The Great Blue State Exodus: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal States
The continuing movement of population from "blue" states to "red" states and/or "purple" states is real - it is pooh-poohed by those on the left and trumpeted by those on the right but we seldom see analysis as to why it is happening. The author of this article has done a good job pulling that data together.
Taxes, regulations, migrant issues and much much more
When will it end?
Does it matter?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A growing trend has emerged in the past decade of residents leaving historically liberal states with high taxes and regulations for more economically free states. This exodus from blue states to red has economists and policy experts examining the root causes.
The 19 "Blue Wall" states have lost almost 5 million residents in the last 10 years. The states gaining the most population, particularly Florida, Texas, and the Carolinas, have surpassed the economic output of the Northeast for the first time.
Moore argues this mass migration shows that higher taxes and burdensome regulations are counterproductive policies. The population influx into southern and western states suggests Americans are moving to seize economic opportunity and financial advantage. Pro-business policies like lower taxes and fewer regulations attract individuals and businesses seeking to thrive
The mass exodus of taxpayers from states like California, New York, and Illinois is largely attributed to "Blue State Dysphoria" and policies that aim to increase taxes on high-income earners. The migration of affluent residents has significant consequences for state economies as their tax contributions decline.
Low-tax states with pro-business environments are attracting both individuals and businesses seeking relief from high taxes and excessive regulations. States like Florida, Texas, and Tennessee have experienced substantial population growth largely due to their lack of a state income tax. The economic opportunity and lower cost of living serve as a compelling incentive for migration from high-tax states.
Blue states are renowned for strict regulations and extensive bureaucratic processes that create substantial business obstacles. According to economist Stephen Moore, overregulation and excessive red tape are primary factors driving the mass exodus from prominent Blue states.
Blue states like California and New York have implemented some of the most stringent environmental regulations in the country, including policies like the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. While well-intentioned, these regulations significantly increase costs and compliance burdens for businesses, especially smaller companies with limited resources.
Blue states are notorious for complex permitting and licensing requirements that delay and discourage new development. For example, California's Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mandates an extensive environmental review process for any project that may impact the environment.
This process can take years to complete and cost millions of dollars, only to still face potential lawsuits from opposition groups. The uncertainty and expense deter many businesses from starting or expanding operations in the state.
In addition to environmental and permitting regulations, restrictive zoning and land use policies in Blue states curb new housing and commercial construction. Limited availability of affordable housing and commercial space deters both businesses and residents from relocating to or remaining in these states.
While zoning and land use regulations aim to control growth and protect communities, they have inadvertently contributed to the housing crisis and broader Exodus from Blue states. The culmination of excessive regulations, bureaucratic red tape, restrictive zoning, and limited housing in prominent Blue states has cultivated an environment unfavorable for business and economic opportunity.
The topic is population migration from Blue states to Red States - please confine comments to that topic.
Try to be civil - disagree, debate, argue without being disagreeable and rude.
Tags
Who is online
534 visitors
Some issues to consider
High Taxes Are Driving People Away From Liberal States
Overregulation and Red Tape in the Blue States
Complex Permitting and Licensing Requirements
Restrictive Zoning and Land Use Policies
Rising Crime Rates in Major Liberal Cities
Lax Sentencing and Rising Recidivism
Unaffordable Housing Pushing People Out of Blue States
Poor Governance and Mismanagement in Democrat-Run States
add
overcrowding
poor schools
I really think you should do a series on this devoting an article to each blue state starting with California and working your way east.
What I most want to know is exactly where the votes come from that put these crazed radicals in power.
A good look at the infamous train in Cali might be very interesting to look at in detail.
Having to jump through so many hoops demanded by state laws has put the project decades behind and threatens it ever being completed at all, all at great expense to not only California taxpayers, but ALL taxpayers as Cali received federal funds for the train to nowhere.
Democrats may choose to disbelieve the fact that many are moving out of blue havens because they don't like heavy taxation, legalized drug use in public, shit on sidewalks, and a whole host of ignorant "woke" policies, but it won't change the facts.
Just hope those fleeing those states change their politics if they voted for any of those Dem politicians fucking up their former states.
"Don't California My Texas" is a popular saying here--for the obvious reasons.
[deleted]
Gee, why would a Democrat leave a blue state heaven to move to a red state?
Probably need something better than that silly statement.
... more like an extended visit. no blizzards here and zero concern for the background...
Gee, why would a Democrat leave a blue state heaven to move to a red state?
Probably need something better than that silly statement.
I just don't believe this. Not true,
It's the red states that people are fleeing, not Blue states.
Link please
Link?
Why do you refuse to believe facts?
Did you ever believe in facts?
