May 9, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, westerninterloper said: The brain drain narrative in Ohio is complicated, but mostly imagined. Ohio has two problems - it does not attract any domestic migrants any more, and it attracts very few international immigrants outside of Columbus. Nearly every place that has been growing strongly in the last 50 years has done so with robust international immigration. My issue with Ohio is how Ohio-centric it is. Ohio sees itself as a major center of industry left behind with industrialization and automation, and rather than opening itself up to the world and its new possibilities, its is closing itself up tighter and tighter trying to hold on to the past. Kind of like the old river cities of Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, the glory days of the steamboats are gone, and people my age still talk about what high school they attended. Columbus, Indianapolis, Chicago and Minneapolis (Detroit?) might be exceptions to this, but the hinterlands seem to be folding over on themselves trying to recapture a past that probably never really existed. Hence the support for Trump. Trump was going to reunite Led Zeppelin, bring back the Trans Am and make Vince Neal sing every line at Motley Crue shows rather than making the crowd do it. Sex with strangers would return.
May 9, 20232 yr I'm just going to leave this here. This way y'all can argue with a bit more data... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration
May 9, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, Ethan said: I'm just going to leave this here. This way y'all can argue with a bit more data... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration #winning
May 9, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, westerninterloper said: The brain drain narrative in Ohio is complicated, but mostly imagined. Ohio has two problems - it does not attract any domestic migrants any more, and it attracts very few international immigrants outside of Columbus. Nearly every place that has been growing strongly in the last 50 years has done so with robust international immigration. My issue with Ohio is how Ohio-centric it is. Ohio sees itself as a major center of industry left behind with industrialization and automation, and rather than opening itself up to the world and its new possibilities, its is closing itself up tighter and tighter trying to hold on to the past. Kind of like the old river cities of Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, the glory days of the steamboats are gone, and people my age still talk about what high school they attended. Columbus, Indianapolis, Chicago and Minneapolis (Detroit?) might be exceptions to this, but the hinterlands seem to be folding over on themselves trying to recapture a past that probably never really existed. Hence the support for Trump. Genuinely curious, was there ever a time when Ohio attracted significant internal migration? Maybe the 1890s-1920s with the steel and rubber booms? Has there ever been a time like that since WWII? As for people still talking about what high school they went to: Remember that only about 30% of Ohioans have a college degree. College graduates are probably overrepresented on this forum relative to the general population every bit as much as progressives and men are, but this is a very unrepresentative bubble. I'm not about to call people out for waxing nostalgic about their high school days considering how many people I've probably annoyed with scarlet-and-gray spirit over the years. And my prediction is that even more OSU graduates than already stay in Ohio are going to stay in Ohio and/or return to Ohio in the decade ahead, notwithstanding (or--gasp--maybe because of) the conservative state government, considering how many massive employers are coming to the Columbus area (and I'm sure the presence of both a business-friendly state political climate and The Ohio State University right there played a material role in those location decisions). If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I'd wager money on that.
May 9, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, Ethan said: I'm just going to leave this here. This way y'all can argue with a bit more data... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration "We're number somewhere-in-the-middle!"
May 9, 20232 yr If we want to speak anecdotes, I only know one couple who are moving back to Ohio after leaving. I graduated from the University of Cincinnati 10 years ago, and these are the first friends I've had return to Ohio. And they are coming back from Utah. I think the whole "Ohioans return home after a stint away" is a Gen X stereotype that isn't sticking with Millennials. And there are several friends I have that are actively pursing opportunity outside of Ohio ten years after graduating. Anecdotally, the brain drain is real. Statistically, the population in Ohio is aging pretty rapidly. That is not good for the health of the state. Source If you're trying to take a victory lap because your political party is the main reason for good things, or the other political party is the main reason for bad things, you're argument is bad. Demographic changes are extremely complicated. Despite drastically cutting taxes for businesses and high income individuals in Ohio, our population and job growth continue to lag the national average (and recent estimates suggest population declines). The same way that Republicans blame all of the problems in cities on Democrats, the Democrats are blaming all of the problems in the state on Republicans. Both are bad arguments that ignore the general movement of money and people away from the Rust Belt. You can argue that state politics are driving people away (I believe it to some extent), but it isn't the main factor for demographic changes. It just makes peoples' lives worse who are here. And for every big business location announced by DeWine, there are probably 3 or 4 larger deals happening in Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, etc. Ohio is lagging the country as a whole.
