Jindal Measures Success by Migration (Part 2)

"25 years in a row, more people had left Louisiana than came into Louisiana. The only state in the South to lose our sons and daughters. One of the worst public school systems in the entire country. [...] You heard, we cut our budget 26%. We've got over 30,000 fewer state government bureaucrats than the day I took office. Eight different credit upgrades. Smallest number of state employees; best credit ratings in decades. I don't think that's a coincidence. Top-ten state for private-sector job creation. Seven years in a row of more people moving into Louisiana rather than leaving the state."

On Thursday, June 35, 2015 on C-Span
Sources: C-Span, WMUR

The Context: Speaking at C-Span's "Politics and Eggs" breakfast event, Bobby Jindal describes Louisiana's success through a series of metrics often used to measure economic and social opportunity. He includes that at the start of his tenure as governor, the state "was still reeling from Hurricane Katrina" and that New Orleans "was still trying to get back on its feet." While for several decades the state had suffered a population decline, he recounted that many of the displaced were not sure that they should or could return and rebuild. While his list of metrics, numbers, and rankings offers a variety of ways to measure growth, change, and opportunity, this portion of his speech began and ended with the question of whether American were move to or from Louisiana. It is also worth noting that the full speech begins with detailed anecdotes of his parents' immigration and early years in the US.

Part 2 of 2

In Part 1we looked at the distribution of domestic migration per county in recent years in terms of both the net gains and losses in population and the percent change of local population from year to year attributable to Americans relocating. We also raised a few of the effects and implications of internal migration within the country.

Domestic migration raises a tricky set of concerns for policymaking and leadership on the federal level, all of which require decidedly different approaches than they do at the state level. If where Americans move can indicate local economic success and a wealth of opportunity, then states and their governors effectively compete with one another for the American populace. As we saw in Part 1 of this entry, for every gain in one part of the country, there is a loss elsewhere. How these shifts are handled and managed federally is thus more of a balancing act than a competition. And, as the international immigration discussion has thus far shown, vying for arriving populations nationwide does not carry with it the same rhetorical implication of growth and success. Still, the distances Americans travel in their moves and the redistribution of the American households in search of new opportunity can be telling: whether these households and families relocate within their states' boundaries or move across state lines redefines and reconstitutes our regional economies, our congressional apportionments, and thus our politics at all levels. And so, we asked

How far are Americans moving? What percentage of local populations lived elsewhere one year ago, and did they move from within their state or beyond? 

Jindal Measures Success by Migration (Part 1)

"25 years in a row, more people had left Louisiana than came into Louisiana. The only state in the South to lose our sons and daughters. One of the worst public school systems in the entire country. [...] You heard, we cut our budget 26%. We've got over 30,000 fewer state government bureaucrats than the day I took office. Eight different credit upgrades. Smallest number of state employees; best credit ratings in decades. I don't think that's a coincidence. Top-ten state for private-sector job creation. Seven years in a row of more people moving into Louisiana rather than leaving the state."

On Thursday, June 35, 2015 on C-Span
Sources: C-Span, WMUR

The Context: Speaking at C-Span's "Politics and Eggs" breakfast event, Bobby Jindal describes Louisiana's success through a series of metrics often used to measure economic and social opportunity. He includes that at the start of his tenure as governor, the state "was still reeling from Hurricane Katrina" and that New Orleans "was still trying to get back on its feet." While for several decades the state had suffered a population decline, he recounted that many of the displaced were not sure that they should or could return and rebuild. While his list of metrics, numbers, and rankings offers a variety of ways to measure growth, change, and opportunity, this portion of his speech began and ended with the question of whether American were move to or from Louisiana. It is also worth noting that the full speech begins with detailed anecdotes of his parents' immigration and early years in the US.

Part 1 of 2

With much of the election discussion centered around international migration, the question of domestic migration has not yet received much attention despite all that this movement implies and indicates. Within the United States, Americans are moving—as they have done for the last generation—at higher rates than before in our history. And just as with international migration, these movements are usually described as decisions made in search of new opportunities, and as a result states and cities end up competing with one another in their attempts to attract businesses and workers. 

When certain states and cities experience incredible population growth resulting from domestic migration (as opposed to international immigration or natural birth rate increases), then of course this means that other states and cities are losing that important population. Just the same, when we talk about shrinking cities and local economies, we should be asking where these families and individuals are going. And so, we decided to ask just that in this two-part post. First, we should start with asking

How many Americans have been on the move recently? Which parts of the country have seen net increases and decreases in population due to domestic migration in the last few years?