I think we already know that answer.
My assessment went up 41% this year in MD. Thats fucked up. I’m appealing it, of course, but I’m not getting my hopes up. I can’t argue with most of what’s on your list. The overregulation, permitting, and land use policies here are obscene, and every project is inundated with NIMBYs. I quit my job as a land development civil engineer because the environmental regulations are so ridiculously over the top here.
God forbid - regulations.
There are 32 pages in our local planning and permitting fee schedule. Here’s a nice example from it.
Is this progress to you? $1,030 for a tip jar?
Whatever. Here's the republican't/won't solution. Move.
Well said.
You get what you voted for.
What do you think the odds are that my home increased in value by 41% over the three year period since it was last assessed for tax purposes? What a coincidence that during that timeframe MD changed from a R to a D governor. Way to reinforce the stereotype, MD. I wasn’t a fan of Hogan but holy shit, this is not what I signed up for as a D.
I worked in OH and MI for a long time doing the same job as here in MD. There, you engage in designing within a reasonable set of parameters as outlined in uncomplicated local and regional ordinances. You can easily come up with a number of logical, common sense land development designs for a client to evaluate and pick one to move forward on. Here, each job is like a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, and engineering firms have to staff a “planner” and literally keep an attorney on retainer to interpret the encyclopedic local zoning ordinance with hopes of finding a single, horrifically expensive solution to get from point A to point B. But hey, keep cheerleading for that kind of progress - Republicans are depending on it.
Um, since Maryland is a proudly blue state (as you have personally pointed out before) Republicans have little power to change things there. Or did you think the minority party can do it alone magically?
Okey dokey
[Deleted - the author is not the topic]
Link?
Why?
Why ask for a link when you have made it clear dozens of times that you won't read them?
I know it is a lot of work, but if you go to the article there is a bar that says "seeded content" if you click on that bar it is the link to the article.
Try it, it works quite smoothly
Talk down to someone else.
[Deleted - the author is not the topic]
I live in rural Ohio and we are seeing more and more people moving from the neighboring cities to live in the country even though they have to make an hour or more drive each way to work in the city.
Lower taxes, safety and better schools seem to be the draw in our area.
How the various cities responded to the pandemic may also be a factor. The pandemic, at least, increased awareness of the risks associated with living in close proximity to a lot of strangers. The claimed advantage of social cooperation provided by urban centers required intrusive government control. As an example, the fines imposed on New Yorkers for failing to wear a mask really didn't support the idea of social cooperation. That seemed to suggest that urban living depends more heavily upon social coercion than social cooperation. One bad apple causes more spoilage in a big barrel than in a small barrel.
Nerm
That is a very good point.
Maybe I'll just do it.
Let's start with California:
The list of terribly important California issues, and bad policy decisions is long – Governor Newsom’s California, is reflected in this list of disastrous policy decisions:
Top 50 Disasters Gov. Gavin Newsom Has Ushered into California – California Globe
Vic
Wow - there is more going on in Ca than I was aware of - sounds like there are challenges to be met and that to pay for all of the things it is no wonder that taxes in Ca go up by the hour (a friend of mine in San Francisco said that)
Voting in CA:
Santa Clarita, Calif . – A review of California’s statewide voter database shows that 13 counties have more registered voters than eligible citizens– totaling over 1 million ineligible registrants– says Election Integrity Project, California (EIPCa). The overage was calculated by adding together each county’s active and inactive-status registrants and comparing the total to the estimated number of eligible citizens from the California Secretary of State’s (SOS) website. Both sources are dated February 18, 2020.
Six counties have the most ineligible registrants and contribute most to the one million+ ineligibles count. The full list includes Imperial, Lassen, Marin, Nevada, Plumas, Santa Clara and Siskiyou counties.
Total # Total # % of # Ineligible
County Registrants Eligible Citizens Eligible Registrants
Los Angeles 7,040,216 6,184,428 114% 855,788
San Diego 2,306,159 2,232,644 103% 73,515
San Mateo 534,316 507,291 105% 27,025
Solano 320,863 294,638 109% 26,225
Santa Cruz 206,585 187,357 110% 19,228
Ventura 563,728 546,938 103% 16,790
Total Six Counties 1,018,571
In 2017-18, EIPCa sued the LA County registrar and California’s SOS over similar findings. A settlement was reached in which the state agreed to begin removing millions of ineligible, inactive-status registrants from its rolls. While California counties research the eligibility of their inactive registrants, thousands of new voter registrations have been added through the state’s automatic DMV voter registration system, growing the list from eight counties to thirteen. While San Francisco and San Diego counties have made progress by cancelling hundreds of thousands of inactive registrants, new counties joined the list as their new registrations have accelerated.