May 9, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, DEPACincy said: Housing costs. and to add overall cost of living. And I know you did not necessarily make this point, but overall cost of living can also be boiled down to more shorter term political decisions to discourage housing development in certain areas as well as high taxes, significant red tape and large bureaucracy. These political decisions (albeit difficult and somewhat entrenched) can be remedied by politicians much easier than the generational shift in the economy from a manufacturing based economy to a much more research based economy.
May 9, 20232 yr 53 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: The same way that Republicans blame all of the problems in cities on Democrats, the Democrats are blaming all of the problems in the state on Republicans. Both are bad arguments that ignore the general movement of money and people away from the Rust Belt. You can argue that state politics are driving people away (I believe it to some extent), but it isn't the main factor for demographic changes. It just makes peoples' lives worse who are here. And for every big business location announced by DeWine, there are probably 3 or 4 larger deals happening in Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, etc. Ohio is lagging the country as a whole. The GOP of today has little to do with Ohio losing population over the last 50 years and the same can be said for the Dems in Ohio. It is a faulty assertion to put the issue on the current political parties. Could there have been past decisions that could have been made that could have changed the course of history? Certainly, but in many cases, most people could not have seen those changes coming 50 years ago, and most likely even despite those changes, they probably would not have made much of a difference since ultimately the bulk of the movement has been to the Sun Belt and people were likely moving there for better weather and opportunity, not because of the political leanings of elected officials.
May 9, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, Gramarye said: But perhaps even more damningly for Stephens (or good for Allison Russo and the Democrats who voted him in, from your perspective), is that Merrin was more committed to the backpack bill to make school choice universal statewide. Getting that necessary corrective to overreliance on government schools passed with Stephens in the speakership chair with Democratic backing will be a much heavier lift. LOL. It's the Ohio Constitution that requires "reliance on government schools" by requiring "a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state." The backpack bill funds students, not "common" or public schools open to everyone. Maybe you're not a strict constructionist, but it might be getting a little late to start gathering signatures for your constitutional amendment before your Republican friends raise the bar.
May 9, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Gramarye said: And my prediction is that even more OSU graduates than already stay in Ohio are going to stay in Ohio and/or return to Ohio in the decade ahead, notwithstanding (or--gasp--maybe because of) the conservative state government, considering how many massive employers are coming to the Columbus area (and I'm sure the presence of both a business-friendly state political climate and The Ohio State University right there played a material role in those location decisions). If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I'd wager money on that. This is an interesting viewpoint of where BIG alumni end up after graduation. As is probably obvious, most Ohio State grads stay in Columbus with the next most going to Cleveland. Outside of IU and Purdue who send a chunk of grads to the Cincinnati area, no other BIG School really sends a significant portion of students to Ohio. https://frankthetank.org/2018/05/18/oh-the-places-youll-go-where-big-ten-graduates-live-and-conference-realignment/ Could it be that the Ohio schools, OSU, UC, Akron, OU, Miami, Cle State and the others just keep most of their grads in Ohio, or is it more that Ohio employers do not really draw much talent from outside the state (at least BIG Ten alumni)?
May 9, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, Foraker said: LOL. It's the Ohio Constitution that requires "reliance on government schools" by requiring "a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state." The backpack bill funds students, not "common" or public schools open to everyone. Maybe you're not a strict constructionist, but it might be getting a little late to start gathering signatures for your constitutional amendment before your Republican friends raise the bar. It is quite interesting that Stephens won the speakership because he said he was not going to allow the backpack bill to come to the floor. It appears there is a strong push to bring it to the floor. It will be interesting to see what he does (or if he can even stop it) and what the reaction of Russo may be upon his broken promise to her
May 9, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, GISguy said: Why the heck would you move here these days when Michigan and PA and so many other states are moving in a completely opposite direction politics-wise. Because 99% of the population does not care about state politics.
May 9, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Gramarye said: Genuinely curious, was there ever a time when Ohio attracted significant internal migration? Maybe the 1890s-1920s with the steel and rubber booms? Yes, that's why an enormous amount of the state's housing stock is from that era despite a ton of it having already been demoed. That was also Peak Appalachia so those towns were still bursting with people. There were just enough people left there for it to dominate state politics until 2010.
