Census Shows People Fleeing New York, California

Large numbers of Americans migrated away from heavily urbanized states last year, but the nation’s overall population grew by only 0.1 percent, according to data released by the Census Bureau early this week. Not only was this was the lowest rate of population growth in the nation’s history, “17 states and the District of Columbia lost population,” said the bureau.

Some of those population losses were quite large. According to this Census Bureau table, between July 1, 2020 and July 1, 2021, New York lost more than 319,000 people, or 1.6 percent of its residents. California lost nearly 262,000 people, or 0.7 percent of its residents. DC’s population dropped by 2.9 percent; Illinois’ by 0.9 percent; and Hawaii’s by 0.7 percent. Other states that lost population included Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

The fastest-growing states were Idaho (2.9%), Utah (1.7%), Montana (1.7%), Arizona (1.4%), and South Carolina (1.2%). Numerically, the fastest-growing states were Texas (+310,000 residents), Florida (211,000), Arizona (98,000), North Carolina (94,000), and Georgia (74,000). (All these numbers are rounded off as they are only estimates.) Continue reading

US DOT Funding Propaganda

The Department of Transportation’s twitter page recently posted a tweet showing a hypothetical zoomer promoting the Build Back Better Act. “The new infrastructure law is going to make getting from place to place so much better over the next decade and when combined with the Build Back Better Act it will create millions of new jobs,” says the zoomer.

I’m not sure if there is a federal law forbidding an agency from lobbying the public in favor of a non-partisan bill, but it is generally frowned on. Legal or not, many if not most of the responses from people in the twitter universe were negative. Continue reading

How Inflation Will Hurt You

Inflation is good for you!” proclaims a headline from the Intecept. “Inflation is bad for the 1 percent but helps out almost everyone else,” the article claims.

Inflation in Germany in the early 1920s led to this basket of groceries costing a million marks. Before World War I, one dollar would buy 4 to 5 marks, but by the end of 1923, a dollar was worth more than 5 billion marks.

Inflation “may be a good sign,” agrees New York Times business writer Jeanna Smialek. “Don’t panic” about inflation, says economist Paul Krugman. Continue reading

Live with Less, Says Former Free-Market Advocate

Since I share my home with a couple of dogs, I tend to wear out a pair of shoes each year. I usually notice I need new shoes in the rainy season (which is most of the year in Oregon) when I come home with wet feet. But, according to Allison Schrager of the Manhattan Institute, I should just suck it up and learn to live with less.

Apparently, it’s a bad thing that Americans can buy “whatever they want whenever they want.” Schrager finds it alarming that 40 percent of American households have three or more televisions, “including 30 percent of households earning less than $40,000 a year!” Similarly worrisome, to her, is that 30 percent of Americans have 2 or more refrigerators. Just think of how horrifying it must have been for her to discover that some low-income people probably have both three televisions and two refrigerators!

The Manhattan Institute claims to be a “free-market think tank” that supports “greater economic choice.” But you wouldn’t know it to read Schrager’s article, which states that we need to live more like Europeans, meaning consuming less and living with lower economic growth. This is because, she claims, “An economy based on consumption is not sustainable.” Continue reading

Infrastructure Politics

Last Monday, I predicted that if Glenn Youngkin won the Virginia governorship, Republicans in Congress would demand more cuts from the infrastructure bill. Nancy Pelosi apparently read my post, as she had the House hastily vote on the infrastructure bill just a few days after Youngkin’s victory. By passing the Senate bill unamended, Pelosi gave fiscal conservatives no opportunities to try to change the bill in conference. Before the Virginia election, Pelosi had been delaying a vote in order to pressure centrists to support the $3.5 trillion non-infrastructure bill, which will now be much harder to pass.

Passage of the infrastructure bill means tens of billions of dollars will be spent on needless and wasteful projects like this Seattle-area light-rail project. Photo by SounderBruce.

As passed, the infrastructure bill is really two bills: first, a reauthorization of federal spending on highways and transit; and second entirely new spending on highways, transit, Amtrak, electric vehicles, airports, ports, clean water, clean energy, and broadband. This entirely new spending is almost entirely unnecessary as the infrastructure crisis was mostly made up in order to get Congress do what it always does, which is throw money at problems. Continue reading

Infrastructure Bill Deferred

Rather than pass the Senate-approved $1.2-trillion infrastructure bill, the House of Representatives decided to punt, instead extending existing surface transportation programs until December 3. At issue was not the infrastructure bill, which most people thought would pass, but the $3.5-trillion social-spending bill, which seemed much less likely to pass.