The one million+ ineligible registrants include inactive registrants (who have not voted in years but are still registered and can vote in any election), persons who’ve likely died or relocated but remain on the active voter list, and tens of thousands of people who have two or more registrations each. EIPCa cannot quantify how many more are ineligible due to non-citizen status or other reasons.
“One million ineligible registrants allowed to vote opens doors to election crime in the upcoming 2020 election, especially if they’re mailed ballots,” said EIPCa President Linda Paine. “California needs to take immediate action to correct its bloated voter lists.
2020 Election: Over One Million Ineligible Persons Registered to Vote in California (capoliticalreview.com)
Well, this is really old data. Nevertheless part of the discrepancy may be explained by the transient population of college students being counted as voters but not as permanent residents. From the old data, Los Angeles had 970,000 students that could be counted as voters but not necessarily counted as residents.
Democrats really have squirreled elections to provide every advantage for themselves.
That is something we experience out here in MA as well.
CA also has a problem with verifying voters. Anyone, including migrants, gets the chance to register to vote when obtaining a driver's license. On the voter registration form it asks if the individual registering is a citizen. There are serious questions as to whether the state of California is simply taking the word of the applicant.
Nerm
Are you saying there are a million (+ or -) out of state students in LA alone? WOw!
I'm not saying they're out of state students. A student from Sacramento attending UCLA would still be a transient resident of Los Angeles that may not be counted the same as permanent residents in various datasets. Is a student from Sacramento a resident of Sacramento or a resident of Los Angeles? The transient student can be counted as either or both depending upon arbitrary criteria. The Los Angeles and Sacramento private partisan organizations and political government would be competing with each other to claim the residency of the transient student.
Transient populations may, in part, explain some of the discrepancies in the reported data. We're talking about political data and not about objective data. So, there's no telling how the datasets have been squirreled or for what purpose.
Thos numbers are frightening - more registered voters than citizens eligible to vote. How can that be?
It cannot. It's not true.
Source?
It is mostly fraud and not cleaning up voter rolls.
How about crime?
California’s violent crime rate increased in 2022.
Crime Trends in California - Public Policy Institute of California (ppic.org)
Crime - that is the main reason we hear here in rural Ohio for why people are leaving Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinatti etc to reside in rural areas and put up with the long commutes to and from work.
If being more rural was the clue, then why does Alaska have the highest crime rate in the US, and is not a blue state?
In fact, these cities have the worst crime rate in the US:
And all but one is a blue city.
.
And then there is this:
States with the Highest Violent Crime Rates
There are 3 blue states there and 7 red states and California doesn't even make the list. Do you know why? Because you are looking at raw numbers and not crime rate, which is per thousand and California is the most populous state in the US.
Analyzing crime rates by red/blue states and even by cities is of very limited utility:
- Data gaps, especially between the new FBI system and the limited implementation by local jurisdictions
- Crime isn’t uniform across a state or even within a city
- All communities don’t even report their victimization evenly.
- Does a falling homicide rate indicate fewer shootings or great improvements in trauma care
- Red/Blue politicians and incentivized to skew the analysis.
Why is it when I present information, that you try to debunk it? This is the same standard of information that everyone else is using. Furthermore, your standards would equally apply to all the information above, and therefore doesn't make a case for it being not legit.
The overwhelming information across the board is that blue states do not have a higher incidence of crime.
Why wouldn't all these objections also pertain to data showing that blue cities and blue states have more crime and other dysfunction ?
It sounds like you want to both have the cake and eat it
I haven’t said that they didn’t.
It sounds like you didn’t think about what I said.
I didn’t debunk it, I said why I thought that it wasn’t particularly useful for any meaningful analysis.
Yes, a low bar is the predominant one here.
I didn’t set any standards.
High rates of crime in certain sections of Baltimore have nothing to do with most of Blue Maryland like crime in parts of St Louis have little to do with Red Missouri.
“Such problems include nonreporting and false reporting, nonstandard definitions of events, difficulties associated with asking sensitive questions, sampling problems such as coverage and nonresponse , and an array of other factors involved in conducting surveys of individuals and implementing official data reporting ...”
#2
Why would you suppose in general that cities have higher crime rates in rural areas do ?
Do you think it could have anything to do with opportunity ?
And isn't it true that in rural areas it's much more likely that you're going to know the people around town in in a urban area it's much less likely that you would know everyone ?
Cities have always had more crime than rural areas . You could go back to Rome and see that
How do we measure and compare opportunities between living in SE Washington DC with Dickenson County VA?
So you seem to be agreeing that statewide figures aren’t very useful.