May 9, 20232 yr 9 minutes ago, Lazarus said: Because 99% of the population does not care about state politics. In Columbus people think about it more but I can understand why someone in a fully functional NFL city in a corner of a state wouldn't pay attention to what affected the other non-NFL parts.
May 9, 20232 yr Also people in Appalachian Ohio do have to think about state politics since a colossal part of the economy there is public sector. Edited May 9, 20232 yr by GCrites80s
May 9, 20232 yr 9 minutes ago, GCrites80s said: Yes, that's why an enormous amount of the state's housing stock is from that era despite a ton of it having already been demoed. That was also Peak Appalachia so those towns were still bursting with people. There were just enough people left there for it to dominate state politics until 2010. It did up until the mid 1970s, when the last of the major industries collapsed. Most domestic migrants were coming from Appalachia and the deep South, white and black. The collapse of industrial employment by that time closed that spigot. Same for Michigan.
May 9, 20232 yr 13 minutes ago, Lazarus said: Because 99% of the population does not care about state politics. Over 50% of state voters turn out for local/state election years. If this 60% threshold gets on the ballot get ready to see that more than 1% of the state gives a crap.
May 9, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, GISguy said: 30 minutes ago, Lazarus said: Because 99% of the population does not care about state politics. Over 50% of state voters turn out for local/state election years. If this 60% threshold gets on the ballot get ready to see that more than 1% of the state gives a crap. I think what he meant was that they don't care enough about state politics that it affects their choice of states they're willing to live in. The cynical notion that started this chain on this thread today was an unfounded allegation that the Ohio Republican Party (i.e., the topic of this thread), and specifically its members in state government, are the reason Ohio State University and Ohio state university graduates leave the state. To which there are three obvious refutations: first, most actually aren't leaving Ohio; second, other Republican-led states (Sun Belt) and/or purple states (Mountain West and Southwest) are frequently the beneficiaries when they do; third, many blue states have even larger problems of outmigration and brain drain than we do. There are other possible factors beyond those, specifically for The Ohio State University, though I don't know how they map to other Ohio state universities: In-state enrollment at OSU dropped from 81.7% in 2008 to 70.1% in 2017. It's likely lower now. So if 30% of the student body comes from out-of-state, it's break-even if 30% leave afterwards. I know Gov. Kasich, a long while ago now, said that about 1/3 leave the state within 3 years of graduation. I don't know if that needle has moved in the last 12 years. But I'd be surprised if we're much worse than break-even today.
May 9, 20232 yr Far more international students now. Higher admission standards due to the school's popularity.
May 9, 20232 yr 40 minutes ago, Gramarye said: I think what he meant was that they don't care enough about state politics that it affects their choice of states they're willing to live in. It's like, how many generations of young Michael J Fox Republicans have attended Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Columbia, etc.? What's more, Ohio isn't home to extreme political activity of any sort. We had those people set the minks loose last year but that's about it.
May 9, 20232 yr 42 minutes ago, Gramarye said: To which there are three obvious refutations: first, most actually aren't leaving Ohio; second, other Republican-led states (Sun Belt) and/or purple states (Mountain West and Southwest) are frequently the beneficiaries when they do; third, many blue states have even larger problems of outmigration and brain drain than we do. https://www.thestreet.com/investing/brain-drain-is-hitting-these-states-really-hard More data can be found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/09/films-assigned-college/
May 9, 20232 yr 26 minutes ago, Lazarus said: What's more, Ohio isn't home to extreme political activity of any sort. I mean, sure, Ohio might not be home to extreme political activity when compared to a war-torn, third world country: https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/militia-activists-ohio-governor-mike-dewine-attack-plan-court-documents-share-8-10-21 Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Clefan98
May 9, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: and to add overall cost of living. And I know you did not necessarily make this point, but overall cost of living can also be boiled down to more shorter term political decisions to discourage housing development in certain areas as well as high taxes, significant red tape and large bureaucracy. These political decisions (albeit difficult and somewhat entrenched) can be remedied by politicians much easier than the generational shift in the economy from a manufacturing based economy to a much more research based economy. I think both parties have been horrible when it comes to housing policy, for what it is worth.
May 9, 20232 yr Ohio is literally losing its educated young people to Illinois, New York, and California.
