U.S.A. fact of the day

As recently as 2013, New York had more people than Florida. Now Florida has 1.75 million more than New York. Indeed 35% of US population growth now occurs in Florida and Texas.

That is from Scott Sumner.  And here is Scott’s post on how the United States is becoming more like Europe:

The US population has gone from growing about one percentage point faster than the EU in the 1990s, to perhaps a third of a point faster today.

So what other ways is the US becoming more like Europe?

1.  The percentage of Americans who are not religious has been rising dramatically.

2.  Our health care system is increasingly socialized.

3.  Our politics increasingly resembles the populism of places like Hungary and Italy.  The political polarization resembles the Brexit split in the UK.  Anti-immigration nationalism came on the scene in Europe before it hit the US.

4.  The recent criminal justice reform bill slightly (and I emphasize slightly) moves us in the European direction of lower rates of incarceration.  We are also slightly softening the war on drugs.

5.  Walkable shopping areas are increasingly popular.  Some cities are moving to allow dense townhouses in areas previously reserved for single-family homes.


Opposition to illegal immigration is not "anti-immigration."

Dumb comment. Immigration is by default illegal unless it is authorized.

Maybe that comment sounded good in your head.

I would recommend using that keyword once for every
100 things. If it's too short, check out the topic further to
find items since you can add into the article. Give your readers every small bit of information which find.

You will not find some other as high profiled
and favorite numerous students all around the globe. The writers in such companies are not qualified in certain academic

It is in a relative sense.

So why are we restricting H-1B's?

I read yesterday that Canada expects to gain, as it hires foreign graduates of US colleges. It is starting to show up in the numbers.

Gain what? And which numbers?

Why are we allowing H1B's? The rule for foreign students should be finish school and go home. H1B's take American jobs. They are the new slave class for large corporations. They will work longer hours for lower wages and that is their only value. Send them back home to make their countries great again.

AND anti-immigration may be a very intelligent position in the long run.

Also anti-Semitism has been increasing in the US.

for quite a while too.

This, kinda. Attitudes toward Israel are also converging on European norms.

As the US imports more arabs anti-Semitism rises. Surprise!

That sheik who shot up the Pittsburgh synagogue, what was his name? Abdul bin-Redneck or something?

So America is becoming less exceptional and more like decadent old Europe, thus hastening the decline of the West. Sad.

"Rumor grew of a shadow in the East..."

"So America is becoming less exceptional."

I have heard Black people can even get the front seats on the bus.

America was exceptional?

Were it not, American lefties wouldn't be constantly comparing the U.S. unfavorably to secular, socialist Nordic nations.

It isn't just lefties. The Niskanen crew like to distinguish between transfers and regulations. They claim that the Nordic mix of good social safety net with few restrictions on business is both growth and welfare enhancing.

What are you saying, "don't look, because we are exceptional?"

No, it reinforces my point. Having to capitulate and give people lots of "free" stuff or else they won't be capitalist is the sort of remedy you have to resort to as your country becomes more decadent (decline of religion being one marker).

As I read their work, they think they are onto growth enhancing policies.


And "I'd rather have less growth, for ideological purity" does not make sense to me.

That's a choice. You can keep your flip phone and grumble about lack of progress, if that's your thing.

I was referring to the Trump administration, which is trying to reduce legal immigration.

Scott Sumner: "Anti-immigration nationalism came on the scene in Europe before it hit the US."

A Pew survey was just released a couple of weeks ago on attitudes towards immigration.

"In your opinion, should we allow more immigrants to move into our country, fewer immigrants, or about the same number of immigrants as we do now?"

fewer immigrants / none:

Hungary 72%
Italy 71%
Germany 58%
Sweden 52%
Poland 49%
France 41%
Netherlands 39%
UK 37%
Spain 30%
US 29%
Canada 27%

And a Pew survey from this summer:

% of Americans who say legal immigration should be decreased:

2001 53%
2008 40%
2018 24%

% of Americans who thing legal immigration should be increased:

2001 10%
2008 20%
2018 32%

Thanks for these two comments. Sometimes Scott Sumner tends to overlook hard data in favor of his general impressions.

Good point. I meant anti-immigrant politics, and I should have made that clearer.

That makes sense. As the immigrant population grows as a percentage of the population, anti-immigrant sentiments decrease, except among the native population being pushed out, replaced, and demonized.

It's not going to end well.

Keep your powder dry.

Finally, someone posts something sensible.

It isn't necessarily about race, though it could be about race for some. It is really about culture and diminishing social capital. Read Putnam.

Culture matters. Ivory tower elites are blind to their bias. Their culture is the culture of ivory tower elites, which is not threatened. Yet.

I know, that's why I'm keeping my powder dry. Gotta kill someone.

"Keep your powder dry" is an expression meaning to be ready for conflict. Don't take it literally. If you have violent urges, I suggest you talk to a mental health professional or a spiritual counselor.

