We need to take a very close look at population shift

[question everything]

While regional media outlets look at their own cities, the trend is a continuing migration from the blue northwest and the midwest to the red south and southwest, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13441605/

It was already clear, during the 2004 elections, that it would not have been enough for Kerry to just win the Gore states. And the next census will change the distribution of electoral votes even more.

No, I do not advocate becoming red by thumping the bible and driving pickup trucks with shotguns. But it is clear that the red states are takers of federal funds because of the severe poverty, because of the lack of innovation and entrepreneurship.

People vote for what they perceive as very close and personal for them. Karl Rove capitalized on it when he talked about "baby killers" and "perverts."

We will have to talk about jobs, and schools, and health care, and the elderly, and retirement. We will not win with Iraq and with impeachment.

I've seen it someplace here, a comment by a DUer that families of soldiers in Iraq still support the war, still support Bush, still support the Republicans. And they will if at least to help them endure this ordeal.

Here is the list of the "winners and losers:

The fastest-growing cities with populations of 100,000 or more
from July 2004 to July 2005. Increases are listed in percentages:

City 2005 2004 Increase

Elk Grove, Calif. 112,338 100,686 11.6
North Las Vegas, Nev. 176,635 158,540 11.4
Port St. Lucie, Fla. 131,692 118,655 11.0
Gilbert, Ariz. 173,989 156,816 11.0
Cape Coral, Fla. 140,010 128,193 9.2
Moreno Valley, Calif. 178,367 166,261 7.3
Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 169,353 159,110 6.4

Miramar, Fla. 106,623 101,367 5.2
Chandler, Ariz. 234,939 223,895 4.9
Irvine, Calif. 186,852 178,085 4.9
Bakersfield, Calif. 295,536 283,010 4.4
Peoria, Ariz. 138,200 132,355 4.4
Raleigh, N.C. 341,530 327,547 4.3
Lancaster, Calif. 134,032 128,672 4.2

Joliet, Ill. 136,208 130,904 4.1
Visalia, Calif. 108,669 104,479 4.0
Clarksville, Tenn. 112,878 108,664 3.9
Fort Worth, Texas 624,067 603,067 3.5
Denton, Texas 104,153 100,739 3.4
Henderson, Nev. 232,146 224,542 3.4
Killeen, Texas 100,233 96,971 3.4

Cary, N.C. 106,439 103,013 3.3
Fontana, Calif. 163,860 158,702 3.3
Grand Prairie, Texas 144,337 139,833 3.2
Thornton, Colo. 105,182 101,933 3.2
Phoenix, Ariz. 1,461,575 1,417,119 3.1
Orlando, Fla. 213,223 206,972 3.0
Chula Vista, Calif. 210,497 204,499 2.9

Laredo, Texas 208,754 202,831 2.9
Reno, Nev. 203,550 197,897 2.9
Palmdale, Calif. 134,570 130,876 2.8
Roseville, Calif. 105,940 103,098 2.8
Olathe, Kan. 111,334 108,440 2.7
Brownsville, Texas 167,493 163,192 2.6
McAllen, Texas 123,622 120,552 2.5

Stockton, Calif. 286,926 279,818 2.5
Santa Clarita, Calif. 168,253 164,455 2.3
Sioux Falls, S.D. 139,517 136,579 2.2
Albuquerque, N.M. 494,236 483,844 2.1
Charlotte, N.C. 610,949 598,206 2.1
Miami, Fla. 386,417 378,654 2.1
Las Vegas, Nev. 545,147 534,506 2.0

Aurora, Colo. 297,235 291,445 2.0
Scottsdale, Ariz. 226,013 221,665 2.0
Chesapeake, Va. 218,968 214,830 1.9
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 167,380 164,354 1.8
Plano, Texas 250,096 245,606 1.8
Salem, Ore. 148,751 146,176 1.8
Glendale, Ariz. 239,435 235,351 1.7

San Antonio, Texas 1,256,509 1,235,089 1.7
Ontario, Calif. 172,679 169,800 1.7

— Source: Census Bureau
The fastest-shrinking cities with populations of 100,000 or more from July 2004 to July 2005. Decreases are listed in percentages:

City 2005 2004 Decrease

Norfolk, Va. 231,954 237,347 -2.3
St. Louis, Mo. 344,362 350,705 -1.8
Cincinnati, Ohio 308,728 313,860 -1.6
Fayetteville, N.C. 129,928 131,986 -1.6
Hialeah, Fla. 220,485 223,913 -1.5
Boston, Mass. 559,034 567,660 -1.5
Detroit, Mich. 886,671 899,122 -1.4