Progressives in the House demanded that both bill be voted on at the same time, effectively holding the infrastructure bill hostage in order to promote passage of the social-spending bill.

While the infrastructure bill is dubious enough, it has the advantage that roughly half the spending in the bill is one-time only, while the other half is merely an extension of spending that is already happening. The social-spending bill, however, proposes to create several major new entitlement programs, such as free child care, medicare expansion, and housing programs. The $3.5-trillion cost is only the estimated cost for the first ten years of the programs, but like Obamacare and other entitlements, they are likely to go on for many years beyond that. Continue reading

Why Have a US Department of Transportation?

America’s freight delivery system is melting down and Congressional action on infrastructure is stalled. So what has Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg being doing about these problems?

Nothing, it turns out. For the past two months, he has been on paid leave due to having two new babies at home. The thing is, no one even noticed until Politico pointed it out last week. Now many people, particularly Republicans, are in a tizzy, wondering why Buttigieg should keep his job if he isn’t doing it.

Some are asking a more pertinent question, which is: why do we even have a Department of Transportation? Most of its budget, which was $87.5 billion in 2021 not counting various COVID relief funds, was simply passed through from the Treasury to the states according to formulas set by Congress. That could have been done by the Department of Commerce, which oversaw agencies such as the Bureau of Public Roads before the Department of Transportation was created. Continue reading

NYC Office Vacancy Rates Highest in 30 Years

More than 18 percent of office space in New York City is vacant, the highest rate in more than 30 years, according to a report just released by the state comptroller. Rents are down 4 percent and total employment in the city has dropped by 11 percent, almost four times as much as after the 2008 financial crisis.

More than 10 percent of all office space in the nation is shown in this photo, and much of it may remain vacant after the pandemic ends. Photo by Harold Hoyer.

One indicator of the reduction in office use, the report notes, is swipe rates: the number of times that employees access buildings. According to Kastle Systems, a company that manages access systems in many New York City office buildings, swipe rates declined by more than 95 percent in April 2020. Since then, they have recovered to less than 30 percent of pre-pandemic rates. This suggests that a lot of office space that is still under lease may be vacated when leases expire. Continue reading

Seven to Become Six

There was a time when every region and almost every major city in the country was served by at least three major railroads. The Northeast had Erie, Lackawanna, New York Central, and Pennsylvania, among others. The Southeast had Atlantic Coast Line, Seaboard, and Southern. The Midwest had the Burlington, Chicago & North Western, Milwaukee, and Rock Island. The Northwest had the Great Northern, Milwaukee Road, and Northern Pacific. The Southwest had Santa Fe, Southern Pacific, and Union Pacific.

Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern meet at only one point, so a merger between them preserves competition. Kansas City Southern photo.

Then came the merger movements of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and now we are down to just seven class 1 railroads: two in the East, two in the West, two in Canada making various incursions into the United States, and Kansas City Southern, which connects Missouri with Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Mexico. Continue reading

The Fix Was In

It cannot have escaped everyone’s notice that 17 Republican senators had agreed to support the infrastructure bill that the senate passed yesterday — enough to prevent a filibuster. A former senate staffer once told me that the fix was always in for senate votes: the leadership would decide what to do and then twist enough arms to make it happen.

So what was in it for the Republican leadership to support this bill? The bill included billions of dollars for projects we don’t need, like rural broadband, urban transit, and new Amtrak trains. Some Republicans may benefit from the pork, but I wonder if the leadership thought that going along with this bill will help them to fend off the $3.5 trillion bill the Democrats want to pass next.

That bill includes money for clean energy, preschool, and affordable housing, among other things. As with the infrastructure bill, these things are arguably not necessary or, to the extent they are, the top-down approach taken by the bill will do more harm than good. For example, we know the reason housing is unaffordable in many states is because state and local land-use rules of restricted the supply of land for new housing, but the bill will do nothing about those rules. Continue reading