Why is IL losing people? (Chicago, Vermont: school, contractor, college)

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by Avondalist

You're overstating IL's prosperity.

This is a good article that ranks the states according to PCPI, which takes regional costs into account.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ersonal_income

The national PCPI is $56,490 according to the BEA. Illinois's is $60,527. Better than average, but not by much.

That same ranking puts IL at #11 of all U.S. states (GDP per capita it's #10), and #2 of the top-10 most populated states (GDP per capita it's #3 of the top-10 most populated states)...so it's saying basically the same thing

[Cool Arrow]

Originally Posted by Grlzrl

Not true. We actually have fewer storms now than in the past.

Well well well. You were saying??

"That amount of rain in a 24-hour period was a “1-in-1,000 year event”, Ana Torres-Vazquez of the National Weather Service’s Miami office told CNN."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...eather-florida

[dustin183]

Originally Posted by Kmanshouse

IL is still in bad shape, but its credit rating has improved and so has its finances. Surprisingly, JB Pritzker has actually done a good job in this case. But the hole was so enormous that crawling 20% of the way out of it still means you have a long climb up.

Homeless issue isn't as bad in Chicago for two reasons. 1) cold winters, 2) it's cheaper than the west coast

A separate topic, but when income disparity gets more and more divergent, you are going to have more homeless. It's is seriously way harder for people to afford places to live. Especially with the ridiculous West Coast prices.

Other than Chicagoland, it's hard to fathom what is attractive about IL, though. Why live in a medium sized town in central IL when you can move to an equivalent place in Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. and have it be more affordable?

So without a growing population how will IL be able to fund its pension obligations? It seems that a default is imminent or am I wrong?

[Avondalist]

Originally Posted by dustin183

So without a growing population how will IL be able to fund its pension obligations? It seems that a default is imminent or am I wrong?

Some have been calling for an imminent default for years. They were wrong, but like Cassandra will be proven right in the end. No one knows how long Illinois can continue like this. We'll have a better idea when the next recession rolls around and blows out all the pension fund predictions.

[dustin183]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

Very true. Plus, if you have a high-paying and secure job at a place like State Farm, UIUC, some of numerous healthcare institutions, or even the state government, there's no guarantee you'll just "get" one of those equivalent jobs elsewhere. I'm sure the situation for farmers isn't as simple as "well I'll sell my land and move to Missouri and be a farmer there because it's cheaper." There are so many more nuances that are factored into moving than just "well the taxes are lower." Plus, even though it doesn't fit the narrative, IL is just an economic juggernaut compared to its neighbors. At now over $1T in GDP, its GDP per capita (for what it's worth) is one of the highest in the U.S.; only MN comes close, and all of the neighboring states of IL are significantly lower.

Interesting, I didn't know the state has such a high GDP and GDP per capita. So even though it has the worst credit rating it will still probably be some time before it has to default, as long as it can keep growing it's GDP. I guess that's kinda like the USA on a bigger picture. Massive and growing debt but the Fed justifies it as it looks at the debt relative to GDP (to guage default risk). But the thing is that states cannot print their own money. Will be interesting to see what happens.

[Hiruko]

A higher per capita GDP does not necessarily indicate economic vitality. In a developed market, it can also point to a declining birth rate, less population growth, and income and wealth inequality, among other things.

[dustin183]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

That same ranking puts IL at #11 of all U.S. states (GDP per capita it's #10), and #2 of the top-10 most populated states (GDP per capita it's #3 of the top-10 most populated states)...so it's saying basically the same thing

There are a lot of ways to slice and dice the data.

That list has PCPI of USA of $56,490, while IL has PCPI of $58,764. Not much difference.

Nebraska has PCPI of $54,515.

But then there is "PCPI after adjustments of purchasing power of dollar"
USA $56,490
IL jumps to $60,527
But NE jumps even higher to $61,057. So if you are looking at this metric then NE is richer than IL?

If you take a wider view, it seems, on a per capita basis, the blue states have high GDP per capita while the red states are low. YET the blue states are losing population while the red states are gaining (on avg. with NY and CA being the big blues losing and TX and FL being the big reds gaining). Perhaps one thing this indicates that those who can afford to stay in blue states tend to, but those looking for a more affordable place move to red states.