May 9, 20232 yr 40 minutes ago, Clefan98 said: More data can be found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/09/films-assigned-college/ That WaPo chart should raise a giant flaming red flag, and the LinkedIn methodology used to generate it ought to be examined more closely. Not surprised to see Ohio right in the middle of that chart at #18; happens a lot. The real red flags there are for other states. In particular, I strongly doubt there is any way that Virginia is that low. Or Delaware, for that matter, but Virginia stands out in particular. Given the massive outlier of D.C. at the top, but also the small denominator given the relatively few colleges in D.C., I'm curious how this graph would look if you treated DC as part of Virginia and combined the numbers. If you combine Georgetown, GWU, American, CUA, and Howard, you still don't equal Ohio State's undergraduate population. So for DC to get college grads far in excess of its college graduate output doesn't take that much. And it clearly does--DC proper has among the lowest average age of any US jurisdiction. But if you take those numbers at face value, it looks like DC is "winning" the brain drain war by a staggering amount, at Maryland and particularly Virginia's expense, and I don't think even those states look at it that way. They get a lot of jobs and money from DC. The NoVa suburbs are chock full of DC money. 6 minutes ago, DEPACincy said: Ohio is literally losing its educated young people to Illinois, New York, and California. And yet we're #12 on that chart (point of information: what year is the data from, regardless of when the chart was produced?), and in fact keeping a higher share of our college graduates than Illinois does, even if a lot of ours go there. Also, just to at least keep this a little bit on-topic: of the ones above us, I don't see much of a partisan pattern: Texas, Florida, Alaska, Tennessee = red California, New York, Washington = blue Minnesota, Georgia, Colorado = purple
May 9, 20232 yr 16 minutes ago, Gramarye said: But if you take those numbers at face value, it looks like DC is "winning" the brain drain war by a staggering amount None of California's cities or universities are physically close to another state. Same with Texas. In Ohio, several cities and colleges are within inches of neighboring states - U of Cincinnati, Miami University, U of Toledo. Ohio is a crossroads, not and island or a dead-end like Maine or Florida.
May 9, 20232 yr From the Census data. 2015-2021 Population Change Age 24 and Under: -77,658 Most of the losses were in the 20-24 group, where the state lost 31,483. 25-54: I guess you could call this prime working age. -62,635 55-64: Transition period between late working-early retirement. +11,976 65 and Up: +203,994 So for this most recent period available, the state lost people in working ages and the young. It only gained significantly in age groups that were at or older than retirement age. So yes, the state is absolutely losing young people over time, especially in critical prime working years. That said, brain drain may be overblown, too. 2015-2021 Change for the 25+ Population HS or Less: -143024 Some College, No Degree: -62,380 Associate's Degree: +48,113 Bachelor's Degree: +207,615 Graduate or Professional Degree: +171,179 The problem with any of this data is that it predates a lot of the more recent GOP extremism. Still, the fact that the state was already losing young people even before that does not bode well for those trends. And regarding education, the 65+ age group had the largest increase in population for the Bachelor's or higher, almost double that of the 25-34 age group. Even if we assume that this growth is all new to the state- which we cannot- the youngest most educated demographic being one of the smallest comparatively also may indicate an attractability issue. Meaning that Ohio's conservative streak is much more attractive to Boomers than it is young people. Now that the state legislature is giving the state an even more extreme image, I can't see how this is going to change much in the near future. Edited May 9, 20232 yr by jonoh81
May 9, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, Gramarye said: Florida and Texas are two of the fastest-growing states in the country, and not coincidentally, also either red or at least reddish-purple. Who do you think we should be trying to outdo? Illinois? New York? California? If you think that's for politics and not masses of retirees searching for a warmer climate, I have bad news for you. It's also just people with the mistaken belief that the South is less expensive, and it's not. Maybe it was true at one time, but not anymore. And quality of life metrics are notoriously worse across the board. People just think they're going to be on perpetual vacation living there. Also, take a closer look at those states. Where are most of the people actually moving to? It's not the deep red Texas Panhandle. It's Houston, Austin, Dallas, etc. Same situation in Florida. People are moving to urban, mostly blue areas even in overall red states. Same story in Ohio. Columbus has added more people on its own the last 10 years than just about every red county combined. I won't claim that politics alone is responsible for losses or gains, but for all the absolute hell urban areas take from conservatives, red areas should at least be able to show something positive for their supposed superior policies. Like jobs, economic growth, positive domestic/international migration... something. Edited May 9, 20232 yr by jonoh81
May 9, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, DEPACincy said: Ohio is literally losing its educated young people to Illinois, New York, and California. But college educated Ohioans have been moving to NY, IL and CA for going on 50 years now. Back in the day, I knew a ton of guys who would go to Chicago to work at the Board of Trade on the floor there. It was a place to start when you were young and out of school. Same with NY. There were just a lot of industries in those states that catered to new grads and could hire a bunch of new grads. Over time, some of them stayed in those cities and climbed the corporate ladder, others came back home, others matriculated to other cities. That has been going on for a long time.
