, former Delaware resident

The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|11.19.04 @ 5:07AM|#

Here's my question to all you suave urbanites out there: Just what the hell do you DO in NYC and LA that you can't do in, say, Des Moines? I've been to both places, plus D.C., Miami. Dallas, London, Frankfurt, and a number of other monuments to human vanity, and I just don't get it.

You go to clubs, concerts, shows, restaurants, museums � we have clubs, concerts, shows, restaurants and museums. We're not gawdawfully dense with them, so they tend to be a little more special to us, but we have them. They also tend to be much easier and cheaper to get tickets to or to attend, and we're less likely to get lost, mugged or murdered on the way.

We lose a lot of our young folks to the "big cities." A lot of them tend to come back later to raise families. When they do, they seem more than a little exhausted. Many of them have trouble remembering what the attraction was.

And joe, I think you said something high up on the thread about better education systems - in NEW YORK??? Big premise check, my friend, Iowa consistently ranks first or second in SAT scores of our graduates, and our teachers get recruited all over the country, not to mention tons of our girls getting hired as aux pairs to teach the offspring of the urban hoi polloi some manners.

I think my 7 year old nephew summed the difference up nicely when we visited Manhatten on the way to a wedding on Long Island and past a kosher deli. He pointed to some Hassidim and said "Look! Jews!"

|11.19.04 @ 8:24AM|#

"you pay a premium to live where everyone wants to live."
Nick Simmonds,
We've already hashed that, but, if you want to cover new ground, you may want to go deeper into why it is everyone wants to live where everyone lives. I've called it Massophilia Hysteria.

|11.19.04 @ 8:29AM|#

"Look! Jews!"

Charming. Yes, Jews are one of the many things we have in the city that you don't. And here are some others:

- magnet schools (I went to one of the top ten high schools in the country)
- specialty music clubs (Skinny Puppy doesn't play Iowa)
- people who stay out of my business (no nosy neighbors)
- gays (from all over the world!)
- freedom to walk or take the train to everything

I understand the appeal of Iowa. For folks who center their lives around their family and don't care to deal with anything new, I'm sure it's ideal. Well, to each his own.

The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|11.19.04 @ 8:54AM|#

Patrick my boy, ever been here? Ever met us? A. There's a magnet school two miles from here that specializes in mathematics, if you're looking for a gay specialty music club, may I recommend Blazing Saddle, about a three block stroll from the Des Moines River, then you can make a night of it hitting the bars on East Locust st., and by and large, if you don't bother the neighbors, they'll leave you alone.

And we may not have Skinny Puppy, but if I want the autographs of Slipknot I know where two of them live and I can drive there this morning. And freedom? Just another word for not having a sticky ass from a filthy cab or subway seat.

|11.19.04 @ 9:29AM|#

The "city mouse/country mouse" debate probably goes back to the first human settlements? "We have better cave painting in big cave here!" "Yeah, but big cave crowded and smelly."

Where people live is a function of a kind of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. First, can you find a job and shelter? Second, are you safe? After you satisfy the basic needs (including decent schools for kids), the "value added" things like culture kick in.

If you can't find a job or a place to live, the gay African coffee bar with Swahili poetry readings just doesn't matter much. By the way, the economic freedom metric strikes me as just an excuse for Gillespie to tell us the story of his living accommodations.

Finally, Joe, spare us the flawed syllogism of Massachesetts has lots of government; Massachusetts his affluent ; therefore, lots of government creates affluence.

|11.19.04 @ 9:36AM|#

The fascinating thing I've experienced over and over living in different parts of the country is that often when people from large metro areas move someplace else they seem to have huge adjustment issues. They utterly MUST remake the place to fit what they just left. That's an odd sort of cultural conservatism that gets overlooked a lot.

And, joe, the Triangle has the great historical accident of Dook, MooU (aka NCSU), and UNC within 20 minutes of each others. That and IBM and SAS.

JAT UNC '87

The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|11.19.04 @ 9:44AM|#

Incidentally, my brother-in-law, Jasson B. Lassner, would be surprised to hear there are no Jews in Iowa. So would the folks in Postville, IA, who moved from Manhatten to set up a kosher beef plant.

