In re: “Why are people leaving Wisconsin? State ranked in top 10 for out-migration”.
Figure 0: Net domestic (state-to-state) immigration 2013-14 as a proportion of July 2013 population. A negative figure indicates net emigration. Source: BuCensus and author’s calculations.
Figure 1.1: Population growth, measured in log differences for MN (blue) and WI (red). Gray shaded area denotes NBER defined recession dates. Light green shaded area denotes Dayton and Walker administrations Source: BuCensus via FRED and author’s calculations.
Figure 1.2: Minnesota-Wisconsin population growth growth differentials. Higher values denote faster growth in Minnesota relative to Wisconsin. Gray shaded area denotes NBER defined recession dates. Light green shaded area denotes Dayton and Walker administrations Source: BuCensus via FRED and author’s calculations.
Mike Ivey writes:
MADISON — Blame the weather.
Blame the economy.
Blame Scott Walker.
No matter the reason, Wisconsin is among the top 10 states for people moving out, according to the annual survey from United Van Lines. Forbes reported the story recently and it has been widely circulated — although probably not by many chambers of commerce.
The moving company United Van Lines has been doing the survey for 36 years and analyzed some 125,000 residential moves in the continental U.S. last year. While not scientific, it does provide a nice snapshot of migration patterns, along with fodder for social media chatter.
While Madison, viewed dimly by some in Wisconsin, is ranked highly by the tech industry, the the state overall does not fare so well.
Unfortunately, the divisive political scene in Wisconsin is leaving some people with a sense that things are going in the wrong direction.
“My parents moved here in 1973 because of Wisconsin’s reputation for a great educational system and quality of life issues — lots of beautiful state parks and lakes, excellent highway system, great employment opportunities, valuing the contributions of the creative class,” says Gwen Rice, communications director with Forward Theater Company in Madison. “If given the choice, I’m not sure they would come to the Wisconsin of 2013.”
Not surprising, since Wisconsin employment is lagging the counterfactual implied by historical correlations, as documented in this post.
Figure 2: Wisconsin private nonfarm payroll employment, June release (blue), and out-of-sample forecast (red), in 000’s, s.a. 90% forecast interval (pink). Source: BLS and author’s calculations. See text.
I grew up in Superior, WI. As kids we used to go camping overnight – not out in the country – but in the city forest. We could camp for two or three days and never hear, much less see, a car. “The Superior Municipal Forest is comprised of 4,400 acres of forest and natural habitat, making it the third largest forest within a city in the nation. It is the best remaining example of a boreal forest (conifers and hardwood, including white and red pine, balsam, cedar, black spruce, white birch, and aspen) in the state of Wisconsin.”
As an adult I joined the Army, left the state, and eventually ended up spending 15 years in Indiana. We(my wife and I) always wanted to get closer to home and we were able to move to the Milwaukee area in 1999. Everyone that has visited us always remarks upon the number of city/county parks. To me, growing up in Superior, I never really gave it much thought. Until Scott Walker became County Executive.
These types of public spaces are always under attack by modern Republicans. If Walker would have had his way I’m sure all the county parks, golf courses, etc would have been sold off. I think the US state map that shows the Confederate states and the Union states and then shows the same states but instead of being delineated by the civil war they are delineated by those that expanded Medicare under the ACA and those that didn’t pretty much sums up Wisconsin. Scott Walker is turning Wisconsin into Mississippi. Traded places with Arkansas. We’ve become part of the Confederacy.
Growing up in a border city with Minnesota I have an innate dislike for anything related to Minnesota. So it’s sad to realize that Wisconsin’s role as one of the most progressive states in the country has been lost and that MN is now more progressive than Wisconsin. Not only is that fact galling, but I only see the gap widening in the future.
I live in Huntington Beach California (Surf City USA), right around the corner from Sunset Beach. It’s a heavily Republican area.
The Republicans are willing to pay extra for houses near open spaces and parks. So, there are many of them. They also pay extra to live in communities with good schools. They want and pay for a safe community. They work hard to pay and pay a lot in taxes.
The values of a community determines the state of the community.
