The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My New "The Week" Article on "The Case for Empowering Americans to Vote with Their Feet"
How foot voting can expand political freedom for Americans, particularly the poor and disadvantaged.
The Week just published my article on "The Case for Empowering Americans to Vote with their Feet." It is in part based on the new revised edition of my book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom. Here is an excerpt:
American democratic institutions are in crisis. One of the worst flaws of the status quo is the near-powerlessness of the individual voter over the policies which determine so much of daily life. Closely related is the need to promote opportunity and choice for the poor and disadvantaged. Both these problems can be greatly alleviated by expanding opportunities for people to "vote with their feet." If you don't like state or local laws, it should be easier to escape them.
We normally think of voting at the ballot box as our principal means of exercising political choice, and ballot-box voting has great value. But it also has two severe limitations: the very low odds that an individual vote will make a difference, and the resulting incentive to make poorly informed decisions. Foot voting is superior on both dimensions….
Sadly, over the last several decades, foot voting in America has become more difficult and costly, especially for the poor and disadvantaged, who have the most to gain. Fortunately, much can be done to alleviate these obstacles….
The single biggest problem is the rise of exclusionary zoning, which makes it difficult or impossible to build new housing in response to demand. If people cannot afford to live in areas with economic and social opportunities, they'll remain locked out from them — often trapped in failing communities where it is difficult to escape poverty. This is an area where there is a strong, even if often unrecognized common interest between the increasingly Republican white working class, and their mostly Democratic Black and Hispanic counterparts….
Much can be done as well to expand foot voting opportunities in the private sector, including by breaking down regulations that inhibit the establishment of new private communities and expanding school choice options, especially for the poor. Studies show private schools included in school choice programs generally provide better educational services than public equivalents, even when controlling for the socioeconomic background of students and other similar variables. In addition, competition from private schools under voucher programs leads to improvement by public schools in the same areas….
Foot voting is also increasingly inhibited by the enormous growth of federal spending and regulation. It is impossible to "vote with your feet" against federal government policies except through the costly step of leaving the country entirely.
This problem can be mitigated by devolving control over more issues to state and local governments and to the private sector. Doing so can also mitigate the dangerous polarization that has done so much to poison our political system: With fewer issues decided by the federal government, people no longer need to feel so much fear at the prospect of the opposing party controlling the White House and Congress.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yes, the poors and disadvantaged should just invest time and money to transplant themselves where politicians are more receptive to their needs. Depending on how much they need to move, security deposits that they might not be able to get back, first and last month's rent, and moving their extended families to help provide child care or other social supports for unexpected events, they should easily be able to improve their situations by just paying $30,000 to $50,000 in the foot-voting poll tax.
Query: Would they then be expected to vote for policies matching the places they came from?
It makes far more sense to promote "foot voting" among the states, as compared to inviting the world's destitute to come and compete for the margin of minimum wage jobs.
If a state could choose to be an economic version of, say, Taiwan, we would see some real competition.
I'm skeptical about foot voting becoming widespread. Most people don't even consider moving as a remedy to problems. Nevertheless Prov Somin is making pretty good arguments for it.
The wave of discontent about what public schools are teaching is likely to result in many more kids being pulled out of public schools. Foot voting can be added to one of the remedies parents can choose after taking that decision.
The biggest problem with foot voting is the people who vote for policies that they are warned will turn their city and/or state into a shithole.
Then when it turns into a shithole, they flee.
But they don't take any responsibility and they don't learn from their mistakes and they keep voting for the same failed policies in their new city and/or state. Thus turning their new city and/or state into a shithole.
Eventually there will be nowhere to escape to.
So you're saying what people think they want, and thus vote for, is not what they really want.
How elitist of you.
No, I'm saying they are delusional and believe that the policies they want will work despite the lived experience that they turned the original city/state into a shithole.
There is no way to talk them down from the ledge. They are insane and will keep doing the same thing over and over, every time believing that this time the outcome will be different.
This is some 1700 France 'the peasants are revolting' nonsense.
If your argument requires statistical numbers of people to be written off as 'insane' it's a bad argument to make in a republic.
I'm all for free movement but man NYC wokes just destroy everything they touch. Maybe we can make an exception? NYC and pretty much all Cosmo Woke Cities residents can't move to free states unless they forgo voting for 15 years....I'm kidding..well sort of. ha ha
"Most people don't even consider moving as a remedy to problems."
Perhaps because our efforts to ameliorate problems have had the effect of discouraging people from moving away from them. Things have to get fairly dire before people will cut themselves loose from their comfortable inertia and move away from a bad situation, and we've become very good at keeping people just well enough supported that they stay in hopeless circumstances, instead of moving.