New Orleans, La. 454,863 461,115 -1.4
Cleveland, Ohio 452,208 458,080 -1.3
Pittsburgh, Pa. 316,718 320,828 -1.3
Salinas, Calif. 146,431 148,163 -1.2
Savannah, Ga. 128,453 129,964 -1.2
Lansing, Mich. 115,518 116,862 -1.2
Toledo, Ohio 301,285 304,734 -1.1

Newport News, Va. 179,899 181,917 -1.1
Buffalo, N.Y. 279,745 282,740 -1.1
Arlington, Va. 195,965 197,955 -1.0
Baltimore, Md. 635,815 641,943 -1.0
Alexandria, Va. 135,337 136,635 -0.9
Rochester, N.Y. 211,091 213,086 -0.9
Evansville, Ind. 115,918 116,981 -0.9

Flint, Mich. 118,551 119,596 -0.9
Escondido, Calif. 134,085 135,247 -0.9
Dayton, Ohio 158,873 160,158 -0.8
Syracuse, N.Y. 141,683 142,771 -0.8
Milwaukee, Wis. 578,887 583,144 -0.7
Fremont, Calif. 200,468 201,932 -0.7
Providence, R.I. 176,862 178,131 -0.7

Birmingham, Ala. 231,483 233,143 -0.7
Independence, Mo. 110,208 110,966 -0.7
Jackson, Miss. 177,977 179,190 -0.7
Washington, D.C. 550,521 554,239 -0.7
Cambridge, Mass. 100,135 100,802 -0.7
Lakewood, Colo. 140,671 141,599 -0.7
San Diego, Calif. 1,255,540 1,263,816 -0.7

Ann Arbor, Mich. 113,271 114,015 -0.7
Chicago, Ill. 2,842,518 2,861,037 -0.6
Warren, Mich. 135,311 136,169 -0.6
Oceanside, Calif. 166,108 167,128 -0.6
Norwalk, Calif. 105,834 106,462 -0.6
Garden Grove, Calif. 166,075 167,038 -0.6
Berkeley, Calif. 100,744 101,307 -0.6

Oakland, Calif. 395,274 397,116 -0.5
Grand Rapids, Mich. 193,780 194,689 -0.5
St. Paul, Minn. 275,150 276,523 -0.5
Santa Ana, Calif. 340,368 342,084 -0.5
Baton Rouge, La. 222,064 223,187 -0.5
San Francisco, Calif. 739,426 743,193 -0.5
Costa Mesa, Calif. 109,830 110,392 -0.5

Beaumont, Texas 111,799 112,374 -0.5
Akron, Ohio 210,795 211,882 -0.5
Vallejo, Calif. 117,483 118,090 -0.5
Fullerton, Calif. 132,787 133,476 -0.5
Inglewood, Calif. 114,467 115,064 -0.5
Mobile, Ala. 191,544 192,557 -0.5
Philadelphia, Pa. 1,463,281 1,471,255 -0.5

— Source: Census Bureau

[Nederland]

1. The question that needs to be asked is this:

Why are people leaving the blue states?

A short look at your list shows that people are moving to areas that are growing economically--regardless of political leaning. California, for example, is a solid blue state that has grown enormously. The question then is, why do red states (in general, but not in all cases) tend to have greater rates of job creation, innovation and entrepreneurship?

[rox63]

2. Cheaper wages, cheaper real estate, less labor protections

less stringent safety regulations. All of this means fatter profits. And we know that corporations only look at the bottom line these days.

[Nederland]

3. Yup, it's the Catch-22 for Economic Leftists

Economic Leftists need corporations to create jobs for people, but they don't want to give corporations what they want. End result: people and jobs leave areas dominated by economic leftists.

[unlawflcombatnt]

18. And Economic "Rightists" need the markets of the Blue States

Economic "Rightists" wouldn't have any market to sell their goods to, were it not for the higher wages and incomes in the "leftist" blue states. Low-wage states means low consumer income and low consumer spending. Those "low-wage" red states are absolutely dependent on the markets created in other states where wages are higher, just like China is dependent on higher-wage American workers to buy their products.

Lowering wages reduces market size and the ability of consumers to buy production. Companies don't create jobs unless there is someone to sell their products or services to.

The Right-Wing Corporatocrats who set up shop in red states due to reduced wages are like parasites. They underpay their own workers and profit by selling to other workers who are not as underpaid.

