The South’s Economy Is Falling Behind: ‘All of a Sudden the Money Stops Flowing’

[mobius42]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If you believe the Murdoch-owned Journal, the paper of record for Conservatives, is "in the middle", you have a very skewed perspective.

Anything short of fascism or revolutionary rhetoric will be "in the middle".

You might want to check your biases. By nearly every measure the WSJ is near the middle to at most slightly leans right. I saw a few measures that even said it slightly leans left. I would guess to you anything to the right of Vox or HuffPo is fascist propaganda.

[eschaton]

I mean, on the statewide level, there are basically two different souths, each of which comprise seven states.

The "growing south" is VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, TN, and TX. Each of these states has some combination of a major urban area and/or draw for retirees from elsewhere in the country which cause a significant positive inflow of domestic migration. However, in the case of Virginia and perhaps Georgia, the states appear to be "maturing" to some degree, relying more on international immigration to keep afloat. In terms of raw numbers, TX and FL due to sheer size hoover up almost all of the growth.

The "stagnant/declining south" is WV, KY, AL, MS, LA, AR, and OK. Population growth as a whole is relatively low, in large part due negative or barely positive domestic migration. They may have some small metro areas which are fairly healthy, but these are not enough to cancel out the rural decline elsewhere in the state.

It's important to note this half/half thing, because you really don't see this in the other portion of the country which is growing - the West. Cali seems to have topped off, NM is a troubled state, and WY and AK have demographic hangover related to the fall in extraction employment. But basically every other state in the west is growing like gangbusters right now.

As to the WSJ, the editorial page is surely right wing, but the regular news articles don't really display any ideological slant in particular.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I mean, on the statewide level, there are basically two different souths, each of which comprise seven states.

I think its foolish to even do an analysis on "the south" this is a region of over 100 million people and the most diverse demographically. It smacks of outdated thinking.

surely nobody thinks of "the north" encompassing everything from Minnesota to Maine and nobody would consider diagnosing the macro-situation across such a region. "Oh coal towns in Pennsylvania and old industrial cities in Ohio are blighted, guess that means the North is falling behind!"

[The North One]

Huh? Are you new to this country? They do exactly that for the north. The south is not along in being encompassed into an arbitrary box.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I think its foolish to even do an analysis on "the south" this is a region of over 100 million people and the most diverse demographically. It smacks of outdated thinking.

surely nobody thinks of "the north" encompassing everything from Minnesota to Maine and nobody would consider diagnosing the macro-situation across such a region. "Oh coal towns in Pennsylvania and old industrial cities in Ohio are blighted, guess that means the North is falling behind!"

The whole point of the original article is to deconstruct the whole "southern miracle" thing.

Basically, the "New South" is confined largely to the southeast coastal metros, the major Texas cities, and Nashville. The interior south - and even rural portions of growing states - aren't really seeing any benefit.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by The North One

Huh? Are you new to this country? They do exactly that for the north. The south is not along in being encompassed into an arbitrary box.

People do not refer to Illinois and New York in the same sweeping generalizations they apply to the south.

[The North One]

Yes they do, Illinois is lumped in with Midwest, New York with the Northeast. It's literally the same thing.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by The North One

Yes they do, Illinois is lumped in with Midwest, New York with the Northeast. It's literally the same thing.

No the Midwest and the Northeast are much more reasonable distinctions than "the south" Which can encompass everything from El paso to Miami and the Suburbs of DC to the Mobile bay

The greater Midwest centered on Chicago and the Urbanized northeast centered on NYC are more reasonable and more useful resolutions of analysis than "the south"

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

East Texas--the most east part next to Louisiana--is awfully "south".

It's about where the southern cotton economy once ruled (and, if you wish, where cactus lives), and that includes far east Texas. But again, the article I started this with rules Texas out from the general rule it is espousing, giving it credit for a thriving tech economy in parts and a thriving energy economy in other parts as well as great education, medical and tech-focused institutions. The importance of the latter is that Texas youth, wherever they are educated, can come home to work and earn a good living, using their educations. That isn't so true of other southern cities and states.

East Texas sure but that's a small portion. Even much of Louisiana doesn't fit neatly in the southern box.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Obadno

No the Midwest and the Northeast are much more reasonable distinctions than "the south" Which can encompass everything from El paso to Miami and the Suburbs of DC to the Mobile bay

The greater Midwest centered on Chicago and the Urbanized northeast centered on NYC are more reasonable and more useful resolutions of analysis than "the south"

Lol no it's not any more reasonable, the Midwest can include anything from Ohio (even western PA) to North Dakota which is just as if not more absurd. The Northeast can be anything from Maine to Virginia.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I think its foolish to even do an analysis on "the south" this is a region of over 100 million people and the most diverse demographically. It smacks of outdated thinking.

surely nobody thinks of "the north" encompassing everything from Minnesota to Maine and nobody would consider diagnosing the macro-situation across such a region. "Oh coal towns in Pennsylvania and old industrial cities in Ohio are blighted, guess that means the North is falling behind!"