Of course, a most liberal community can have the same values – open spaces and parks, good schools, safety, hard work, etc. – although there are big differences in other value judgments or how to achieve the same goals.
And, it’s not surprising a city forest can be replaced with housing tracts, business parks, shopping malls, etc., as the population grows and becomes more prosperous.
Why can’t progressives ever get their facts right?
On Sept 4, 2015, progressive, award winning, journalist Mike Ivey begins his hit piece with
“No matter the reason, Wisconsin is among the top 10 states for people moving out, according to the annual survey from United Van Lines. Forbes reported the story recently and it has been widely circulated — although probably not by many chambers of commerce.
The moving company United Van Lines has been doing the survey for 36 years and analyzed some 125,000 residential moves in the continental U.S. last year.”
Forbes reported this recently? The survey has been going on for 36 years? No, Mike. The survey has been going on for 38 years. When you were googling for something to attack Scott Walker with, you happened upon a story that was over 2 years old. And you didn’t bother to check the facts for yourself, so eager were you to attack Scott Walker.
The 36th annual study refers to the 2012 study in which Wisconsin was in the top 10. But a balanced and careful journalist would have checked more broadly over Walker’s tenure and would have seen that in the 2014 study and in the 2013 study, as well as in the 2011 study, Wisconsin was rated as balanced in terms of inflow and exodus. A careful and objective journalist would have looked a little further and noted that in the 2009 study, Wisconsin again made the top 10, but Scott Walker was not governor at the time.
Menzie continues his reign of error by spreading this nonsense that passes for journalism in Wisconsin.
wow Menzie???? Risk has to be making this up!! No way would you leave out those material facts.
I think the real conclusion here is that ILLINOIS IS SCREWED.
Prof. Chin,
Why did you leave out this paragraph in the article? Reporting bias?
“Wisconsin isn’t a newcomer to the list of states that people are fleeing. It has been in the top 20 for years and was as high as No. 8 in 2009 when 57 percent of moves tracked by United Van Lines were outbound.” Walker is responsible for this, too?
I usually skip your Walker bashing articles, but this one is really suspicious. I had to take a closer look.
Jay
Jay Chen: Thank you for your comment. Inspection of Census data indicates that 2010-2014 net emigration (domestic) for Wisconsin is 16th highest. In 2013-14, Wisconsin is 4th out of 12 states in the Census Midwest region for net emigration — a region that includes Kansas and Michigan and Illinois.
On substance, any comment critique regarding the comparison of actual vs. counterfactual Wisconsin employment?
Having be born and raised in Milwaukee and returned for visits over the past 5 decades, I can see the deterioration that has set in. It’s not as bad as Detroit, but it’s going in that direction. Having a son whose family is in San Francisco, I can see how the non-manufacturing base and highly-educated population has made a tremendous difference, not only to that city but the entire region around San Francisco.
The midwest clings to its manufacturing heritage while federal policies favor the importation of manufacture goods. What policies? Wage, unions, regulations of myriad kinds, taxation…. So the widget gets made in China or Vietnam or Korea and the midwest stagnates. Oh, don’t get me wrong and start shooting from the hip that I want slave labor and no safety or environmental management. What I’m saying is that our federal (and state) regulations only impact domestic manufacturing so it’s a shoot yourself in the foot and blame the Governor situation when it comes to Wisconsin’s non-agricultural/non-governmental jobs.
Wisconsin (or Illinois and to a lesser extent Michigan) does not have many of the logistical benefits that California enjoys from its import/export ports. Wisconsin’s educational system has always been rather parochial and satisfied with students achieving a high school education (which is now the 1960s equivalent of a grade school education for many students). The midwest larger cities are highly segregated with the majority of residents being poorer minorities; San Francisco and that region has cities where minorities have the same percentage of the population as the state in general… they are truly diverse whereas the midwest cities are not. But it’s the governor’s fault.
The governor may want to pull Wisconsin into the 21st century, but the 19th century anchor appears just too large.
Bruce, I think your analysis California vis Wisconsin is correct. That said, Menzie mostly is commenting on Walker’s failure to deliver on promises. Same with Brownback. Both states are anchored by history. California is almost a nation by its self and blessed almost forever with natural resources and human resources that Wisconsin and Kansas can only dream of.
