American South's Regional Economy Falling Behind

[Del Tachi]

Richard Florida?  Lmao

[Del Tachi]

Richard Florida?  Lmao

It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale. 

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already. 

[Del Tachi]

Richard Florida?  Lmao

It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale.  

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already.  

It's unfortunate the article triggers you.  

1.It does include Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. Leaving out Florida and Texas would only necessarily be a problem if they were included previously.

So?  Texas is roughly the size of all the states you named combined.  Florida adds another 22 million people.  Omitting these states is a big problem for conclusion validity.  You can't say "the South" is falling behind when you're not even considering 40% of its population.

2.The purpose of this study was not to engage in 'bashing the South' but to examine how low tax, anti union, limited business regulation states have been doing.  I'm sure you can find flaws in the methodology, but the key takeaway that seems to be very difficult to dispute is that this right wing economic vision is not producing positive results for most people.

Except that's not what its doing.  This article makes no attempt to actually quantify the effects of such policies, at least not empirically.  And if it wanted to actually contribute in that sense, they would need to look at a lot of non-Southern states with similar approaches (i.e., Ohio, Kansas, Utah, Arizona, etc.)  This article is just a flashy headline meant to get clicks, not anything resembling real science.

[Del Tachi]

Richard Florida?  Lmao

It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale. 

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already. 

This isn’t a comparison of the rural south to the urban south.  It is a comparison of all the south to the nation as a whole.  Even if the south is more rural than the national average, it doesn’t negate the fact that the region is falling behind.  Texas is not comparable to the rest of the south...neither is Florida.  Midland and Fort Worth are not the south...  Houston perhaps.

To me it seems as soon as the GOP really took over down south, the gains in prosperity reversed.  And the more prosperous parts edge ever closer to the Democrats.

Economic divergence is affecting all regions of the country.  Rural areas everywhere are falling behind while urban ones zoom ahead.  Omitting Texas and Florida from this "analysis" just to produce the results you want doesn't make any sense when these states are still some of the most "low-tax, anti-regulation" states in the country.

[Del Tachi]

Richard Florida?  Lmao

It's a lengthy article and it's in The Wall Street Journal (not that I've read the entire article, but Richard Florida is used for comment and is not behind the data.)  I'm not surprised you don't have a criticism of the article itself.

Ok fine the study is junk because it omits Florida and Texas.  Two very Southern, Republican-dominated states who have been driving population/job growth at a national scale. 

This is an urban/rural problem, not a Southern one.  We're also seeing divergence in places as "Southern" as eastern Washington and rural Minnesota, while metroes like Atlanta and Dallas continue to surge ahead.

This is just more elitist liberal circle-jerking about how the South is full of all the "wrong" people.  Yawn.  Invent something new already. 

This isn’t a comparison of the rural south to the urban south.  It is a comparison of all the south to the nation as a whole.  Even if the south is more rural than the national average, it doesn’t negate the fact that the region is falling behind.  Texas is not comparable to the rest of the south...neither is Florida.  Midland and Fort Worth are not the south...  Houston perhaps.

To me it seems as soon as the GOP really took over down south, the gains in prosperity reversed.  And the more prosperous parts edge ever closer to the Democrats.

Economic divergence is affecting all regions of the country.  Rural areas everywhere are falling behind while urban ones zoom ahead.  Omitting Texas and Florida from this "analysis" just to produce the results you want doesn't make any sense when these states are still some of the most "low-tax, anti-regulation" states in the country.

The main difference is that rural populations as a percent of overall populations are declining outside of most of the South.  You mentioned Minnesota.  The rural first district is becoming more urbanized and the rural resource based 8th district is becoming more Duluth and Minneapolis/St Paul Exurban based.

The Urban South is growing at the expense of the Rural South as well, my friend:



Rural populations as a percent of the overall population have been declining everywhere in the United States for about 200 years lol

I'm just still very confused at the point that you're trying to make