It has long been a truism that if you want to know how people feel about a government and its policies, just open the borders. Then see whether people flood in or flee out.
Russians started fleeing in droves after President Vladimir Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. Now, his order of a partial military mobilization to help prop up his flagging military has prompted another surge of departures. More than 260,000 Russians, mostly men, have fled to neighboring Finland, Georgia and Kazakhstan by almost any means of transport, to avoid having to fight in an increasingly unpopular war. Some estimate the total outflow since the start of the war at 400,000.
In China, Beijing's Communist authorities have imposed some of the most stringent travel controls in years to prevent its citizens from fleeing. Citing the "great security risk" of the covid-19 pandemic, China has stopped issuing passports for "non-essential" travel outside China, essentially banning all leisure travel. Chinese hoping to flee the country's draconian pandemic controls and lockdowns have resorted to using shady online agents offering fake overseas job offers or bogus university acceptance letters.
China's financial hub, Shanghai, has also been seeing an exodus, with many citizens and expats fleeing after the city finally lifted its harsh two-month spring lockdown…
So many people are looking to leave that the phenomenon even has an internet name, "run xue," or run philosophy in English….
And then there's Hong Kong.
This former British colony this year recorded its biggest year-on-year population drop since record-keeping began in 1961. Some 113,000 residents left from midsummer 2021 to July of this year, marking a dramatic 1.6 percent population decline. And that comes on top of a nearly 90,000-person decline in 2020-21, and a 20,900 drop the year before….
Besides the anti-pandemic regime, the other major reason people are leaving is the imposition of the national security law in 2020 and Beijing's tightening grip on this once freewheeling city.
Public schools have been ordered to scrap "liberal studies," which are blamed for leading to Western-style free thinking and fomenting the 2019 protests. Instead, the government is instilling more mainland-style patriotic education in classrooms…. Many families with children say the school changes are their main motivation to leave….
Whether it's Russians, Chinese or Hong Kongers, the numbers don't lie. People tend to vote with their feet. And it's hard to see the trends reversing before the governments' policies do.
What is true in Russia itself is also true in the parts of Ukraine Russia is seeking to annex on the pretext that the Russian-speaking populations there prefer Russian rule. Foot voting evidence tells a very different story: when Russian forces take over, hundreds of thousands flee. When the Ukrainians retake territory, only small groups of collaborators run in the other direction.
Russia and China aren't the only governments facing large-scale rejection through foot voting. The socialist governments of Cuba and Venezuela have also generated massive refugee outflows. The 6 million people who have fled Venezuela in recent years are the largest refugee exodus in the entire history of the Western Hemisphere. Cuban outmigration falls short mainly because Cuba had a much smaller population to begin with.
By contrast, very few people are beating down the doors to enter Russia, China, Cuba, or Venezuela. Vladimir Putin's regime has little appeal even to the millions of ethnic Russians who currently live outside its borders, and might be thought of as potential backers of Putin's Russian nationalism. Similarly, few overseas Chinese are eager to return to the homeland to live under the rule of Xi Jinping. Cuban and Venezuelan socialism has little appeal to potential migrants from other Latin American nations, despite cultural and linguistic affinities. To the contrary, millions of Venezuelans have fled to Colombia, which is far from ideal, but still vastly preferable to life under socialism.
Foot voters generally make better-informed and more carefully reasoned choices than people voting at the ballot box. For that reason, their decisions are particularly strong indicators of the relative quality of different governments, and foot voting itself is an especially valuable mechanism of political choice.
Some European and American right-wingers have praised Vladimir Putin's nationalism as a compelling alternative to Western liberal democracy. China's more technocratic form of authoritarian nationalism - including its Zero-Covid policy - also has Western admirers. The same, of course, is true of Cuban and Venezuelan socialism. Even now, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez (founders of Cuba's and Venezuela's socialist states) are heroes to some on the left.
The evidence of people voting with their feet gives the lie to such narratives. Foot voters overwhelmingly reject these kinds of regimes. And many more would do so if the US and other liberal democracies were more open to accepting them.
Elsewhere, I have argued for opening Western doors to Russian and Chinese migrants fleeing their respective oppressive governments. It's the right thing to do for a combination of moral, economic, and strategic reasons. Many of the same points also apply to Cuban and Venezuelan refugees, though the strategic rationale is somewhat weaker, because these two states are less significant geopolitical rivals than Russia and China.
During the Cold War, many Westerners came to understand that the eagerness of people to flee communist regimes was a sign of their inferiority. The same is true of today's nationalist and socialist alternatives to liberalism.
Is this an example of "foot voting"?
"Longtime DOJ attorney Janie Sitton cast a ballot in North Carolina’s 2020 general election, despite being a resident of Washington, D.C., at the time. While Donald Trump ended up carrying North Carolina by just 1.3 points, the race was a dead heat until the very end. This was not the case in the District of Columbia, however, where Trump earned only 5 percent of the vote. Perhaps this is why Sitton chose to vote in the Tar Heel State rather than D.C. — and it’s a prime example of how skirting election laws can contribute to rigged elections."
https://thefederalist.com/2022/10/05/doj-election-official-voted-in-tight-north-carolina-race-while-claiming-dc-residency-bar-complaint-alleges/
This article is damning. After all, it is inconceivable that someone with a white collar job in one city might have legitimately relocated to a vacation property in 2020, and then move back to the city in 2022.
