Want a Large Family? It’s Best to Move to a Red State

Sunday, February 19, 2006
“Of course, it's especially irritating to me because I'd like to have a good-sized family and live in New England, and it's going to be awfully hard to afford it.”

---Ross Douthat

Blogger Ross Douthat is something of a center-right thinker who is in his mid twenties. The young man eventually wishes to marry and raise a family in the New England area of the country. Unfortunately, Douthat is employed as a journalist for The Atlantic Monthly and is not an investment banker. He simply doesn’t earn anywhere near the income required to live comfortably in blue states like Connecticut. Zoning laws, unions, and high taxes are among a few reasons why only the very wealthy or welfare recipients can realistically plan to remain citizens. The middle class is royally screwed. The red states are adding more people and growing economically while the blue states are falling further behind. Mr. Douthat’s plight is a reminder why the red states will add more congressional representatives and electoral votes after the next national census in 2010. This, of course, means that the Republicans will likely continue to dominate our national politics. When will Ross Douthat move to a red state? I’m not sure if he’s even seriously considered the possibility. My money, however, is on Douthat moving to someplace like Texas. It will be most interesting to see what he finally decides.

14 comments:

terrye said...

David:

I got to tell you I live in a redstate and there are zoning, unions and high property taxes right here. People out here in the sticks are always complaining about the DNR and the EPA and USDA etc telling them what they can and can not do.

The cost of living is lower in rural areas too but I don't see people getting in line to move out to the sticks.

I think people will start to have kids again when their priorities change. In fact it seems to me that since 2001 I have been seeing more pregnant women. Maybe we will have another baby boom.

I will say that the population of the southwest is growing, but that has a lot to do with economics and jobs and weather....lost of factors.

And I don't know how people afford to live in California.

CF said...

New Hampshire. No state taxes. Good public schools. Reasonably prices housing and with the IT he doesn't have to drive to the office.

babushka said...

I remember reading a while ago about the family-friendly cities vs. the New Urbanist style, and how the new urbanist was really skewed against families, economically and otherwise.

I think the willingness to change tastes is the big hurdle.

Baron Bodissey said...

Demographically speaking, Mormons are the future in the USA. Outside the USA, Muslims are the future.

David Thomson said...

“And I don't know how people afford to live in California.”

California’s citizen population has been dropping for quite awhile. Its only increase is due solely to the illegal immigrants. Someone who is not a government employee or in a particularly lucrative industry must seriously consider leaving. This is especially true if you are a business owner. Does your company have to remain in California? Does your primary customer base consist of its residents? If not, why are you still in California? The surrounding red states will probably offer you a better deal.

"Demographically speaking, Mormons are the future in the USA."

Yup, and they vote overwhelmingly Republican.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

Baron,

The Mormons, yes, but don't rule out the Catholic Mexicans either. They'll be a more and more important part of our demographics in the future. That's pretty clear already out here in the Southwest, but it will be increasingly clear in the Midwest and the South next. Did you see those stories where the mayor of New Orleans was complaining about all the Mexicans moving into New Orleans, willing to do the cleanup work?

Annie said...

I market Fortune 1000 businesses in Connecticut and the Northeast for a living. I can tell you that the trend of businesses moving out of the Northeast to 'red states' is alarming. There is also an alarming number of Northeast companies purchased by foreign countries. The cost of doing business in the Northeast needs to be addressed. Taxes, energy costs, salaries and real estate expenses have created a migration of our best industries.

loner said...

California is an absolutely horrible place in which to live and work. Trust me.

Hi, terrye.

David Thomson said...

“The cost of doing business in the Northeast needs to be addressed.”

An honest discussion of this severe problem will inevitably lead to the renunciation of Democratic party economic positions. The MSM and its left-wing allies, of course, will not allow this to happen. It will be instead blamed on the Bush administration. I can see it now: “We are wasting our resources in Iraq instead of helping our citizens in the Northeast.”

Syl said...

Actually this explains something for me. So many moonbats are complaining about the economy and that the middle class is being stretched out of existence.

That's probably actually true where they live.

Instead of realizing this is a state/local problem, they blame it on Bush.

Knucklehead said...

Annie,

Can you comment further on the trends you are seeing re: Fortune 1000 companies moving out of the Northeast (are thy scattering widely or going to a few places, what are they moving - HQ, manu,...) and also being purchased by foreign companies (any particular nationalities, do the purchased companies remain or also tend to move, are they having continued success after purchase,...)

Knucklehead said...

Syl,

Others have noted similar things. The economic outlook is pretty crappy if you work for the NYT which is laying off and has their subscriptions and profits dropping.

If you are a UAW member things can't look very good. Same for the NEA - static budgets, students fleeing.

The world the "liberals" live in is under a lot of pressure. Poor dears.

David Thomson said...

“The economic outlook is pretty crappy if you work for the NYT which is laying off and has their subscriptions and profits dropping.”

I am convinced that subconsciously this is a central reason why the MSM despises George W. Bush. They irrationally blame him for their sense of financial vulnerability. Only a few years ago, a NY Times journalist unofficially had a job for life. You really had to screw up to be fired. A number of legacy media employees will be selling cars, teaching grade school students, or whatever in the next few years.

Knucklehead said...

DT,

They do seem to keep telling themselves that it is all the fault of the Bush administration. Lousy economy, "secretiveness", continuing loss of public adulation... If only they could strike hard enough at Bush things would improve.

They just cannot see beyond their own bigotry.