Between the end of 2014 and the end of 2015 Illinois has lost more population than any other state, reports IllinoisPolicy.org:
New data released by the U.S. Census bureau showed that in terms of domestic migration — people moving about within the United States — Illinois saw roughly 105,200 more people leave than arrive.
Even when offset by a gain of more than 37,600 by way of international migration, Illinois still ended up about 67,500 in the negative column.
With natural growth (births minus deaths) counted, Illinois showed a net population loss of nearly 22,200 people, or about 0.17 percent of its population.
Of the 50 states, Illinois was the top population loser. Other states showing a net loss of population were Connecticut (-3,876); Maine (-928); Mississippi (-1,110); New Mexico, (-458); Vermont, (-725) and West Virginia (-4,623).
For me the most telling thing in the article was this:
A spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, said the data from the Census Bureau offered no analysis, and he chose not to offer analysis. A spokeswoman for Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, said she was studying the data.
Democrats must have a plan to address this problem. And it is a problem. Let’s recap why.
Your fixed expenses remain the same regardless of population. That’s why they’re called “fixed expenses”. When your variable expenses don’t go down with population for demographic reasons (which is largely the case in Illinois), your total expenses don’t go down, either. Expenses that remain the same and a dwindling population means that on average each remaining person bears more of those expenses.
Higher taxes is no solution for Illinois. That just drives the most portable, frequently the wealthiest or most in demand, out of the state. It’s a perverse policy.
The original Census Bureau press release is here.
I’ve said all I have to say. The Democrat policy test state has been set well in motion. Sit back and watch the shit storm.
Damned shame.
It’s not an Illinois problem. It’s a national problem — the old industries of the Midwest are dwindling, the jobs are going, finance and service jobs aren’t taking up the slack, and people are leaving. The heartland is being carved out, and neither Republicans nor Democrats have a cure — or even much interest in finding a cure.
Eighty years ago, the bright people interested in public policy would have been producing a dozen schemes for re-industrialization, and the federal government would have had a Civilian Conservation Corps and a National Recovery Adminstration and resettlement schemes. Fifty years ago we had Model Cities programs and a Job Corps. Mind — I’m not saying these all worked wonderfully well, but they were patches to try to stop some of the bleeding. Today … it’s economic wisdom to keep Wall Street Bankers happy and fiddle with interest rates and as long as the finaciers and lobbyists are happy the people running our government are happy.
That would make a nice story, something to work with, if it held water, Mike. But so many of those IL jobs go to “distant lands” – from a policy perspective that is – you know, like IN or IA. Our firm, which makes 9 out of 10 investments in pure manufacturing companies, used to have liberal representation in states like CA or OH. Hell, we just recently sold a company that manufactured in MA, of all places. Not now. Its FL (2), TX (2), AK. It’s hard to imagine we would touch IL. It’s hard enough with one in eastern MI. We’re not masochists.
Nothing’s so sad as a beautiful theory ruined by awkward facts!
So, is it high taxes, low worker quality, or generalized “uncertainty” that sours you so on Illinois and Ohio and California? Would you be quite as negative if it looked like the overall American economy would grow at a faster-than-Obama clip (3% per annum, say) for ten years or more? Or do those states have problems which you don’t see being solved under nearly any concievable circumstances?