It is actually pretty bad.
See, at the same time the person in question was attesting that she was supposedly a resident of North Carolina (2020) for voting purposes, she was also attesting that her principle residence was in DC (in order to claim the DC homestead deduction). Her primary residence was simultaneously "both" DC and NC in 2020?
So, she either committed voting fraud or tax fraud in 2020. For a member of the voting rights division of the DoJ...that is especially a problem.
It's certainly an example of a comment that has nothing to do with the original post.
Interesting rhetorical trick to tack "American conservatives" on to Vladimir Putin right at the end...
But let us examine this theory of "voting with your feet" against bad authoritarian governments in a more local way... What governments are Americans voting against with their feet? And what governments are they voting for?
CAlifornians and New yorkers moving to Texas and Florida
Which states are the fascist / authoritorians
The majority of Californians leaving California (versus just relocating within the state) are lower income and less educated. The majority of people migrating into California are higher income and better educated. This isn't a migration pattern that fits your "fascist/authoritorians[sic]" perspective.
Global climate change is also drying up the state and placing a lot of pressure on one of the state's largest industries: agriculture. Large numbers of residents leaving the state are leaving from agricultural areas, a trend that will likely continue even as COVID "refugees" start returning to the office and the cities.
This is part of the great sifting of America.
Educated, reasoning, smart, skilled, productive, tolerant, progressive Americans are congregating in modern, educated, successful communities.
Poorly educated, superstitious, economically inadequate, bigoted Americans are concentrating in shambling, uneducated, backwater communities.
Bright flight -- that's where all of the smart, ambitious young people depart a downscale community at high school graduation, seeking education, opportunity and modernity that must be found elsewhere, never to return -- is a beautiful thing. America should arrange a strong lifeline for the young people who want to move to modern, successful cities and strong, liberal-libertarian campuses. Why should young people be doomed for having losers for parents?
Most of your "educated" and "progressive" people don't know how to do anything to take care of themselves. Writing Facebook code, being an Instagram influencer, eating Impossible Burgers, and having gay sex doesn't work outside of our fake service economy.
Would you consider owning and operating large-scale farming operations (and hiring fungible hayseeds for the menial work) to qualify as "taking care of themselves?"
There is nothing the residents of successful, educated, modern communities could need from from the backwaters that won't be readily available for purchase (and probably at a relatively low price).
Do you think farms operate themselves? Do you think you and your butt pirate friends can distinguish between a tractor and a screwdriver?
Rev & his friends know more about everything because he is our educated better!
“Do you think farms operate themselves?”
No.* Sensible owners employ managers willing to relocate to less desirable communities for a suitable price; those managers hire locals for menial labor.
* Not yet may be more accurate. Who knows how automation and technology could influence farm operations, particularly with respect to eliminating the need for unskilled or low-skilled labor. Some beverage warehouses that formerly required dozens of employees for an overnight picking-and-loading shift now need just a handful of employees to operate (mostly watch) the equipment that does essentially all of the work.
Of course, devising and producing the labor-reducing equipment will create jobs for skilled, educated employees . . . but they probably won't want to live in Pig's Knuckle, Ohio. Oh, well . . . more room for Bob from Ohio to spread out and enjoy backwater life!
Rev should get out more and get a little better educated. though not surprising how uneducated our betters are.
fwiw – Farms have been largely automated since the mid to late 1900’s. One of the reasons crop yields have increase 2x-3x since the early 1900’s
Great . . . if the farming operations are automated we don't need to pay hayseeds to operate them.
Rural residents have become largely valueless.
Rev - proving again his lack of education
Keep it up
Shawn - demonstrating his knowledge of climate science - "Global climate change is also drying up the state and placing a lot of pressure on one of the state’s largest industries:"
Always impressed with the climateballers ability to misrepresent and cherry pick data .
fyi - The paleo record shows california with a very long 5k+ history of frequent and much longer droughts than the present drought.
So, you're agreeing that there's potentially going to be a hell of a drought, whatever the cause.
I am agreeing that the current drought is consistent with the multitude of droughts that have plague the CA region since the the last 5k+ years as documented in the paleo record.
There is no indication that "climate change" has made the current drought worse than normal. (normal being what has been experience over the last 5k+ years) Maybe worse than the last 150 years, but not worse that typical over the last 5k+ years.
The occurence of previous droughts does not preclude current droughts being caused, or exacerbated, by climate change, I'm afraid. The fact that an area is historically prone to droughts just means that thanks to climate change the droughts are more likely to occur there, and more likely to be severe. When severe weather events that historically only occured every hundred or even thousands of years start occuring regularly, that's climate change.
Nige - typical unscientific talking point from the agw advocates.