@dilbert dogbert:
Let’s put aside Kansas for the moment, granting that that state is the epitome of mediocrity. Likewise, let’s consider Wisconsin not in isolation, but rather as part of the broader Great Lakes region. In terms of natural resources, how does the former stack up against California? It depends, I think, on what type of resources one values. Gold is certainly a lucrative commodity, but it won’t feed you or enable you to fashion the implements of industrial society. Other resources, I’d argue, are far more crucial to human development/survival. Without much controversy, I feel like I can list fresh water, food (cereals paramount), iron, coal, and oil among them. With the exception of the last, all are found in greater abundance ringing the Great Lakes than in California. With the advent of horizontal fracking, the same may be true of the latter as well. Now, in California’s favor, it does have more direct access to the ocean and one of the most productive produce-cultivating regions in the world (the Central Valley). However, Paris, Moscow, and most of the major German metropolises arose distant from seaside settings, and none were wanting for lack of almonds and oranges. The location of Great Britain was obviously instrumental in its development as a commercial/colonial power, but its ascent would’ve been impossible were it starved for coal, iron, or arable land.
So what to make of the rise of Japan — a resource-poor island nation — as well as the westward march of the US population? Both were made possible, I’d contend, by the relative abundance of critical resources in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. From ancient to modern times, the economic/political epicenter of the West shifted north from the Mediterranean to Central Europe owing to the latter’s superior natural endowment. Since the mid-20th century, the US has experienced what amounts to a reversal of this dynamic, with a multitude descending on North America’s version of Greece/Italy: California. The ensuing economic activity has enticed subsequent waves, but the root cause of the migration remains the scenery and weather. Which, admittedly, constitutes a resource of sorts — perhaps presently more sought after than fresh water and fertile land — but only when subsistence is no longer a concern. Yosemite and Joshua Tree are spectacular places, but they represent ruin/death to a would-be farmer/settler.
@Bruce Hall:
Isn’t that what it would take to produce basic goods at a rate competitive with Vietnam? Which developed country has successfully implemented your preferred strategy? And what accounts for Germany, a country with a quarter of the American population, generating exports valued at 95% of the US total? A minimally regulated market unburdened by organized labor and the welfare state doesn’t seem operative in this case. Is it implausible to think the US could adopt aspects of the German system — say, stringent healthcare regulations — and double its exports, resulting in a per capita rate half that of Germany? Why?
Wisconsin’s educational system may be parochial, but at least it’s moderately functional. California currently bests Mississippi for the percentage of its population without a high school diploma (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml), and its 8th grade reading and math scores are on par with Oklahoma’s, trailing perennial powerhouses Arkansas and Tennessee (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/statecomparisons/). Californee way, indeed. Likewise, 17.2% of the state’s population lacks health insurance (vs. 9.1% in WI), and California’s supplemental poverty rate (23.8% vs. 10.8% in WI) is the highest in the nation (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf).
That said, there’s no disputing that California is home to immense wealth and economic dynamism; unfortunately, it exists alongside pervasive poverty.
bruce, california has benefitted from decades of quality support of its institutions of higher education. the entire uc system, stanford, etc contributed to the performance of california. we are entering an era where that support will not be provided to uw and madison. you expect it to exceed california?
No, I expect that Wisconsin will remain a quaint backwater… sort of the Utah of the Midwest… where blue-collar approaches to life tend to limit the ability to compete nationally or internationally. This doesn’t mean that Wisconsin is a bad place to live or that the people are Luddites. But it means that it is less attractive for bright, young people wanting careers in today’s dynamic industries. Making paper towels or plumbing fixtures or being a forger are not high on the list of top students, nor are there high growth prospects.