Wouldn’t it be fascinating if you really could.
Thanks for sharing that very interesting data
The overwhelming information across the board is that blue states do not have a higher incidence of crime.
I think I can accept that data, but as an aside the crime rate in Chicago say is overwhelmingly higher that the crime rate in the entirety of rural Ohio
From a crime fighting standpoint, that may not mean much but it is one of the reasons why people say they are moving out of the cities.
Cities have always had more crime than rural areas .
Excellent point
Which is a good reason for people leaving the traditionally "blue" democratic leaning bastions of the heavily populated urban areas for the more purple/red rural areas which was one of the points of the article.
Thanks for reinforcing that point.
“Although not without their problems (which will be examined below), survey measures of crime bypass two enormous sieves that strain out so many offenses that it can be difficult to interpret official crime statistics . These sieves are citizen reporting and police recording practices.”
So you're implying that only blue states don't report. If the issue is not reported it would be across the board, Btw, there isn't a crime report that would have Baltimore as low crime. We knew how bad it was when we sent our daughter to school there. But the rest of the state is pretty average.
And for the record, here are the worst crime cities:
15 Most Dangerous Cities in the US
And Baltimore is on there as well as St Louis.
And here are the safest cities:
15 Safest Large Cities in the US (with a population over 300,000)
This doesn't have to be a blue state/ red state thing, but for some, everything is political fodder.
I think that the major issue for most big cities is the cost of living and available housing. I know that right now in NYC, there are not enough apartments and the available ones are very expensive, in an already expensive city.
The rich in NYC need to help others with housing costs.
Great info thanks for sharing
You mean the truth?
I didn't imply that at all, perhaps your biases ran away with you.
I agree, that is why I said such lists aren't useful.
Even red states have blue cities. There is no accident about this. Democrats have advocated for defunding the police ad have elected social justice warriors as DAs. The Republicans have always been for law & order.
We do not advocate for defunding the police. That is not true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
It is simply fact.
Denial is senseless.
.00468
.00495
This statistic you cite is virtually meaningless.
In one case 46 people per ten thousand are victims, and in the other case 49 people per ten thousand are victims. Completely meaningless .
But "5.7% increase" sounds more worrying.
is it somehow inaccurate?
a statistic can be both accurate and meaningless
In the eye of the beholder.
What exactly would you consider to be the very lowest significant number?
Do you actually believe there is a significant difference between 46 victims per 10,000 and 49 victims per 10,000 ?
Yes, I made the same point 6.2.3
Thank you.
Just one example:
“The Bleeding of Chicago
In one case 46 people per ten thousand are victims, and in the other case 49 people per ten thousand are victims. Completely meaningless .
But "5.7% increase" sounds more worrying.
Very true, but the increase was quite meaningful to the three people or families that were affected by the increase.
Maybe not to the 18,400 more victims.
crime rates go up and down from year to year all the time
A profound observation. Can you explain why?
Well this is the California crime rates in the last sixty years, your point is very valid in property crimes, but violent crime seems to be trending up since say 2010
[Please cite sources with links.]
See 6.3.10
tessylo
Very good I didn't even see John's lips move
Did you read the comment that it was a steady trend up since around 2010 (rather than up and down), just a small detail but an important one
Well this is the California crime rates in the last sixty years, your point is very valid in property crimes, but violent crime seems to be trending up since say 2010
[ Please cite sources with links. ]
Sandy -- I fixed it
California’s Violent Crime Rate Is Diverging from the National Trend - Public Policy Institute of California (ppic.org)
Exodus, movement of Jah people!
Ha-ha-ha, ha
Crime in the U.S. is trending downwards compared to years past, despite Americans feeling that crime is a problem in their country. In addition, the number of full-time law enforcement officers in the U.S. has increased recently, who, in keeping with the lower rate of crime, have also made fewer arrests than in years past.Reported violent crime rate in the United States in 2022, by state (per 100,000 of the population)
Rather like Americans feeling that the economy is a problem despite the narrative otherwise, don't you think?...
Perhaps the level of crap that Americans are willing to accept is changing. One can only hope..
Do I think California is over-regulated and over-taxed? Yeah, sure. A bit. But this analysis kind of exaggerates and distorts the situation, I think.
Well, they should. It’s overdue, if anything. They have more people. Not sure that’s worth a pat on the back.
That kind of implies that those people still got rich in those blue states. They didn’t go to a red state to get rich. They already are. They’re going there as a tax dodge.
The real question is, how does this impact the little folks? Do they truly benefit? Or do only the rich migrants benefit?
I haven’t seen any data that most of those moving are rich. The rich can afford to stay in Manhattan, or Sea Clift or Presidio SF.