How much of the difference in population growth has been driven by inter-state migration and how much has been driven by different realized fertility?
You keyed on one subtext for the "blue" states' increasing preference for permissive immigration policy: countering the population stagnation. Another is that team "blue" overtly caters to the college-educated, affluent, professional-managerial class, which appears to be increasingly invested in an economy of house cleaners, food delivery people, childcare workers, et al, which in turn only works if there is cheap labor around.
I don't have an answer to your question, but it is a good one.
Your second comment is interesting, and I don't know how true it is. Are blue-state professionals more likely to want house cleaners? Do they have more food delivered? Etc. I don't know, and data here would be worth finding. Some of it may just be tied to living in cities rather than politics. On my mind. Thanks.
Hmm. My head went immediately to the environmental aspects of life in Florida or Texas or California. Each state has, notably, had its recent share of 'natural disasters' -- flooding, hurricanes, wildfires and arson fires that exploded. Texas had its debacles with energy / electricity grid and massive increases to people's bills. What are the bigger impacts of the population growth in these states...? Also thinking about Census tract level growth, like in urban, sub-urban, and ex-urban areas, such as Phoenix, Tucson, the Research Triangle, Atlanta, etc.
All good questions. If one believes in climate change, I'm not sure why you would move to any of these states.
Bigger impacts is a big question. Growing economies tend to be more robust, but the environment and living experience tend to decrease (i.e., more traffic). An economic and quality of life report comparing these places would be enlightening.
As for Texas, generally their electricity prices are on the low end, and, interestingly enough, they have large amounts of renewables.
How much of the difference in population growth has been driven by inter-state migration and how much has been driven by different realized fertility?
You keyed on one subtext for the "blue" states' increasing preference for permissive immigration policy: countering the population stagnation. Another is that team "blue" overtly caters to the college-educated, affluent, professional-managerial class, which appears to be increasingly invested in an economy of house cleaners, food delivery people, childcare workers, et al, which in turn only works if there is cheap labor around.
I don't have an answer to your question, but it is a good one.
Your second comment is interesting, and I don't know how true it is. Are blue-state professionals more likely to want house cleaners? Do they have more food delivered? Etc. I don't know, and data here would be worth finding. Some of it may just be tied to living in cities rather than politics. On my mind. Thanks.
Hmm. My head went immediately to the environmental aspects of life in Florida or Texas or California. Each state has, notably, had its recent share of 'natural disasters' -- flooding, hurricanes, wildfires and arson fires that exploded. Texas had its debacles with energy / electricity grid and massive increases to people's bills. What are the bigger impacts of the population growth in these states...? Also thinking about Census tract level growth, like in urban, sub-urban, and ex-urban areas, such as Phoenix, Tucson, the Research Triangle, Atlanta, etc.
All good questions. If one believes in climate change, I'm not sure why you would move to any of these states.
Bigger impacts is a big question. Growing economies tend to be more robust, but the environment and living experience tend to decrease (i.e., more traffic). An economic and quality of life report comparing these places would be enlightening.
As for Texas, generally their electricity prices are on the low end, and, interestingly enough, they have large amounts of renewables.