This map (above) shows the total net population change because, in the end, the absolute numbers are important. They imply the total number of households to accommodate, new children enrolled in schools, greater (or fewer) jobs required and taxpayers contributing to the local economy, and larger (or smaller) loads placed on local infrastructures. But all counties are not equal nor have the same capacity, and thus the percent of population change from year to year is also relevant and should be considered in tandem. And so, we asked

Which parts of the country have seen the highest and lowest percentage shifts in population since 2010? And how consistent, from year to year, has that pattern been?

In Part 2, we'll look at how far Americans move in search of these opportunities and changes.


Trump on Politicians for Sale

“When they call, I give. [...] When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that's a broken system."

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at the Republican Debate in Cleveland, OH
Sources: Fox News,  Vox.com, Politico.com 

The Context: When asked about his prior practice of "supporting a host of other liberal policies" and donating to Democratic campaigns, Trump reflected on the "broken system" of campaign finance. He describes his campaign contributions as decisions that were less about politics and more about business—adding that as a New Yorker, currying political favor means donating to Democratic candidates. 

Last month, we mapped the federal campaign contributions to date within this election cycle following Jim Webb's remark that campaign funding tends to "drown out" or steer the debate. While Trump declined to offer political examples of the influence his funding garnered (he opted instead to cite the Clintons' attendance at his wedding as the returned favor), his comment implies a set of practices that confirm Webb's critique. 

We described then that if campaign finance influences the debate (and the decisions of elected officials), then the geography of contributions to campaigns for federal offices matters as the issues of most importance to large donors are not the same across the country. (In Trump's case, the debate moderator pointed out that, in addition to funding candidates in New York, he also donated to Nancy Pelosi in California.) We promised to periodically update our Political Contributions map, and so again we ask

Where have the political contributions come from thus far in the 2016 election cycle? And what sorts of committees (candidates, parties, or PACs) are receiving the lion's share?

Jeb Bush on Drug Arrests

“We didn’t lose sight of the ones who had missed their chance at a better life, or maybe even lost their way and landed in jail.  In Florida, we didn’t want to fill prisons with non-violent offenders. So we expanded drug courts and prevention programs. I took the view—as I would as president—that real justice in America has got to include restorative justice."

On Friday, July 31, 2015 in Fort Lauderdale, FL at the National Urban League Conference
Sources: C-Span, Jeb Bush Campaign Website with a transcript of his remarks, The Tampa Bay Times summarizes his speech 

The Context: Speaking before the National Urban League, Bush focused most of his remarks to issues seen as particularly urban in nature including anti-poverty programs, drug offenses and use, and opportunities for minorities—centering his remarks around policies implemented in Florida during his governorship. Many of them converge in this statement on rethinking how drug-related offenses are prosecuted and considered within the criminal justice system. 

In light of a growing national discussion on (urban) policing reform and criminal justice more generally, many candidates are staking their claim to different aspects of the question. Last month, we mapped the relative numbers of nonviolent versus violent offenses in response to a similar comment by Rand Paul. With Bush's comment on specifically drug-related arrests, we asked

What proportion of arrests are related to drug abuse? And, of those, what percentage involve arresting minors?

Perry Talks Poverty & Race (Part 2)

“We cannot dismiss the historical legacy of slavery, nor its role in causing the problem of black poverty."

On Thursday July 2, 2015 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC
Sources: C-SpanNational Press Club (PDF), Washington Examiner 

The Context: While he acknowledges significant barriers for some minorities in entering the mainstream economy, Rick Perry is optimistic that the prosperity of our country depends on our ability to lift minority groups out of poverty. He continues by saying, "And because slavery and segregation were sanctioned by government, there is a role for government policy in addressing their lasting effects."  He asks, "In a country with Hispanic CEOs, Asian billionaires and a black president. Why is it that so many black families feel left behind?” As the Black Lives Matter movement continues to gain traction and America’s widening income inequality conversation continues in the buildup to 2016, the candidates are establishing their positions. Perry presents the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and block grants which would allow individual states to create their own financial safety nets for impoverished families. 

Part 2 of 2

Yesterday's Part 1 included reviewing maps we've previously made for the Atlas on issues of both poverty and race. We also looked at overall patterns of poverty nationwide and asked about poverty rates for specific racial and ethnic identities beginning with African Americans. Read Part 1 here.

Part 1 concluded with asking 

What are the poverty levels for different racial and ethnic groups across the country? And how do those rates compare to the local average?

We answered first for African American populations across the country (also included below for reference). What follows are the same maps for Hispanic and Latino populations, Asian populations, Native American populations, and the White population. Yesterday's entry included a bit of unpacking—discussing some of the patterns we saw and how we read the first maps. We will leave Part 2 for your comparisons and considerations.