So we end up with pockets of poverty that are supported just enough that people don't up and leave them.
It took being laid off with my wife 4 months pregnant back in 2008, to bust me loose from my own sessile lifestyle. And if I hadn't had that to motivate me, I might still be stuck in that dead end locale.
That's kind of amazing. Our entitlements are just not bad enough to force people to move.
Move where? Your policy seems like it'll more cause universal immiserating of the lower classes than encourage foot voting.
Bottom line, if people want to stay where they are, it shouldn't be a goal to get them to want to move.
I'm not sure I agree. Not to go all Kirkland, but if a family is living in a dying town in, say Appalachia, I cannot see any good reason for making it easy for them to stay there. Obviously I'm not suggesting forcing them to move, but it doesn't make sense to subsidize their dead-end life rather than incentivizing them to move to somewhere where they could become gainfully employed and useful.
That brings to mind an NPR story from a number of years ago, during one of the periodic episodes of welfare reform. They found a young single mom in a small town in WV where employment was very scarce. She was living on public assistance, and that was going to end unless she did something. They went back several times to document her terror of moving - that town was all she had ever known.
If being on welfare is the bottom rung, she went up one rung and got a job in a chicken processing plant in NC. They went back a few months later and she was gushing. Xmas was coming, and she had saved up a little to buy her kids presents, etc, and was really happy she had had to move.
I think there are systemic solutions other than this soft redlining condemnation of specific areas.
Forcing people to choose between leaving their home and starving is not a choice I think we should be facilitating.
"Forcing people to choose between leaving their home and starving"
In the case mentioned, she was forced to get a job[1]. That job could have been local if she could find one, but if not then she had to move where the job was. Just like all the rest of us.
I've certainly had to move because I needed a job and couldn't find one locally. I'd wager that is in fact a common experience.
Welfare, IMHO, should be for people who can't work because they are disabled, or because there simply aren't jobs available, e.g. the Great Depression. It should not be merely because someone doesn't happen to like any of the available jobs.
[1]and ended up happier for it
In the bare sense of avoiding waste fraud and abuse, I agree. Though it's hard separating who is trying and who is not. And I don't like basing it on location, to be sure.
We all have to make choices.
It's one thing to argue that if you make reasonable choices and get unlucky that you should be helped. It's another to argue that if you deliberately make bad choices we're going to enable you.
Now obviously that's a broader principle than poor Appalachians; it's the same one that says that if you want to build your house on the beach, okay, but buy your own damn flood insurance.
We all have to make choices, indeed. And I'm even cool with some government nudging. But I don't like the government deciding which choices of where you live count as good.
Because for some people the attachment to home is a valuable thing. And picking winners and losers by location doesn't have a good history in the US.
I'm fine with looking at other behaviors, but not comfortable with the location part.
I move around a decent amount and have no attachment to where I live. But I feel like I know a lot of people for whom the reverse is true. Maybe I'm wrong statistically, but this is a moral point I'm making.
I don't see it as the government favoring one geographical area or another - no one told the WV lady she had to move to NC. If she could make a living writing poetry in WV the government would have been fine with that.
The only requirement is that she could not say 'I'd rather live here on public assistance than move somewhere I can support myself'.
The experience of moving to someplace you don't like and/or taking a job you don't like because that's what you have to do to pay the bills is nigh on a universal experience, IHME. Saying 'now that you moved to the place/took the job I don't want to do, send me money so I don't have to do what you did' is ... not compelling.
Absaroka, you okay with public policies intended to force poor and disabled people to move elsewhere? Maybe with a race among the states to see which can drive poverty to the lowest in-state level by foot-booting the impoverished? How would that not end up in a race-to-the-bottom competition to see which state gets most immiserated when the music stops?
Maybe we could try to do it the other way. Find some way to make poor peoples' lives better with more opportunity, so they would want to move. Make it work like a gold rush. What do you suppose could make that happen? What political forces do you suppose would be marshaled against it?
Do you disagree that pro-immiseration policies based on keeping taxes low have a lot to do with the present plight of the poor in most states which feature stubborn geographically-related poverty?
By the way, it may be the wording on your last sentence is not what you intended. I can't understand what you were trying to say.
"Absaroka, you okay with public policies intended to force poor and disabled people to move elsewhere..."
Absolutely not! People should be able to live wherever they like.
I am OK with telling people 'you don't get to stay on public assistance because you choose not to take one of the available jobs you are capable of doing, because you don't like the job's location'.