I sincerely wish you the best.

Oh I'm ready for conflict, don't worry.

From the article:

"Since 2001, the share of Americans who favor increased legal immigration into the U.S. has risen 22 percentage points (from 10% to 32%), while the share who support a decrease has declined 29 points (from 53% to 24%).

The shift is mostly driven by changing views among Democrats. The share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who say legal immigration into the U.S. should be increased has doubled since 2006, from 20% to 40%."


Note that new immigrants become Democrats and tend to have positive views towards increasing immigration. The desires of their grandchildren are unknown.

There are differences in attitudes toward skill-based legal immigration versus chain migration ("family unification" is the euphemism used by Democrats to obfuscate) from third world nations or failed states. Republicans see the value in importing scientists and engineers. Personally, I would like to increase the number of foreign born economists, social "scientists", and other high falutin' pundits. Let's share the pain with the ivory tower elites.

It's going to be a dogfight. Many non-Democrats are going to fight hard to prevent the annihilation of their culture.

Keep your powder dry.

The ivory tower has a big wall around it.

'Our health care system is increasingly socialized.'

This is absurd. Or to put it differently, ineffective and expensive are not always the result of something being increasingly socialized.

Medicaid enrollment is a good proxy. Enrollment increased from approximately 1 in 11 in 1975 to 1 in 5 today. It's event more dramatic if you include the data from 1966 to 1975, but there is some startup noise in that earlier period.


It's not always the result of that. But it often is.

The movements are a form of debt repudiation as obligations pile up back home. It is easier to go along when you have an escape route, so voters tend to agree with new obligations with escape in the back of their mind.
The greatest departures are Illinois and New York where covering government obligations is increasingly landing at the middle class.

Double entry accounting, very accurate these days and it eventually charges the poor fool who voted for the government program.

I'm not sure those things make you more like Europe rather than Canada, Australia, Japan.

Most liberal developed market economies aren't religious, don't have high incarceration, have universal coverage. Most just happen to be in Europe.

Even "anti-immigrant" policies or rather "anti low skill high volume migration" are common in Aus and Canada (albeit with a liberal gloss).

Most just happen to be in Europe.

What a coincidence!

Should we rather discuss long-term trends with 5-year growth rates rather than annual pure estimates? Either way, it makes more sense to compare Illinois to New York than Michigan. It looks like the international trend of low-wage migration is toward Illinois and New York, but the domestic trend is toward Texas and the South, and one-year growth may depend too much on short-term fluctuations in migration flows.

Is Sumner making the universal mistake of assuming that tomorrow will be just like today? Our host prefers "disruption" and abhors complacency. Well, his dream has come true: with Trump in the White House, there's disruption all around. Trump is even doing his share to promote global warming, producing a level of "disruption" that should warm Cowen's heart.

In the real world, US carbon emissions are dropping.

Like a fat man saying he ate one less cookie.

Net US CO2 is still a positive change on global temperature.

Emissions are dropping. That's the goal, right?

No, it is only an intermediate, not the goal - which is climate stabilization.

It's just "I gave at the office" with no focus on outcomes.

So it's climate stabilization, eh? Are you going to wrestle that chaotic system to the ground until it is stable?

Wow. The hubris ...

Btw, when was the climate "stable"?

How do you define stable for a chaotic system?

With Strange Attractors of course ;-)

(He thought chaos implies drift, but he was wrong.)

Answer the questions!

Define stable in a chaotic dynamical system.

When was the climate "stable"?

You do know the discoverer of "strange attractors" also wrote about "The Limits of Predictability"?

Let's hear it! Show us your stuff!

Another post where you accept everything I just said, and complain.

The "limits of predictability" also do not imply drift. They apply in stable climatic conditions, as well as under forced change.

"That's the goal, right?"

Not for our anonymous little leftist - his goal is to disparage the USA and all non-leftist Americans.

The truth is total US emissions of CO2 have been dropping for 22 years +- so we are now at mid-1990s levels. This is almost entirely due to the shift from coal to natural gas enabled by fracking, which the left hates. The US has not been constructing new coal plants for decades. This is a very good thing.

Conversely, China and India now emit the most CO2 by a wide margin and are building approximately one new coal plant per week. Anyone concerned about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming should really be lobbying China and India, if they are sincere about global warming and not just looking for an opportunity to insult the US.

Then there is our friend Germany. Having closed most or all of their nuclear plants after Fukushima and having impllemented their energiewende program have INCREASED their coal consumption and their CO2 emmisions. Of course, leftist America haters love to rant about our withdrawal from the bogus Paris climate "agreement" - an agreement to continue to burn coal while waiting for repararations from the US. The whole thing is phony and the lefty greenies are performing cargo cult-like ritual protests of US energy policy. They like to charge poor people high electricity and gasoline prices while subsidizing solar panels for the wealthy elite. It would be amusing if not for the suffering imposed on the poor by virtue signalling elitists like our anonymous troll.