Iowa has opened its doors to thousands of political and economic refugees over the years including the Hmong and Taidam from Cambodia, Laotian and Chinese immigrants. We have world-class medical, agricultural and engineering research facilities that attract graduate and postgraduate students from around the world, not to mention the Iowa Writer's Workshop, the Iowa Peace Institute, where a large number of the United States diplomatic corps. and U.N. staff come to be trained, and where conflict resolution techniques used at the Hague and in many corporate boardrooms were created and established. We have a burgeoning commercial and indie film industry, and, yeah, we pretty much make sure the folks uptown at the Big Apple get their glassee'd pork medallions and Omaha steaks.

So drop down sometime when you're flying over, you might be surprised. ;-)

|11.19.04 @ 9:44AM|#

Note on future trends. Post 9/11, many companies who weren't already doing so began to employ risk strategies that decentralized their operations from major cities. Add to this that manufacturing is more cost effectively handled in relatively rural areas (note where all of the new auto plants are), and that service industries don't require any great degree of centralization, and I suspect that in the long run we will be looking at the high populations in cities largely as a historical phenomenon. The subjective reasons people choose to live in population dense areas are many, but the objective advantages (i.e. more opportunity) are declining every day. To each his own, I say.

We only have arguments like this because the federal government meddles too much. Federalism will save us from each other. It is a good idea we should pay more attention to.

The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|11.19.04 @ 9:58AM|#

Jose', I agree with your entire post, particularly the flawed syllogism. Government tends to flower where it has a large tax base to feed upon. It doesn't work the other way around. Minnesota is only now finding out it can't tax itself into prosperity. It and Wisconsin were the high-tax, high services Meccas of the midwest for decades, and for a while, it worked. Now they've hired Republican governors who they think will straighten out the mess. I personally think they've screwed themselves all over again, but they're trying.

|11.19.04 @ 10:00AM|#

Jason Ligon,
What you say is right, but there is something in human genes that makes us tend to be dense flockers.

The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|11.19.04 @ 10:08AM|#

Jeff Taylor - I had the great good fortune of spending a summer in the Triangle area in the early 90's mixing culture media and autoclaving glassware in a Duke U. medical lab. I enjoyed it thoroughly there and have visited many times since. Sort of like Iowa City with boxwood. If I could have afforded to live in Chapel Hill, I probably would have. The place has some great restaurants, among other things. Most authentic Spanish tapas I've ever had in one of them.

I used to do commentary for an NPR station in Cedar Falls, and I sent back reports that summer. I won an Iowa Associated Press award for a piece I did about getting my hair cut at the barber shop in the basement of the old student union building on the Duke campus. If I were going to live in the south, that's where I'd go.

drf|11.19.04 @ 10:12AM|#

Rick:

"Examine things like unemployment rates and home ownership rates in these top 10 states. I'll bet that there is a correlation with better results in these states vs the bottom 10."
the oswald thesis. various stuff here.

http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ServeFile.cfm?FileID=165
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/ staff/faculty/oswald/jeperspecsnairu.pdf
wwwbusiness.murdoch.edu.au/econs/wps/189.pdf
www.nber.org/~confer/2001/si2001/green.pdf

then we can get into a discussion about the natural rate hypothesis and labor mobility and stuff like that. (basically the oswald thesis is that home owners will be less likely to move to where the jobs are due to the higher costs of moving - the green.pdf looks at that more critically)

cheers,
drf

|11.19.04 @ 10:38AM|#

ever been here? Ever met us?

Actually, I don't know where you are... is it Des Moines? I've been thru there, and honestly it felt like the kind of small towns I moved to NYC to get away from. But hell, San Francisco was too provincial for me, so maybe I'm weird.

|11.19.04 @ 10:40AM|#

"I�m a U of I alum. My wife grew up in St. Maries and her parents still live in Rose Lake. I�m going for a visit in a couple of weeks to hunt pheasant. Small world!"

It is a small world. I'm a UI alum, too. I'm from Post Falls, though, which is currently growing like a suburb of Phoenix.

I guess I'll just have to live in Bonners Ferry.