Per this https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...ing-population

the top 10 states losing population are
NY, IL, HI, CA, LA, MA, WV, MS, PA, MI.
7 blue states and 3 red states. (though you could say PA and MI are swing states)

The top 10 states gaining population are
ID, UT, MT, AZ, SC, DE, TX, FL, NV, ND
9 red states, 1 blue state. (you could say NV is a swing state)

In summary, blue states are richer per capita, but they are losing population. Red states are poorer but are gaining population. The overall trend is favoring the red states and I suspect their GDP per capita will follow as the big tech companies (high salaries) diversify to red states (eg moving from bay area to Austin eg Oracle, HP, Tesla; Intel opening big plant in Ohio). But the blue states will still be richer because they have a lot of old wealth which drives esp the north east states like MA, CT, NY. (finance sector)

[Hiruko]

There is no universal agreement on what constitutes a 'red state' vs a 'blue state.' Likewise, so-called 'red states' and 'blue states' can have many differences between each other. California and Vermont are generally considered blue states. Texas and South Dakota are generally considered red states. Please explain to me how Texas and South Dakota are more similar to one another economically and demographically than Texas and California! Same for California and Vermont vs California and Texas? Many so-called red states are quite well-to-do: Alaska and Utah, for example. By contrast, there are blue states that are less well-off too: New Mexico and Maine.

The relationship between per capita income and per capita GDP and partisan voting behavior is unsubstantiated. Household income was previously the best predictor of partisan voting behavior. However, that has decreased over time as wedge issues have increased in prominence and as the Washington Consensus generally reflected the preferences of economic elites who previously relied more on the Republican Party for advancing its interests. Educational attainment is now thought to be among the very best predictors of voter behavior. Democratic voters tend to be from the highly educated or the economically and educationally disadvantaged. Most polls show that Republicans have a slight upper hand with those with at least some college and with white non-college voters. Other factors like the decline of marriage have shifted voting patterns among female voters as well. Areas with more unmarried women are far more likely to favor Democratic candidates. The growing gap between homeowners and non-homeowners has also made areas where housing is more expensive (denser areas) more likely to favor Democratic candidates. Homeowners and non-homeowners are often unaligned politically with renters more likely to favor Democrats.

[dustin183]

Originally Posted by Hiruko

There is no universal agreement on what constitutes a 'red state' vs a 'blue state.' Likewise, so-called 'red states' and 'blue states' can have many differences between each other. California and Vermont are generally considered blue states. Texas and South Dakota are generally considered red states. Please explain to me how Texas and South Dakota are more similar to one another economically and demographically than Texas and California! Same for California and Vermont vs California and Texas? Many so-called red states are quite well-to-do: Alaska and Utah, for example. By contrast, there are blue states that are less well-off too: New Mexico and Maine.

The relationship between per capita income and per capita GDP and partisan voting behavior is unsubstantiated. Household income was previously the best predictor of partisan voting behavior. However, that has decreased over time as wedge issues have increased in prominence and as the Washington Consensus generally reflected the preferences of economic elites who previously relied more on the Republican Party for advancing its interests. Educational attainment is now thought to be among the very best predictors of voter behavior. Democratic voters tend to be from the highly educated or the economically and educationally disadvantaged. Most polls show that Republicans have a slight upper hand with those with at least some college and with white non-college voters. Other factors like the decline of marriage have shifted voting patterns among female voters as well. Areas with more unmarried women are far more likely to favor Democratic candidates. The growing gap between homeowners and non-homeowners has also made areas where housing is more expensive (denser areas) more likely to favor Democratic candidates. Homeowners and non-homeowners are often unaligned politically with renters more likely to favor Democrats.

lol CA and Vermont are not "generally" blue states. they are STAUNCHLY blue states. where have you been?

vice versa with Texas and SD. Staunchly Republican, not generally.

I'm not sure what your point is. I am not promoting one party over the other. I was just looking at the data of GDP and migration and pointing out the trends. You seem to have been offended by these facts.

I'm independent, which allows me to not get drawn into the emotional weeds of either party. Allows me to take a broad and objective view of everything. It's quite liberating intellectually, I think being independent is best to get the most unskewed view.

[wjj]

Originally Posted by ChiGuy2.5

It is well known that today's hurricanes are more expensive and cost more lives than in the past. I never said we have more of them. I'm saying they are becoming more devastating to property and lives than in past years. It's why insurers are all leaving FL.

That is a bit misleading. The reason hurricanes are more expensive and cost more now is that there is so much more development right on the coasts. Hurricane intensity on average has not changed in the last 150 years however, hurricanes are more devastating when they do hit because more and more people put themselves in harm's way by building expensive properties on or near the coast. The explosion of building on the coasts of FL in the last 30 years is remarkable - but a bit dangerous too.


Insurers have been leaving FL for decades and new ones appear. The main reason is a legal system that encouraged outsized lawsuits to be filed against insurers and aggressive use of AOBs by contractors. The legislature started to address those issues last year and is continuing to close loopholes. Hopefully the insurance environment will improve in the next few years.