May 9, 20232 yr 18 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: If you think that's for politics and not masses of retirees searching for a warmer climate, I have bad news for you. It has already been debunked in this thread by numerous posters that people are not moving to a location because of its politics. People move for jobs or quality of life issues. 19 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: Also, take a closer look at those states. Where are most of the people actually moving to? It's not the deep red Texas Panhandle. It's Houston, Austin, Dallas, etc. Same situation in Florida. People are moving to urban, mostly blue areas even in overall red states. People are not going to those cities because of politics. People are going there because there are jobs and opportunity there. Politics is completely a separate issue. As was pointed out earlier - Illinois and New York are losing a lot of residents to the Sun Belt states, just like Ohio is losing residents there too. People are not moving there or to Austin, Dallas or Houston because of some perceived progressive or MAGA policies in those areas. The assertion that people leave Ohio or not come to Ohio because it is too conservative has been debunked
May 9, 20232 yr 9 hours ago, Gramarye said: Data is better than anecdotes, but anecdotes are better than nothing. And I was responding to a nothing. Anecdotally from my son's junior-senior year housemates (4 guys) 1-San Francisco 1-Washington DC 1-Back to Cleveland 1-Chicago (my son) Will they ever return? Maybe. But in talking to them they are moving for robust tech economies, public transit and general tolerance.
May 9, 20232 yr 49 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: As was pointed out earlier - Illinois and New York are losing a lot of residents to the Sun Belt states, just like Ohio is losing residents there too. People are not moving there or to Austin, Dallas or Houston because of some perceived progressive or MAGA policies in those areas. The assertion that people leave Ohio or not come to Ohio because it is too conservative has been debunked Chicago and NYC metros are growing slightly or remaining stagnant, leading one to believe this is the MAGA types leaving the more rural areas of downstate IL and upstate NY.
May 9, 20232 yr 10 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: This is such a false statement and really does not recognize the reality of why people move. Maybe today, there are a few of the chicken little types who move to a state because of some overarching political preference that is a bit dethatched from reality, but for the most part, people are moving to areas where there are jobs in their field and opportunities to start in their career. Chances are, where they start is not where they finish. To @Gramarye's point. Ohio lost more people in the 80s and 90s to other states that they currently are losing now. What are the top reasons why people were leaving Ohio? Certainly, many went for weather and went down to Florida. Many of them older people but there were a good number of graduates who moved South to Florida and Texas to take advantage of the weather. Maybe many of those people tend to be conservative because most of the positions that young graduates move to Florida for tend to be in certain sales industries that cater to more conservative leaning people, but most likely, they are not moving for political considerations, they are moving for lifestyle preference. many of the people in the 80s and 90s who left Ohio were not college grads and they tended to move to the Sun Belt. Looking specifically at the college grads (and you can take HS Grads going to elite colleges), they are going to areas where they have there was a concentration of jobs in the fields where they desired to work. Some people wanted political jobs and to work for a Congressman/Senate or government agency. Those low level entry jobs (and influence) did not exist in Ohio. It is hard to be a top lobbyist and be based in Ohio. I know a few, and they had to cut their chops in larger cities first before returning. Whether they are personally progressive or MAGA Republican, their politics had little to do with their job choice after graduation. For many in the high finance industry, there are not too many investment banking opportunities in Ohio, and where there are some, they typically are not hiring the new grads. You need to go to New York, Chicago, San Fran, or Houston for many of those jobs. Again politics is not the primary reason for those moves rather, it is the concentration of employment there. Same thing with the movie industry or with the technology industry. What hurt Ohio, which was understandable if you think about it, is that many of the early 21st century job center concentrations did not develop in Ohio. Ohio was focused on manufacturing which is what led to their tremendous growth n the 20th century. They wanted to protect that and the Ohio economy was built around that. New York was always a finance capital, LA was the entertainment capital. Boston always had the medical sciences, etc. They were better positioned to take advantage of this going back to the 80s when these trends started to emerge. Politics had almost nothing to do with it (after all, in the 80s and 90s IL was more of a Republican State, New York and a lot of Republicans in leadership and even California trended Republican at that time). But it can. Cincinnati in the 1990's lost a significant portion of their gay population when Article 12 passed Many could simply move across the river to NKY. You can only crap on a segment of the population for so long before they get fed up....cue the BLM movement. My point is politics can be very important in the absence of rock solid economic ties to keep some segments planted.