The "historical" trend for droughts is up for the last 150 years.
Yet the historical trend for droughts for the last 5k years is flat.
go ahead and cherrypick your preferred start date for the trend to show AGW is the cause of the drought. Thats what climate scientists do. Real scientists research the longer time frame.
So more and more extreme droughts occurring in the time frame of excess human CO2 output isn't relevant data to the question of whether excess human CO2 output is causing climate change? Good heavens.
Nige 38 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
So more and more extreme droughts occurring in the time frame of excess human CO2 output isn’t relevant data to the question of whether excess human CO2 output is causing climate change? Good heavens."
No -
A) over the course of 5k+ years there is no trend for more and more extreme droughts.
B) you are basing your conclusion on a cherrypicked time frame.
c) The cherrypicked time frame is common deceptive trick promoted by advocates. A person with normal critical analytical skills doesnt fall for something so childish.
Well, that just absolutely is not true.
The majority of people moving anywhere are gonna be "not wealthy", because that is how demographics work.
But large numbers of wealthy Americans have loudly relocated away from these governments. And many have brought their companies with them.
If we look at recent 'migration' in the US, it seems that the affluent were voting to flee urban centers because they were frightened of a disease. Other trends seem to be folks 'voting' to leave states that have high cost of living, high tax rates for states that are better managed. Preaching to the choir, though.
Cost of living in states with low state income taxes aren't always better than states with higher state income taxes, especially for poorer residents who are more likely to take advantage of government programs.
California comes in very high when only looking at state and local tax rates. It's 30th, though, for property tax, below Florida and quite a few other Red states. It's even lower, at 32nd, for sales and excise taxes. When totaled up, California is the 9th most expensive for taxes but not too far higher than Iowa, Kansas, and Utah (13, 14, 15 respectively.)
You may have looked at the very low property tax rate in California and thought "waitaminit! a tiny percentage of an expensive home is still a lot of money!" And you'd have hit upon the other factor people don't consider: income versus taxes. California is expensive but pay is also much higher than most states and disposable income can also be much higher than lower tax states like Florida.
So, are the "cheaper" states better managed? If your disposable income is lower even with lower taxes and cheaper housing? If educational opportunities are sub-par? If your property insurance rates are double your property tax rates (see: Florida.) I would say they're differently managed, maybe in a way that attracts certain people, but "better" is subjective.
Reason has covered the education angle. When properly controlled, Florida is at the top of the education rankings. So.. fail on that one.
Vote with their feet? 'Flee their homes.' Floridians who fled before Ian voted with their feet for not getting hammered by a hurricane. Trying to rebrand refugess, displaced persons, migrants and political exiles as 'foot voters' is asinine and vaguely sinister.
'Foot voters generally make better-informed and more carefully reasoned choices than people voting at the ballot box.'
Voters in Russia and China don't get much choice at all, so that's a low bar.
If Cubans and Venezualans and Chinese are 'fleeing socialism,' what economic system are Russians fleeing?
You should be cautious before accusing others of being asinine. The Floridians who fled before Ian have every intention of returning in a few days or weeks and rebuilding after this natural disaster. That is not true of the many people permanently emigrating from political disasters. They are in fact "voting" with their feet.
They voted with their feet to avoid a natural disaster, then voted with their feet to return to an area prone to natural disasters. People are really reluctant to leave their homes and tend to do so en masse only under enormous pressures. Natural disasters displace populations, or cause people to vote with their feet, all the time. Think of the Dustbowl. How many more years of heatwave and drought before that gets replicated all over the place?
Never. Farm work is a tiny percentage of the workforce today, unlike the era of the dust bowl.
Still dependant on farms for food.
Given the recent victory of Russia over the United States (that is, a cut in OPEC+ oil production which will further deplete US strategic oil reserves, currently below their 1984 levels, and will, as Citi Bank notes, "likely irritate the Biden Administration ahead of U.S. mid-term elections"), voting by foot and otherwise may indeed interest many Americans.
I vote with my feet to get away from people who clearly just don't learn.
I wonder if Ilya feels the same way about US inter-state migration. If so, I wonder what he thinks that says about the states losing people.
Maybe conscription is an edge case?
It's always useful to examine the counterexamples.
So, in Ilya's view, people "vote with their feet" by leaving "less free" countries to countries which are more free. Yet...
There's the counter example of Saudi Arabia and India. Saudi Arabia has one of the most repressive, un-free, governments in the world. It's an absolute monarchy. Ranks very poorly on freedom scales. India is a democracy. Flawed, yes, but far more free as a society/government than Saudi Arabia.
However, over 4 million Indian citizens have migrated to Saudi Arabia, representing more than 10% of the Saudi population. Why is this, if people "vote with their feet" to leave less free areas?
The answer is self-explanatory. Money. Indian citizens can earn more money working in Saudi Arabia, despite it being a less free society.
In fact, that primary concern, money, drives most...if not nearly all...of the immigration worldwide. There is a very small proportion that is actual fleeing from persecution. Primarily, it's money driven, and the people could care less about how free or not free their country is.