(or because you don't like something else about the job: working 3d shift, working indoors a cubicle, or outside in the weather, or any other reason. Before you take public assistance, you get to pick whichever available job you like best, but 'I don't like any of the jobs I can do' should not be one of the choices. Why in goodness' name should the people doing the jobs you don't want to do pay taxes to support you so you don't have to do what they are doing?)
Appalachia is being called out again and again.
Happy to be taking the underlying policy wrong, though!
But I would also like to take a page out of the UK's book and see about 'leveling up' some of these underperforming locations.
https://www.local.gov.uk/parliament/briefings-and-responses/levelling-agenda-house-commons-15-june-2021
Can one feed oneself with this attachment? If not, it ain't valuable enough. This is an objective test, not a subjective one about the moral worth of a particular location.
Right. I was pretty attached to my place in the country: A home I'd built myself on 16 acres, a stocked fishing pond, an orchard, a woodlot lousy with deer, and I'd lived there for over 30 years, there were big trees there I'd planted as a teen. I knew damned well that, barring winning the lottery, I'd never have it so good again.
But none of that would pay the bills or feed my family, so I left it behind. A person has to have priorities.
I think a legit goal of government can be to try and make it so you don't need to prioritize - that sounds like an agonizing decision.
"I think a legit goal of government can be to try and make it so you don't need to prioritize..."
Were you emperor, what would you have the government do so Brett could have avoided moving?
I don't. That's just called life. Or maybe "being an adult." The government's job might be to ensure you don't starve to death, but it's certainly not the government's job to make sure you're happy.
My proposed policy is no public support if you're in an area of higher than median unemployment, unless you move to an area of lower than median unemployment.
You want to stay where the economy is bad? Fine, that's your right. Do it on your own dime.
A poor get poorer philosophy.
More of a "poor who won't lift a finger on their own behalf get poorer", no?
I'm all in favor of helping people who will help themselves, but the people who won't help themselves can do it on their own dime.
You're advocating abandoning certain places as 'declining.' and trying to get people to move out of them. It's not hard to see how that hollows out those places into ghettos.
No, I'm advocating noticing that you're not going to get a job if you stay in a place without jobs, and not helping people avoid getting a job.
If you can find a job in a given place, hurrah! Stay there. If you can't, don't expect me to pay you to say in a hopeless situation.
Some places are already ghettos, and the best thing we can do is not pay people to remain in ghettos.
Some places are already ghettos, and the best thing we can do is not pay people to remain in ghettos.
I think investing in a location can also be a good thing to do. Or robust public transportation can really help as well.
But your whole paradigm that entitlements are paying people not to work is not really what they're for. Is that what social security is for? Why is like SNAP different?
Plus it's often not as easy as just move to where the jobs are - plenty of high-employment places still have homeless.
"I think investing in a location can also be a good thing to do. Or robust public transportation can really help as well."
I'm not convinced there's any evidence that you can magically make jobs appear by providing bus service. And the government's idea of "investing in a location" is long on payoffs to political cronies, and short on actual job creation.
Moving people to where there are already jobs does seem to work, though. Yes, there are still homeless people in high employment areas, but I think you're well aware that the homeless generally have mental problems, jobs being available isn't any particular help for them.
You don't magically make jobs appear by creating bus service, you let people go to jobs that already exist but are farther away.
'The government is corrupt so lets not try' would have never gotten us a space program or our highway system. Or the Internet, for that matter.
Moving people to where there are already jobs does seem to work, though
I hope you just mean incentivizing people to go where the jobs are, because otherwise that's edging into some light war crimes against our own populace.
I'm from Rochester NY. There is no turning around that city. Once you reach a certain welfare/poverty % you can't do what is necessary to turn things around. Cut taxes, deregulate and so on. At the same time the govt sector elites grow with poverty programs creating a huge barrier to real private sector investment. Kodak and Xerox died..ok that happens but NO new businesses took their place. The top employers are the local hospital systems and govt. Not the way to fixing the problem. for Rochester like other cities the real solution is to incentivize the welfare class to leave or at least much of it for better areas with jobs. Most of the city at this point is falling apart. Leveling most of the city and turning it back into farmland is a good solution. Farmers can be brought in, and remaining residents can work the farms which provide jobs and skills. Hard neck garlic is a huge crop and can be grown only in hard winter climes..perfect for Western NY. The only issue might be areas around old Kodak plants. Best to not till that soil!
Yes, cities have never recovered from being poor throughout our history.
Leveling most of the city and turning it back into farmland is a good solution.
Seems like you're bringing some personal stuff into here.
"A poor get poorer philosophy."
I have always found I ended up financially better off when I got a job. That is kind of the point, after all.
Not what Brett is advocating. It's not about jobs, it's about locations.
Fair enough, let me rephrase. I have always found I ended up financially better off when I moved from where I couldn't find a job to wherever I could find one.
Absaroka, do you suppose that says anything about you that might not apply alike to someone else?
There was a time in this nation—and in economic theory—when unskilled labor was posited to be fungible—and most types of labor were posited to be unskilled. That led to a lot of theory about fluid adjustments from place to place in the labor markets. Even the celebrated theory of comparative advantage is based on a fungible labor presumption.
Do you notice any evidence accumulating that unskilled labor is no longer fungible, if it ever was? Do you notice any evidence accumulating that labor theory is expanding the scope of labor types treated as unskilled, or not sufficiently skilled?
"Absaroka, do you suppose that says anything about you that might not apply alike to someone else?"
Not really.
For a concrete example, one of the times I found myself without a job I took a distant job as a minimum wage construction laborer. It sure seemed to me that I was financially better off with that job than without it. I could, for example, buy food, which seemed to me to be a significant improvement in my standard of living.
Absaroka, that you think a construction labor job exemplifies degraded labor suggest you may have much to learn about policy and privation.
What do you have to say about the questions you ignored, about the fungibility of labor?
"...that you think a construction labor job exemplifies degraded labor suggest you may have much to learn about policy and privation."
I'm fascinated to hear about the jobs you think are worse than living in your car while making minimum wage.
"What do you have to say about the questions you ignored, about the fungibility of labor?"
I haven't a clue what you were going on about with that.
I'm fascinated to hear about the jobs you think are worse than living in your car while making minimum wage.
Picking artichokes at more-than-minimum wage, but piecework, and no legal recourse for anything which goes wrong? Pretty sure you wouldn't quit your construction labor job to take that one.
More generally, the question I posited was not just comparative jobs, but rather a question of work, policy, and privation. To posit as a starting point the physical and mental ability to do construction labor is to start far above the bottom end of that axis.
"Picking artichokes at more-than-minimum wage, but piecework, and no legal recourse for anything which goes wrong? Pretty sure you wouldn't quit your construction labor job to take that one."
Well, you'd be wrong about that.
You are more sure of more things that aren't true than anyone I have ever encountered.
"American democratic institutions are in crisis."
They always are. You are just being a prisoner of the moment to think its worse than normal.
For this to be effective, we will need federal funding for shoes.
And probably a subsidized training class on how to walk, as no one does that much anymore.
Seriously dude, did you ever look into the costs of moving?
Even with U-Haul and a bunch of friends working for beer and pizza, the ones who need to move the most are the most trapped.
How about another article on democratic policies that make foot voting so difficult? Start with health insurance tied to a job and go on from there.
The people that you guys hate — immigrants — frequently come to the U.S. with nothing beyond the clothes on their backs. Somehow they are able to make the trip.
I don't hate "immigrants". I'm married to one!
Illegal immigrants, on the other hand? Got no patience for them.
It's like accusing somebody of hating people who make bank withdrawals just because they don't like bank robbers.
Scratch a person who says "I don't oppose immigration — just illegal immigration" and you will 101 times out of 100 uncover a person who thinks we have too many legal immigrants.
Yeah, you just don't like the immigrants from 'uncivilized' places.
Which is...not better.
Just curious, Brett. Did the immigrant you married pass the usual high bar to immigration—get herself legally into this country, where happenstance brought you together in blissful matrimony? Or did she get to be legal by marrying you? In short, was she a legal permanent immigrant prior to marrying you? Let's hear in detail about how that all worked, so we can evaluate whether your experience represents a generally available solution for all would-be immigrants.
I don't think there should be a generally available solution for ALL would-be immigrants. Some would-be immigrants should have no route to entering America.
My wife arrived on a fiancée visa, but in terms of qualifications she was an English literate, employed college graduate, with no criminal record, just the sort of person any rational immigration system would admit.
We have quotas for qualified people like her, because we're so flooded with illegal immigrants we lack the capacity to admit the people we ought to want here.
No.
Setting aside your socialist notions of the government deciding what sort of people the country needs, we have quotas for "qualified" people like her because people like you think we need to have quotas.
This is fine as far as it goes, but I have never seen anyone add the third limitation: that one vote has to stand for everything. We don't get to vote on policies, only "representatives", which is a pretty sorry description of their actual defacto jobs. It's as if you had to choose every 2 or 4 years where you will shop until the next election -- one store for everything, and only one choice in each category in each store. Do you want the store which sells Adidas, crunchy peanut butter, and lettuce, or the one which sells Levis, Fords, and Apple? Oh you want crunchy peanut butter and Dell? HA ha ha! Jokes on you -- it's Apple or no computer. Shoes or computer, car or peanut butter, lettuce or computer. Those are your choices.