The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|11.19.04 @ 10:54AM|#

Rhywun - I just moved OUT of the Des Moines area, frankly, because it's becoming as crass and concretized as any other urban center. Just not my thing. Cities, for me, are great places to visit, but I just couldn't live that way on a permanent basis.

I spent 24 hours eating my way across San Francisco one time. Good seafood is one thing that's hard to find here. Enjoy the Big Apple, my friend. As someone here wisely said, to each his or her own.

|11.19.04 @ 11:11AM|#

Enjoy the Big Apple, my friend.

Been here eight years and I still love it. Sure, it's frustrating sometimes. Not nearly as much as people imagine though. I have never been the victim of a crime here (unlike some smaller towns I've lived in). I do not get a sticky ass from trains or cabs. In fact the trains are more or less clean now, and tend to run on time much more often that not. I will take the occasional hassles of NYC any day over the hassles of feeding and maintaining cars and lawns and all the other pointless (to me) chores that come with non-city life.

|11.19.04 @ 11:33AM|#

now that depends on the train. brooklyn still gets the fucking finger from the godforsaken MTA on the weekends, usually.

i live here cause i like brooklyn, i like walking, i like having a gazillion options every day and night and all my friends are here. and my wife goes to school here. and i always wanted to live here. and now i do.

hooray for me!

i often get the feeling that "blue staters" (gaaah!) get all their ideas about "america's heartland" from hoosiers and field of dreams and "red staters" got theirs from the warriors and coming to america.

|11.19.04 @ 12:31PM|#

Patrick-
'- specialty music clubs (Skinny Puppy doesn't play Iowa)'

They are comming to Salt Lake, Utah.

drf|11.19.04 @ 12:32PM|#

dhex: "hooray for me!" --> bad religion reference from "stranger than fiction"? awesome song!

|11.19.04 @ 12:36PM|#

shit, no, actually, i didn't think of that.

i've heard that skinny puppy's live show this time around is actually quite good. since i like to think of them as a band whose last album was last rights, i find that very hard to believe. (that video up on launch.com, for example, otherwise known as "HOT TOPIC GOT SERVED!")

|11.19.04 @ 12:39PM|#

Rick, the museum gag doing Woody Allen just about did me in. It's way too early on this coast to be laughing that hard.

Good point about the internet being the great equalizer. We have a great system at home that combines satellite and microwave using the same frequencies as Wi-Fi and it's only 50 bucks a month. When it works it smokes with speeds approaching T-1. But when that dork down the mountain keys the shortwave it can make you swear and throw things.

My wife and aren't into living the city life. But we enjoy the city and every aspect of it. That makes it tough for me to understand the dichotomy of "either/or".

And to use such broad generalizations, I mean, come on guys, NYC and LA are as different as LA is different from San Diego or Las Vegas. The only thing my friend's place in Ohio has in common with my place in California is lots of space and the proximity to water (he can swim in his, I can't) but both are considered rural.

I guess I'm done, but ain't this a great country? We've got everything anyone could want.

|11.19.04 @ 1:17PM|#

NYC and LA are as different as LA is different from San Diego or Las Vegas

Oh absolutely. I could never see myself living in LA any more than Iowa :-)

since i like to think of them as a band whose last album was last rights

Why does nobody like "The Process"?! I am like the only one who thinks that's a fine album. But the best is undoubtedly "Vivisect VI".... I haven't heard the new album yet.

|11.19.04 @ 1:23PM|#

well, the process is kinda just not very great. it is an interesting album, but it wasn't anywhere near last rights, which btw eats vivisectVI alive. :)

it wasn't the geetars so much as the lack of insanity that didn't grab my goose. plus after hearing the download material, ogre and his crack habit seemed a lot less interesting. (see the bedside toxicology album for more information)

but last rights, man...damn. top 10 of all tizzime!

|11.19.04 @ 1:46PM|#

but last rights, man...damn. top 10 of all tizzime!

After the overall atrocity that was Rabies, I was happy to get anything good from them.

|11.19.04 @ 3:30PM|#

drf,

Thanks for all the links. I'll check them out. Happy Friday.

|11.19.04 @ 3:40PM|#

TWC,

Yeah, I crack up just recalling it. Next time you and your wife are in an art museum, you should try it.