Regarding solar, which our troll extols, it does not have the power density required to run our economy. See Vacliv Still on power density. Also, do a search on solar farms, like the 300 acres required to power one Apple facility. Then compare that to the 960 acres for two reactors at Diablo Canyon that provided 7% of the electricity required by the entire population of ~ 40 million people of the state of California.

The problem for the left is the math is just not in their favor.

Three cheers for the yellow vests!!!

Stepping back, this is actually an interesting development.

What started as refusal to accept that there was warming, evolved to rejection of the human component, and then to the idea that we should adapt rather than mitigate, has become finally a claim that we are mitigating as fast as we can?

Congratulations, you are almost there.

So you call running away "stepping back"?

Step up! Let's go, toe to toe!

This is so easy, I am almost ashamed, but you deserve a good virtual pummeling.

What do you think you won here?

You were just arguing the best ways to address global warming.

That's all we, the people who accepted climb and change in the 1990s, ever wanted.

if you're an idiot who thinks solar panels are "leftist" I don't even care about details like that.

If the US is becoming more like Europe, are the chances increasing that either the US or the Europeans will embark on massive deportation efforts first and lead the other to shortly implement similar policies? (The word "massive" here would apply to deported populations of some millions, five or ten across each continent.)

I anticipate mass deportations around the globe over the next decade, I only wonder which populace begins ordering such deportations first. Once they begin, they will commence in earnest, I suspect.

FDR deported a million people, but that was easier to do back then. Nowadays a court would step in right away if any such effort were made.

The US circumstance could well depend on broader prevailing circumstances.

E. g.: our illustrious ABA at its annual convention in Chicago, August 2001, entertained delegates with a simulation of martial law being declared in the US as the result of separate bio-terror attacks.

The legal mechanisms for declaring martial law (within individual states, at least) to facilitate mass deportations surely would pose no great difficulties, since our legal community is already well acquainted with the legal basis for the imposition of martial law.

Then 9/11 happened right after the convention, and martial law wasn't invoked even then

Are they running away from unfunded social liabilities?
When will Florida start mentioning the need of a wall?

Isn't it weird that in the age of global warming, the net flow of internal migration is to the south? Is this a US-only thing, or is it happening in other "big" northern hemisphere countries? I really just don't get it. It's as though for us individually, global warming just isn't fast enough. We want even more warming than that, and sooner. And here I am sad about how once again, no white Christmas for me.

It's too bad GW isn't bringing the southwest more rain. Then we probably would have a national win. Bananas in the Imperial Valley.

Drought is not new to the southwestern United States. Neither is heat. See "Chaco Canyon". There was a fifty year drought in the 1100s, long before anyone burned fossil fuels.

Coffee growing in Nevada mountains ..

The evidence from revealed preference indicates that absolutely nobody actually believes in climate change. It leads one to suspect that the whole topic is a rhetorical ploy in some larger elite contretemps to which the rest of us are mere spectators.

Whenever I'm tempted to be alarmed about climate change, I look around my own beautiful midwestern city, with its temperate climate, abundance of fresh water and inexpensive housing, and reflect upon how its population and economic drivers continue to flee, with most of it moving to the south and southwest over the past 40 years, and think -- "nah. Ain't happenin'".

Consider an Irish village with sheep grazing on the commons. As the grass is denuded, would you look around and say "well obviously no one believes she eat grass?"

No, in a tragedy of the commons, one need only believe individual action is futile. All the other sheep are out there, so I might as well graze mine.

What a nice little lecture on the tragedy of the commons', with a little personal responsibility sermon tossed in for free.

Were you taking personal responsibility for global warming when you and your entourage of 13 (or was it 18) went flying off to somewhere? You do know about the carbon emmisions from jet airliners, don't you? Or were you one of the sheep doing a little extra grazing on the commons? Baaahhhh!

Are you complaining that I'm right again?

Me cancelling my vacations will make zero difference to the end-game in a tragedy of the commons. We'd need effective carbon taxes on everyone, all the time, to do that.

How can there be global warming, I shoveled a foot of snow this week!

Good points all. Revealed preferences are revealing. Too bad it won't stop all the virtue signalling.

BTW: North Carolina's population has exceeded New Jersey's since the late Nineties or so.

By the way, I consider this entire page to be head-in-sand, a distraction, avoidance.

"The only problem our economy has is the Fed. They don’t have a feel for the Market, they don’t understand necessary Trade Wars or Strong Dollars or even Democrat Shutdowns over Borders. The Fed is like a powerful golfer who can’t score because he has no touch - he can’t putt!" - the president of the United States, just now

In the Obama years MR would have been on that kind of economic illiteracy in a hot second.

But sure, build a club house where you can talk about dangerous long-term trends, like Americans eating smellier cheese.

Comments for this post are closed