It's an old point, but you found a way to make it vivid.
The problem I see is that of jobs. Most jobs are located in large cities or adjacent to those cities. The nature of cities requires larger governments. Those most interested in moving to areas of smaller government likely will find there are fewer jobs for them.
Best solution is better transportation and communications. These would allow people to live in more remote areas and either physically or virtually commute to cities.
A hundred years ago, even sixty years ago, a foot voter would find a job and a nearby boarding house.
Nowadays, there are no boarding houses. None.
I think there is something to be said for communities of mixed ideologies, but where people still want to stay.
The problem is the Internet lets people curate their community, from who they hang out with right down to who fixes their cars. So communion between different sorts gets less and less common.
I don't think the solution is to lean into that.
Agree. There is a real need for communications across ideological viewpoints. Problem is the resistance to that from the far ends of the ideological spectrum.
I think that resistance has grown because we can increasingly choose to curate everyone we interact with to not offend our sensibilities.
People were worried about vices - drugs and sex and war.
Turns out endless self-validation may be the thing that gets us.
+1
A bit of aside, but my Dad said it was revelation when he went into the military. He was dirt poor and assumed the upscale kids must be naturally smarter. Bunking next to them disabused him of that notion, and had a profound beneficial effect on his life.
Just to stir up the libertarians: that would be a nice benefit of a year of national service. Let the prep school grad and the kid from the projects spend some time together swinging pulaskis and sleeping rough on the fire line and they would both learn some important things about each other.
Yeah, I did a national Boy Scout thing, and got to be a bit less parochial than my NY private school upbringing might have indicated.
Absaroka, your dad got a benefit less available today. He got to see the upscale kids ordered around just like he was. Arguably that was an even greater benefit for them, or at least for the ones smart enough to learn from it.
Vote with your feet, corns, callouses, bunions, fallen arches, and all, and move to supposed lands of better prospects.
Despite your current family and friends connections of love and business, move away. And keep moving as the global state encroaches upon you, your privacy, your livelihoods, and lives.
BTW, any ideas where we should move to these days and be relatively safe from creepy state interference and coercion?
Ok, any idea where we should move to in order to avoid global interference, coercion, coordinated agenda, and political and institutional entrainment, as well as a constant EMF locator and orbital Panopticon?
Proffering the option of voting with one's feet is either a strangely quaint outdated notion or a mocking and sadistic false alternative to the, by design, cancerously spreading and inescapable current techno-fascism.
Vote with your feet but welcome the phones, the apps, and the vaccine tracers and trackers that follow people everywhere at all times?
You may think you can vote with your feet in the USA, but it's obvious you can expect no privacy nor actually constituent sensibilities, bc you now belong to the international Internet of Things and its oligarchs.
I think the author describes "foot voting" in terms more expansive than getting up and moving to a different place, though much of the article covers that aspect. But this could cover really any changes you make to change your situation.
When I saw the play "Waiting for Godot," like many others I wondered who or what "Godot" is (this a very simplistic question for a very complicated play, which I did not study). I decided that, for me, Godot represented all the things that we pass up while waiting passively for something else to happen. Another example of this is the man stuck on a roof in a flood and turns down help from various people while waiting for God to save him and thus he drowns.
While the author discusses various government policies that can make it harder to "vote with your feet," I believe another point of the column is that the actions you take can change your life more directly than any vote you take at the ballot box. Don't like your job? Start searching for a new one. Need new skills? Find a way to get them. No jobs in your area? Move, start your own business. Bad marriage? Fix it, divorce or make a positive decision to live with it. And so on. Any one of these things beats sitting around bemoaning your fate.
Are these easy? Hell no. But no one promised life would be easy. Take responsibility for your own life and it might surprise you how many things that seem impossible aren't. Made a change and it didn't work out? Make another one. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I'm 70 years old. I've made a lot of bad decisions, but even my bad decisions were usually better than when I did nothing believing I had no control.
I really don't think exclusionary zoning is the main barrier to "foot voting". Few people just get up and move somewhere else because they prefer the politics of that area. People tend to move to where jobs are, or where their family or friends live.
Years ago, San Francisco's gay friendly politics were a big magnet for gay and lesbian people, but that was pretty much an anomaly, and now every major city is gay friendly.
Some businesses however DO move to states with more friendly taxation, and that in turn attracts people to that area for the jobs.