You know what foreigners say about LA? They say it's like nowhere else in America, yet it could be nowhere else but America.
That rings true.

|11.19.04 @ 6:02PM|#

see, now, in my head, rabies and the process are both closely related to one another, being far more ministry-ish (uncle al having produced rabies) than anything else in their catalog.

The White Anglo Saxon Protesta|11.20.04 @ 12:16PM|#

It suddenly occurs to me that the premise of the ratings is bass-ackwards. Is it possible that the highly rated states are more economically free BECAUSE they have fewer people, not the other way around?

Seems to make more sense than the proposition that people flock to places with more regulation in place.

|11.20.04 @ 2:13PM|#

Rick, the internet is NOT a replacement for the real-world diversity of a city. You can log on to a board like this and talk (almost exclusively) to other people who already think a lot like you.

Or, you can make the effort, if you've decided to, to visit the sites of people who are different from you.

What you don't get is the regular, effortless interaction with a broad diversity of people as part of the normal run of your life. In other words, you don't get anything you don't go looking for, which means you have to know it's there and be interested in it before you learn anything about it.

If you're already a cultured urbanite with your thumbs in a lot of pies, you can manage to keep up on the internet, but you're unlikely to expand your horizons to any great extent, at least in comparison to actually living and operating in a city.

BTW, bragging about the sophistication of the biggest, most diverse cities in red states is ducking the issue. WASPB keeps pointing out that Des Moines is becoming more urbane and diverse. Well guess what - as it does so, it's going to become more regulated and have higher taxes (so will the rest of the state), and the fundies and chaw spitters are going to piss and moan about the libruls, progressive government policies, and "undesireables" in Des Moines, and how much better it is out in the sticks.

|11.20.04 @ 2:23PM|#

WASPB - "Here's my question to all you suave urbanites out there: Just what the hell do you DO in NYC and LA that you can't do in, say, Des Moines?"

For me, it isn't so much the things I can do in a city that I can't do in a small town. It's the rewards I get for doing the same things.

I sit down at the counter of a diner, and start talking to the guy next to me. More often than not, he's someone who's very different from me, who has a different understanding of the world, and a different background, and I'm able to learn something from him. If I had the same eggs and coffee at the same counter in some red state exurb, chances are, I'd use up the town's diversity within 3 or 4 visits.

|11.20.04 @ 2:25PM|#

This, BTW, is the same reason I live in a Massachusetts city, rather than a Massachusetts suburb.

|11.21.04 @ 10:18AM|#

�More often than not, he's someone who's very different from me, who has a different understanding of the world, and a different background, and I'm able to learn something from him�

Well I�m moving to the city this minute. The endless lines, traffic, packed theaters, home invasions, muggings, beggars, and unaffordable housing; in total an endless, oppressive, and suffocating sea people. On balance a few conversations with strangers makes it sound worth all the crap.

|11.21.04 @ 1:39PM|#

joe:

"Rick, the internet is NOT a replacement for the real-world diversity of a city."

I agree. I was only making the case that he internet is the great equalizer for keeping up and participating in intellectual ideas and the debates about them.

"If you're already a cultured urbanite with your thumbs in a lot of pies, you can manage to keep up on the internet, but you're unlikely to expand your horizons to any great extent, at least in comparison to actually living and operating in a city."

That seems like a statement of urbanite chauvinism and a limited concept of "horizons".

As for cities and states "becoming more regulated and having higher taxes as the become more urbane and diverse"; here you're assuming urban=urbane, Is this urbanite chauvinism on your part? :) That's not going to always happen. I know with Colorado, our small government fuelled population explosion and diversity.

"If I had the same eggs and coffee at the same counter in some red state exurb, chances are, I'd use up the town's diversity within 3 or 4 visits."

I was going to ask: Why just the exurb of a red state? But then I read that your Mass. suburb comment. Also, diversity due to background is indeed a significant source, but it is only one source!

This, BTW, is the same reason I live in a Massachusetts city, rather than a Massachusetts suburb.

I'm guessing that's also the reason why you hang out here with all us libertoids.

Having said all that; I also know that there are certain opportunities for experiences that tend to be far more prevalent in really big cities.