Such labor arbitrage is completely unsustainable. Businesses need consumer markets to sell their products to. Reducing wages reduces markets. The only way such businesses have survived is by selling to higher-waged, non-local consumer markets, and to consumers who have financed their spending with ever increasing amounts of borrowed money.

Profits are made by sale of goods, not production. Reducing wages and aggregate consumer income reduces consumer spending power. As a result, it reduces the ability of business to sell its products.

Reduced wages may increase jobs locally. But this is simply movement of jobs from one location to another. But nationwide, decreased wages reduces jobs because it reduces the aggregate worker/consumer income necessary to buy production. Nationwide and globally, it is anticipated demand for production that creates jobs, not reduced labor costs or increased investment capital.

Investment does not create jobs, unless there is an anticipated demand for the production provided by those jobs. And that demand is created by worker wages and consumer income, not investment capital.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[raccoon]

6. You said that right. Many red states are so-called

"right-to-work" states, no unions, and "employee rights" is basically an oxymoron.

And, as you said, the wages are lower.

And a lot of the time, employers/bosses can fire somebody as easily as they can pick up the phone and order a pizza.

[question everything]

4. And, CA is not that solid blue

The blue areas are in LA and SF and, I think, along the northern coast.

But as people move into the Inland Empire in search of affordable houses, those areas, that are as red as the mountain states, are growing, and some of their cities: Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario - are on the top of the list.

As long as LA and SF can tilt the balance, CA will be solid blue, but I don't think there is such a certainty.

[shanti]

9. many in california

are retiring and moving to surrounding states. my parents moved from our hometown, santa ana, to arizona. as you can see, santa ana is one of the cities losing people and arizona is gaining them.

[EC]

11. I think it's the other way around....

The question then is, why do red states (in general, but not in all cases) tend to have greater rates of job creation, innovation and entrepreneurship?


Texas is the only Red state showing any growth...I guess Florida is almost red....but remember Gore really took that state, so it's more purple....All the other Growth is in blue states....

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Take a close look, indeed.

The population shifts may be happening for many reasons, and may or may not reflect a change in the demographics. At least 4 of the listed 'population loss' cities are military towns, or military influenced -- San Diego (Navy, Marines), Norfolk (Navy), Oceanside (Marines), Charlotte (Army), with significant numbers deployed overseas -- and others there may be as well (is Mobile still a Navy town?).

I also suggest that people aren't moving to red states because they like their politics or social mores. They, like immigrants from south of the border, are going where the jobs are. That would indicate to me that the lack of entrepeneurship would be in the blue states, not the red states. This might also be a process of turning the red states blue -- Cary NC (3.3% growth) is referred to locally as Center for Arriving Relocated Yankees.

You can't make any assumptions about the red states anymore.

[rox63]

7. Maybe some of the blue migrants

will turn a red state blue. Or at least purple. Worked for New Hampshire.

[raccoon]

8. Let's hope so! nt

[AngryAmish]

12. Chicago has a population loss but from other factors

Family size is way down. Folks have fewer kids, fewer extended families live together and more households are created because of divorce. There is nowhere to build around here but up but people are very reluctant to allow expanding the number of housing units in their neighborhood (NIMBY). So for the same number of housing units there is less population density and thus fewer people.

It may not seem that way because traffic still sucks eggs but more housseholds mean more cars per capita. Plus folks are richer all the time aand a $3,000 car still runs because cars also get better all the time.

[Cerridwen]

16. Add North Las Vegas, NV and Las Vegas, NV

Nellis Air Force Base


possibly Henderson, NV as well.


edit to add other NV cities.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I see hope and opportunity, not problems, in this shift.

First of all, it has been going on for quite some time. Rust Belt vs Sun Belt (forget about Bible Belt for a bit). The South is no longer sleepy and hasn't been for generations.

And as people move south, so do their politics.

[Igel]

14. And your last line is important.

As people move from blue states to red communities, they, on average, adjust their politics to a more reddish hue.

Even assuming just the redder fractions of blue-state people move doesn't fully account for the data.

[JNelson6563]

13. All the more reason to support 50 state strategy.

I hope every DUer is supporting this effort.

[question everything]

15. Agree. Blue states should be taken for granted

certainly not Minnesota, and red states should be courted with important social issues.

[JNelson6563]

17. And Michigan should not be either

it's not all that securely in the blue column as we'd like to think.

:toast: