Economy headed South in more ways than one
The South is winning the economic war. Yesterday local leaders, The Rochester Community Coalition, were pushing for more state aid from the governor’s office. From the D&C:
The Rochester Community Coalition, made up of business, political and college leaders, met with members of the governor’s office and legislative leaders to advance nearly $212 million in aid sought for projects and property-tax relief.
The requests come as state lawmakers were rushing to meet the April 1 deadline to pass a roughly $124 billion budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year.
This coincided with a population shift report released by the Census Bureau, which stated (bold mine):
Of the 50 fastest-growing metro areas, 27 were in the South and 20 were in the West. Two were in the Midwest, one — Fayetteville, Ark. — straddles the South and Midwest and none was in the Northeast.
Why the move South and West? It’s not just the weather. According to the Associated Press report:
Experts credit much of the growth in the South to relatively strong local economies and housing prices that are among the most affordable in the U.S.
A Texas state demographer had this to say:
“People are running away from unaffordable housing, from the economic slowdown,†a state demographer in Texas, Karl Eschbach, said.
What does Maggie Brooks think? We’re still waiting to hear details about the “Plan B” being called for by both Democrats and Republicans. But here is what has already happened:
Rochester resident Linda Klumpp thought her county tax bill was going down this year.
She was not pleased to discover it rose by $115.
Klumpp’s increase surprised her in light of an 11-cent decrease in the property tax rate across the county.
So, we have the city’s economy struggling with the recent announcement that Mayor Duffy may cut approximately 100 jobs, Brooks lost in court and is desperately seeking a “Plan B,” the state economy is faltering, and the national economy is in a recession. What went wrong?
The last war between the states was won by the North. Not so much this time.
Well, considering NY is in the top three for highest tax burdens per family in the country, what should we expect? You can’t be “progressive” without money to fund the programs.
and you can’t do much about cutting spending unless you can find waste. otherwise you cut something and people get mad. everyone says cut until you cut theirs’. then they rally and say cut elsewhere. sooner (rather than later) we need to start swallowing bitter pills so we can get healthy again. now we treat symptoms but we must cure the disease.
People are moving south and west because “… housing prices that are among the most affordable in the U.S.”???
Try to find a cheaper place to buy a house than the City of Rochester.
Don’t believe the hype.
….Buffalo? No, wait… Detroit!
But you have to have a decent paying job in order to get the affordable housing here. That’s the problem, the jobs.
What to cut??? Well we can’t cut the Republican’s relatives and cronies jobs even if they we just sort of created to have someplace to put all those people! (I state with sarcasm dripping off my tongue!)
Just look, even now the poor friends need even more jobs like, oh I don’t know, how about running MCC…then that guy can create more jobs at MCC for all the poor “friends” that no longer have jobs in big industry, because they all went overseas…and the cycle marches on.
What’s next…hey, maybe they will create more “Authorities” so there will be more jobs and even less accountability! There you go! All figured out.
Before you know it, the only people who have jobs in NY will be connected Republicans and then they can all feed off of each other until it all comes crashing down….whoops, already happening.
Hey, GA, I don’t think its fair to say the south is winning the economic war. You don’t know if the South is having similar problems to the Rochester area, where they need more state aid. In fact, based on what I have read, virtually every state has a shortfall of money, which means that many areas will go begging for more funds, just just Rochester or Northeast areas.
Hey, GA, I don’t think it is fair to imply that there is a population shift from the Northeast to the south using the statistics you quote. The statistics you quote don’t imply a shift from one specific location to another. They just imply growth is faster in the south, but where that growth comes from is something that can’t be inferred from the snippet of the Census bureau report you qoute.
And I’m not defending Maggie here, but I don’t see the link between geography and the next paragraph where you criticize Maggie’s yet to appear budget plan B.
Paige, you make me work so hard. Just like a lefty. Alright, if you’re gonna get all “specific-ky” on me:
In 2006, the unemployment rate in the Southeast was 4.1 percent compared to 4.6% for the rest of the nation. Personal income growth for the first 6 months of 2007 was 4.4 percent in the Southeast compared to 3.9 percent in the nation. (Source: http://investor.southerncompany.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=256664)
In terms of population shifts:
“Of the 50 fastest-growing metro areas, 27 were in the South and 20 were in the West. Two were in the Midwest, one — Fayetteville, Ark. — straddles the South and Midwest and none was in the Northeast.
Detroit lost more than three times as many people as any other metro area — its population declined more than 27,300. Other areas losing more than 5,000 people were Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Ga., Youngstown, Ohio, and Buffalo, N.Y.” (Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342095,00.html)
Here’s a nice chart of population domestic/internal migration:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/images/blogs/barone_flow.htm
So Rochester has lost less than 2000 people since 2006, I hardly feel that there is a concern over migration from Rochester to elsewhere.
Your original post talks about the Northeast and than jumps to Maggie’s as yet unseen UnfairB Plan, as if there is a connection between the migration from (not Rochester but) the Northeast to elsewhere and Maggie’s plan. As there is no appreciable migration out of Rochester according to the statistics, I still don’t so a connection.
But please don’t abuse the statistics. The fact that “Of the 50 fastest-growing metro areas, 27 were in the South and 20 were in the West” is irrelevant. The growth here in Rochester was virtually 0  but you failed to point that out in your original post, and you implied that migration out of Rochester was a problem.
Paige, the trend of not gaining population is a concern. Here’s a snippet from a recent D&C piece:
“Four thousand more people moved away from the Rochester region than into it during the 2006-07 period, estimates show.
Enough babies were born here so that the overall population of Monroe, Livingston, Ontario, Orleans and Wayne counties, which make up the Rochester metropolitan statistical area, lost only about 500 people and remained slightly higher than 1 million.
The Census Bureau estimates that the region has lost 7,300 people this decade.”
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080327/NEWS01/803270353
My point about Maggie’s plan is that she is further hurting the already dismal economy with her actions and that will exacerbate the situation. She seems unwilling to eliminate the sweetheart job deals for her pals so this leaves taxation.
“Please don’t abuse the statistics”? It is not “irrelevant” that the Northeast is not gaining in population. I’m talking overall trends, and since Rochester is not gaining population like the South and the West, then migration out of Rochester is contributing to the problem.
Great, now you finally provide relevant statistics about the Rochester region population decline. Thank you. This should have been stated in your original post.
When I said your statistics are irrelevant, it is because statistics about the South or the West (that you quoted) do not tell you what is happening in the Rochester area. By quoting statistics about population growth the South and the West, you were implying that there was no growth (or actual declines) in the Rochester area, but one does not follow from the other. It is entirely possible after reading your quoted statistics about population growth in the South and West that population in the Rochester area was still growing, just not fast enough to be in the top 50. And only now in this last comment do you actually tell us what has actually happened in the greater Rochester area, that there has been a population decline of less than 1% over a decade (which certainly doesn’t sound like a huge problem to me).
I consider it abuse of statistics to provide statistics about population growth in the South and West and then imply that a specific result is happening in the Rochester area. And furthermore, I believe your implications based upon those statistics about the South and West are incorrect. As I read your original post, you sure make it sound much worse than a 1% decrease in population has hit the Rochester area.
Maggie’s plan B, whatever it will be, will encompass difficult choices regardless of the less than 1% loss in population over a decade. In fact, I still don’t see a connection between a loss of population of less than 1% in a decade to whatever the UnfairB plan will be. There are many other factors at work, including the national economy and the Rethuglicans death-wish to never raise taxes.
Great, now you finally provide relevant statistics about the Rochester region population decline. Thank you. This should have been stated in your original post.
My apologies. Forgot to take my perfect pill.
In terms of “abuse of statistics,” that implies intent. I had no intent to abuse statistics. Hopefully, I’ve broken no blog laws.
I consider reading between the lines and connecting the dots paramount to micromanaging our most exalted RT readers. However, I can see now that precision is more desirable.
But, since you’ve so vehemently thrashed my piece, I feel I must torture you back, Paige:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQQulI71JyA
Paige said And I’m not defending Maggie here, but I don’t see the link between geography and the next paragraph where you criticize Maggie’s yet to appear budget plan B.
The connection I was shooting for was that Maggie’s options are generally tax-based and that will further damage our economy and discourage businesses from relocating here unless some corporate tax breaks are again included (and those have their own set of problems). Any more taxation will just work to further drive people away from the area, therefore reducing the tax base even further.
I’m not exactly sure why anyone thinks that Maggie would care about people leaving or corporations moving here. Neither group are her base nor beholden to the party.
Everyone will continue saying that taxes are too high, Republicans will continue to say that it is because the people in the city are using too many Medicaid stamps for beer and drugs on the corner, and the only idea to fix it is to give tax breaks to the companies that are here already to retain jobs.
Take a look at that chart: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/images/blogs/barone_flow.htm
How many of these metro areas contain 49 separate taxing entities?
Anyone ready to revisit this yet?
Maybe more complaining will help.
or Albany.
or complaining about Albany.