May 10, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: It has already been debunked in this thread by numerous posters that people are not moving to a location because of its politics. People move for jobs or quality of life issues. People are not going to those cities because of politics. People are going there because there are jobs and opportunity there. Politics is completely a separate issue. As was pointed out earlier - Illinois and New York are losing a lot of residents to the Sun Belt states, just like Ohio is losing residents there too. People are not moving there or to Austin, Dallas or Houston because of some perceived progressive or MAGA policies in those areas. The assertion that people leave Ohio or not come to Ohio because it is too conservative has been debunked Do you think that jobs and opportunity have nothing to do with politics?
May 10, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, GCrites80s said: Far more international students now. Higher admission standards due to the school's popularity. Far more out-of-state and international students, who pay premium tuition to make up for the pittance OSU gets from the state. OSU and most other Big 10 schools have actually lowered their admissions standards since Covid, to make up for a decline in both out of state and international students. Perhaps that was a temporary blimp. Big10 schools are soaking up their biggest freshmen classes in years, while the lower tier publics like Akron, Wright State and Youngstown State are losing students to OSU and other flagships.
May 10, 20232 yr When college graduates leave, they tend to go to big cities in blue states, NYC, Chicago, Atlanta (?) San Francisco, Seattle. The people leaving Ohio for Texas, Florida and Arizona tend to be conservative retirees who don't want their incomes taxed, not younger college graduates. The young people I know whove moved to Florida and Texas almost always move back to Ohio and the Midwest - the pay is lower, few union protections, "at will" work everywhere means they are expendable as employees in ways they aren't in the Midwest. Quality of life is generally better here too. It's the retirees going south, not the graduates. If anything more graduates need to leave Ohio and get experience outside their bubble.
May 10, 20232 yr 15 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: It has already been debunked in this thread by numerous posters that people are not moving to a location because of its politics. People move for jobs or quality of life issues. People are not going to those cities because of politics. People are going there because there are jobs and opportunity there. Politics is completely a separate issue. As was pointed out earlier - Illinois and New York are losing a lot of residents to the Sun Belt states, just like Ohio is losing residents there too. People are not moving there or to Austin, Dallas or Houston because of some perceived progressive or MAGA policies in those areas. The assertion that people leave Ohio or not come to Ohio because it is too conservative has been debunked So you're in agreement that blue areas, even in red states, are where jobs and economic opportunities are, which attract people to them? That's the point most people are trying to make. Politics alone may not be the be all/end all to the reason why people move, but they can and do contribute to factors that create economic strength that *are* the primary reason why people move. Even at the national level, job growth, stock market returns, etc. have been stronger when Democrats have been in power. So not only do blue economics just factually work better, blue social policy is much more welcoming to more demographics. Ohio has largely been run by Republicans for decades and we have very little to show for it. Nothing's been debunked. Edited May 10, 20232 yr by jonoh81
May 10, 20232 yr 11 hours ago, westerninterloper said: Far more out-of-state and international students, who pay premium tuition to make up for the pittance OSU gets from the state. OSU and most other Big 10 schools have actually lowered their admissions standards since Covid, to make up for a decline in both out of state and international students. Perhaps that was a temporary blimp. Big10 schools are soaking up their biggest freshmen classes in years, while the lower tier publics like Akron, Wright State and Youngstown State are losing students to OSU and other flagships. It is not a temporary blip. There are going to be far less international students coming because for a while the largest segment was from China and well, those relations are not going as well as they were 10-15 years ago. Also, OSU and most students will need to lower their standards to keep enrollment up (should they choose) because in the next 15-18 years, the amount of high school graduates should drop by around 20-25% from where they were during the 2010-2020 time frame.
