Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. The vast majority of out-migration from the North is simply for economic and/or COL reasons, not because the South is inherently better. In particular, if you score a good paying job, I and many others personally find that the quality-of-life that metros like Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC and Chicago offer is second to none.
2. States like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are still fundamentally blue-leaning states (keep in mind that Trump didn't even reach 50% in these states, only a very narrow plurality) and will also continue to trend "blue" like the rest of the country due to demographic shifts. The 2016 election (and the continuously unfortunate consequences) was an anomaly for many reasons.
3. The South, just like the North did before it, will continue to "mature" with declining growth rates. An aging population, declining birth rate, shifting industry trends, and climate change will guarantee it.
Overall, the notion that the South is somehow immune from challenges/headwinds and is destined for perpetual prosperity is incredibly naive and ignorant of history of inevitable "booms" and "busts."
As to your point #1., Aren't economic and/or COL metrics by which people determine which places are better for them? The fact that people are consistently choosing some states and cities over others is an indication that people vote with their feet. This can't be ignored.
No place is immune to challenges and population cycles and mobility will continue to shape the country. That said, we are in a pattern that favors many places in the South and the West and there isn't any real sign of that changing on the horizon. Any company with a mammoth investment to make would be foolish to not take that into consideration. What's the "next" place is as important as what's the "now" place?
As to your point #1., Aren't economic and/or COL metrics by which people determine which places are better for them? The fact that people are consistently choosing some states and cities over others is an indication that people vote with their feet. This can't be ignored.
Not always.. once you've passed a certain threshold people tend to choose where they personally enjoy living in the most. That's why you still have tons of people buying propoerty in places lile DC, Seattle etc. Also you have lots of folks in the creative industry i.e. fashion that live in places like NYC or LA because those the epicenter.
Jacksonville City Council vice president states that Amazon asked specifically for Jacksonville leaders to submit a bid. This certainly occurred with a number of other cities, but gives a little bit of insight into Jax's participation. The same councilman thinks Amazon will narrow down its choices by the end of March, but he says it is just a guess based on the conversations they had back in September.
Jacksonville City Council vice president states that Amazon asked specifically for Jacksonville leaders to submit a bid. This certainly occurred with a number of other cities, but gives a little bit of insight into Jax's participation. The same councilman thinks Amazon will narrow down its choices by the end of March, but he says it is just a guess based on the conversations they had back in September.
Ah, primary season for the 2018 election. Best time to buy politicians.
There are actually very few "swing" general elections throughout the US. Many races are decided by the primary, so filling the coffers of candidate at that time is most appreciated.
As to your point #1., Aren't economic and/or COL metrics by which people determine which places are better for them? The fact that people are consistently choosing some states and cities over others is an indication that people vote with their feet. This can't be ignored.
That's a fair and accurate point, but of course it's much more complex than saying "the North is losing to the South." It's not. It continues to host many thriving and prosperous areas, as does the South.
This issue is that folks automatically assume that slow-growth areas are economically moribund, when in many cases, there is a significant amount of "churn" beneath the surface that is actually making slow- or no-growth cities/metro areas highly prosperous. Cities like Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Baltimore come to mind. Even cities like St. Louis, Cleveland and Detroit are finally finding their footing in the post-industrial/tech economy, a trend I would definitely expect to continue.
On the contrary, it is slow-growth areas that tend to be much more sustainable and much less subject to inflation (e.g., housing bubbles and overcrowding). In my book, that makes for much better quality of life.
Ah, primary season for the 2018 election. Best time to buy politicians.
There are actually very few "swing" general elections throughout the US. Many races are decided by the primary, so filling the coffers of candidate at that time is most appreciated.
Interestingly most cities had already done their elections and Massachusetts, home of a prime candidate city doesn't have Primaries til September (and others are throughout the summer) so it's probably not a nefarious as it seems
Wasn't expecting Indy, Nashville, Pittsburg, Austin, Columbus to be on the short list.
fixed
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