The Midwest has the same phenomenon as the south but the proportions are reversed so the media focus is on the rust belt. Minneapolis, Columbus, Indianapolis, Grand Rapids, Omaha, Des Moines, Madison, Fargo, Sioux Falls, Bismarck and Rapid City are all healthy urban areas with robust growth but most people outside of the region associate the Midwest with the post industrial cities of the Rust Belt. There is a new and old Midwest, just as there is with the south; and really what is going on in both regions is that the modern cities are still doing well while those that have economies that are rooted in the previous era have greater challenges. The difference is that the less dynamic parts of the south are just entering their decline while in the Midwest it has been an issue since 1980 or so.

[BigDipper 80]

And you can't even really equate the "rust belt" with solely the "old Midwest" either, since it includes cities like Buffalo and Rochester, and arguably stretches all the way to Connecticut and western Massachusetts. Frankly, most of these regional shorthands are outdated. Cleveland and Detroit arguably have more in common with Birmingham and Memphis than they do with Columbus or Omaha. Not that Cleveland and Detroit really shared many geographic or cultural similarities with places like Omaha to begin with, despite all being ostensibly "Midwestern" cities.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The whole point of the original article is to deconstruct the whole "southern miracle" thing.

Basically, the "New South" is confined largely to the southeast coastal metros, the major Texas cities, and Nashville. The interior south - and even rural portions of growing states - aren't really seeing any benefit.

I mean...are rural areas in any part of the country doing particularly well? How would the NE look if we took out large cities?

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I mean...are rural areas in any part of the country doing particularly well? How would the NE look if we took out large cities?

Rural Massachusetts does great, actually. Most of rural New England is in fair-to-good shape. The Berkshires, the White Mountains, the Green Mountains, these are New England’s interior playgrounds. Tourism, small-scale organic farming and dairy, universities, and a quickly accelerating cannabis cultivation / edibles industry go a long ways when you’re only two hours away from Boston. The far reaches of Maine are in decline, but we’re talking about Aroostook County on the Canada border: 70,000 people spread over 6,800+ sq miles of dense forest.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

East Texas--the most east part next to Louisiana--is awfully "south".

It's about where the southern cotton economy once ruled (and, if you wish, where cactus lives), and that includes far east Texas. But again, the article I started this with rules Texas out from the general rule it is espousing, giving it credit for a thriving tech economy in parts and a thriving energy economy in other parts as well as great education, medical and tech-focused institutions. The importance of the latter is that Texas youth, wherever they are educated, can come home to work and earn a good living, using their educations. That isn't so true of other southern cities and states.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but why are you saying "where cactus lives"? East Texas is largely pine forest and looks like the rest of the south. Looks just like much of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, the Florida Panhandle, Georgia, and the Carolinas (and hills but not mountains). It also has the same humid, wet climate as the rest of the South. This region extends way west of Louisiana, depending on latitude, and then transitions to the post oak belt, and then to a strip of midwestern type grasslands, and then to cedar and oak covered hills, and then eventually to a southwestern landscape.

I'm from that region and I know the geography, vegetation, and climate (as well as all of the state). Again, perhaps I misunderstood your point, but wanted to make sure this wasn't a mischaracterization of Texas.

Culturally, the East Texas piney woods are identical to the rest of the south (the rural portion anyway). That's not a compliment either, when we're talking about the rural South. I think everyone knows what I mean. When we used to have family reunions in Lufkin or Palestine and places like that, it was painful to hear constant racist and homophobic comments, just for starters. Listening to cousins talk about how evolution is a hoax, and Arizona's petrified forest is man-made (because the Earth is only a couple of thousand years old) is more than painful.

[BG918]

Texas outside of its large cities and western parts shares a lot in common with the rest of the South. Oil props up many of the small towns though throughout Texas and into Oklahoma. That is a major difference between that region and the rest of the South.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by mobius42

You might want to check your biases. By nearly every measure the WSJ is near the middle to at most slightly leans right. I saw a few measures that even said it slightly leans left. I would guess to you anything to the right of Vox or HuffPo is fascist propaganda.

You're either getting paid to say that or very mistaken. My company subscribes and I've read it quite a bit...clearly slanted pretty far right, both in what they cover and how they cover it. Not all of it -- opinion more than news, and business rather than social -- but that's the trend. It's very focused on and friendly to its core audience of certain industries, and generally trending toward older vs. younger readers.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mobius42

You might want to check your biases. By nearly every measure the WSJ is near the middle to at most slightly leans right. I saw a few measures that even said it slightly leans left. I would guess to you anything to the right of Vox or HuffPo is fascist propaganda.

This is dumb. Again, the WSJ is the paper of record for Conservative thought, like the NYT is the paper of record for Liberal thought.

If you believe truly it "slightly leans left" you really need some perspective.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Rural Massachusetts does great, actually.

Rural Mass is mostly college towns and second-home/weekend country. There are no substantial deprived areas because there's nowhere too far from Boston or NYC, or lacking colleges.

Once you get more than 2-3 hours from Boston or NYC, there are deprived areas (Upstate NY and parts of Vermont and NH). There are areas of NY and NE that are basically colder, less religious West Virginia.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Rural Mass is mostly college towns and second-home/weekend country. There are no substantial deprived areas because there's nowhere too far from Boston or NYC, or lacking colleges.

Once you get more than 2-3 hours from Boston or NYC, there are deprived areas (Upstate NY and parts of Vermont and NH). There are areas of NY and NE that are basically colder, less religious West Virginia.

Oh yes, especially rural northern NH and ME. These places are in the throes of a deep heroin / OxyContin epidemic too.