May 10, 20232 yr 39 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: So you're in agreement that blue areas, even in red states, are where jobs and economic opportunities are, which attract people to them? That's the point most people are trying to make. Politics alone may not be the be all/end all to the reason why people move, but they can and do contribute to factors that create economic strength that *are* the primary reason why people move. Even at the national level, job growth, stock market returns, etc. have been stronger when Democrats have been in power. So not only do blue economics just factually work better, blue social policy is much more welcoming to more demographics. Ohio has largely been run by Republicans for decades and we have very little to show for it. Nothing's been debunked. I disagree 100% with your conclusions. Let's break down the areas that are growing significantly in the so called "red states" Look at Columbus, Ohio and Austin Texas as 2 prime examples. Both cities offer 2 key job drivers: 1) Seat of state government and government offices and 2) Large Research university. These factors have existed long before so called "blue" social policies and the Democrats pretty much controlled all the levers of local politics in those areas. in fact, you could argue that the foundation that led to those areas to thrive was laid by policies put in place by previously run Republican governments. I think the argument about "blue" politics being the reason why these areas are thriving is a misguided one. The areas were set up to thrive because of the factors laid out above that led to the incubation of jobs in 21st century industries that often centered around research and technology. Going around other "red" states and looking at the thriving markets and you see the same similarities: 1) Raleigh Durham - State Government, 2 Large Research universities. 2) Nashville TN - State Government, Strong Research University, also have the confluence of the country music industry to further help things. 3) Atlanta - Many large research universities, head of state government creates a draw for younger educated professionals and companies to relocate there because of the labor pool. People go to places for jobs. companies go to places because of the labor pool in the area. Having a large research university contributes to that labor pool. If people have opportunities they will stay, if not they will leave. It is human nature. The social policies that may exist in that area may be superficially important to people but at the end of the day, they are going where the opportunities are. People and companies are currently flocking to Texas because they have a great income tax structure and provide good opportunities to do business. Edited May 10, 20232 yr by Brutus_buckeye
May 10, 20232 yr 30 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: So you're in agreement that blue areas, even in red states, are where jobs and economic opportunities are, which attract people to them? The ethnic, political, and physical characteristics of U.S. cities that are growing versus those that are stagnant reveal no pattern whatsoever. The reason why many "hot" cities appear to be "blue" is because they have a large black population, a voting bloc that often votes 90% Democrat, despite it having little overlapping interest with the "We Believe" yard sign crowd.
May 10, 20232 yr 12 hours ago, DEPACincy said: Do you think that jobs and opportunity have nothing to do with politics? It depends on the politics. Certainly, as is the case many times (crony politics) plays a role in providing tax or business incentives to draw business expansions and lure businesses or even keep businesses in the area. Politics plays a role in helping to establish the foundation to allow certain businesses to grow (for example, laying the foundation 30+ years ago to help the establish the research triangle and allow it to thrive in NC or incentives to foster a concentration or cluster of potential emerging market businesses). In Cincinnati 3CDC is clearly the beneficiary of politics to allow it to transform OTR and downtown. So yes, politics plays a role when it comes to allowing capitalism to thrive. However, on social issues, politics plays a much smaller role. People may openly claim to value certain positions over others, but when it comes to their "values" over their "paycheck," in the short term at least, they clearly will pick the paycheck.
May 10, 20232 yr 15 hours ago, Cleburger said: Anecdotally from my son's junior-senior year housemates (4 guys) 1-San Francisco 1-Washington DC 1-Back to Cleveland 1-Chicago (my son) Will they ever return? Maybe. But in talking to them they are moving for robust tech economies, public transit and general tolerance. When you are out of college you have vastly different goals than you do when you are 30 and looking to settle down. Will those students return to Ohio? Who knows. However, chances are that the majority of them will not end up in DC, the Bay Area or even Chicago for the long term. I have not seen a formal study yet, but I remember hearing a quote at one time that the average person who moves to the DC area will be there for 3 years before moving to another market. This does not mean they will return to their homes as there are many factors that determine that, but it means that cities like DC, Chicago and San Fran are rather transitory cities. That makes sense if you think about it. Young professionals are transitory and often are looking to find the best opportunity for them in the short term. Anecdotally, many of the people i knew from Ohio that went to those markets immediately after college ended up in other places. The ones on the West Coast always came back to the Midwest (maybe not Ohio, but a nearby Midwest market) the ones in DC often came home after a couple years (politics can be a cutthroat business and they tire of it), and the Chicago ones will either come home or meet their spouse up there and relocate to where their spouse is from.
May 10, 20232 yr 16 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: The assertion that people leave Ohio or not come to Ohio because it is too conservative has been debunked Utah attracts a lot of people from California: The United States is a really, really big place. People are free to live wherever they want. But it's really unlikely - no matter where they choose - that state laws or local government will have a significant impact on their life.
May 10, 20232 yr @Lazarus agree with this 100%. However, no matter how much data you provide to demonstrate your point, you will continue have people who believe that it is the progressive social policies in cities that are the primary driver of state/city growth and job/corporate growth. Edited May 10, 20232 yr by Brutus_buckeye
May 10, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: So yes, politics plays a role when it comes to allowing capitalism to thrive. I'm going to nitpick one sentence lol. The examples you gave of Austin and Columbus and their respective universities being propped up by public money to "allow capitalism to thrive" sounds an awful lot like social democracy.
May 10, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, surfohio said: I'm going to nitpick one sentence lol. The examples you gave of Austin and Columbus and their respective universities being propped up by public money to "allow capitalism to thrive" sounds an awful lot like social democracy. The UT system is heavily subsidized not by the State of Texas but rather the Permanent Oil Fund: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1133554526/harvard-texas-endowment-oil-gas-billions-colleges-universities-fundraising#:~:text=According to new data%2C it,consultant based in Waco%2C Texas.
May 10, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, Lazarus said: The UT system is heavily subsidized not by the State of Texas but rather the Permanent Oil Fund: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1133554526/harvard-texas-endowment-oil-gas-billions-colleges-universities-fundraising#:~:text=According to new data%2C it,consultant based in Waco%2C Texas. Granted the state has been funding less in recent years, but the UT Austin was 1/3 funded by the state as recently as the 1990s. It is arguably a good example of public funding allowing capitalism to thrive.
May 10, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, surfohio said: Granted the state has been funding less in recent years, but the UT Austin was 1/3 funded by the state as recently as the 1990s. It is arguably a good example of public funding allowing capitalism to thrive. The fact that the federal government approves student loans and pell grants to just about anyone explains why there is no incentive for the state universities to lower tuition. Currently, undergrads can get $12,500 per year in loans. That's pretty much exactly what every single state school charges around the entire United States. The endowments and special funds like the Texas oil fund recruiting mechanisms, not undergrad tuition.
May 10, 20232 yr 48 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: It is not a temporary blip. There are going to be far less international students coming because for a while the largest segment was from China and well, those relations are not going as well as they were 10-15 years ago. Also, OSU and most students will need to lower their standards to keep enrollment up (should they choose) because in the next 15-18 years, the amount of high school graduates should drop by around 20-25% from where they were during the 2010-2020 time frame. Maybe. But I think we should reserve judgment on the trends in international student enrollment until we actually see it, and also whether the causes of it are endogenous or external (e.g., regulatory, which could be changed). For the moment, you appear to be right, and I was surprised to learn that the disparity was this high myself, at least as of 2019: Quote International students at Ohio State hail from more than 100 countries including, China (5,251); India (856); South Korea (390); Malaysia (267); and Taiwan (147). Nationally, the leading home countries for international students are China, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Canada. I would have predicted the Chinese and Indian numbers to be substantially closer. So fair point. Still, I'm curious (a) whether that Chinese number has shrunk and/or will shrink, and (b) whether those seats really can't and/or won't be filled with students from other countries. 25 minutes ago, Lazarus said: The United States is a really, really big place. People are free to live wherever they want. But it's really unlikely - no matter where they choose - that state laws or local government will have a significant impact on their life. Hard disagree with this. In truth, state and local laws play a much larger role in people's everyday lives than they appreciate. It's just that, even when people do appreciate the impact, particularly in Ohio, we have enough different options (see the Partisan Spatial Sorting thread) that people with economic mobility can generally find a place to land that is at least passably acceptable. And the usual wedge issues of partisan politics aren't generally determinative. It's things like zoning, land use, and building codes, infrastructure priorities, parks, water, and all kinds of other things that are often controlled at the local level. Why do you think most of us are on this forum in the first place?