It’s true that Wisconsin does a fairly good job of getting students through high school, but as I noted earlier, higher education is not a priority for Wisconsin residents. Wisconsin ranks 36th among the 50 states for students going directly to college. http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=63&year=2010&level=nation&mode=data&state=0
Percent of High School Graduates Going Directly to College (%)
Idaho 45.1
Alaska 46.4
Delaware 47.3
Oregon 47.8
Washington 48.3
Nevada 51.8
Utah 53.3
Vermont 53.5
Maine 56.2
Texas 56.2
Arizona 57.9
Illinois 58.7
West Virginia 59.2
Wisconsin 60.1
Oklahoma 60.2
Wyoming 60.4
Montana 60.5
Pennsylvania 60.9
Colorado 61.2
Missouri 61.4
Ohio 61.5
California 61.7
Michigan 61.9
Tennessee 62.1
Nation 62.5
Kentucky 62.9
Florida 63.1
Alabama 63.2
Hawaii 63.6
Virginia 63.8
Maryland 64.1
North Carolina 64.1
New Hampshire 64.3
Kansas 64.7
Louisiana 64.7
Arkansas 65.4
Rhode Island 65.4
Indiana 65.8
Iowa 66.6
North Dakota 67.4
Georgia 67.7
South Carolina 68.3
New Jersey 68.6
New York 68.9
Nebraska 69.5
Minnesota 70.9
South Dakota 71.8
New Mexico 72.4
Massachusetts 73.2
Connecticut 78.7
Mississippi 78.8
bruce, think of the problem this way. for several decades, wisconsin has operated one of the elite public institutions of higher education. and the economy has still struggled-but at least it was supported by this educational powerhouse. now we enter an era where the university of wisconsin is possibly in quite serious long term trouble, exacerbated by recent destructive policies by the current governor. if the university is allowed to decay, you would not expect the state economy to struggle even more? one of the reasons california thrives is because they have consistently embraced the value of higher education. an educated workforce is a valuable resource-you either make it yourself or you import it. california does both. wisconsin, and others states, struggle with this concept.
http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/#tab:rank_page:7
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/04/08/the-10-best-public-universities-in-the-u-s/#slideIdslide-0
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2015/02/12/2015-rankings-of-u-s-public-colleges.html
I guess it depends on who does the ranking. But I have to agree that UW is a vital resource to Wisconsin although I’m not sure how much it contributes to new industry and job growth for the state. In Michigan, UM has collaborative arrangements with the automotive industry for research which leads directly to new products and jobs. Michigan State University is heavily into agricultural research and a very good business school… and in many respects is more like UW than UM… a capitol city university with 50,000 students, but probably not as focused on the state’s economic development as UM.
Michigan universities have had to deal with reduced state funding, too, but have handled it pretty well. Like any other business, these universities have both budget restrictions and massive opportunities for revenues through collaborative efforts. You have to ask yourself, with these great public universities, why have Michigan and Wisconsin had population stagnation under both Republican and Democratic governors? Could it be that the states are doing the right things and the federal government is not? Could it be that manufacturing toilets is not a growth industry?
Certainly Walker overpromised as did Obama. That’s a politician’s bread and butter. But Wisconsin is like the 6 ft. center. He’ll never play in the pros. Sometimes you’re stuck with what you are.
bruce
“Could it be that the states are doing the right things and the federal government is not? Could it be that manufacturing toilets is not a growth industry?”
perhaps the states are not leveraging their institutions of higher education properly. poor state policy? california is an example. they invested as a state in both higher education and technology. the relationship blossomed over the decades. government policy which supports both education and new business ideas can be rather productive.
Baffling,
I think that both Wisconsin and Michigan have done a reasonable job leveraging their university resources, but the focus has been different from California which has the draw of a great climate and, of course, having a company like Xerox at Palo Alto many decades ago helped focus technology research on computers rather than automobiles (Michigan) and ??? (Wisconsin). Trying to pin the blame for a half-century of both Democratic Party and Republican Party leadership on current state governors is hardly appropriate (as you indicated it took decades for California to take advantage of its universities and climate) to draw Google et al). Why didn’t California get Microsoft or Amazon? Bad state policy? I think this thread of attributing state success to a major university(s) is stretching things a bit.
Much of what happens regarding states economies is a vast interplay of location, resources, serendipity, prior commerce, and (of course) four years of Scott Walker.
bruce, you miss the obvious point. a well funded state university system with coordinated state policy to integrate the university system with entrepreneurial businesses is no guarantee of future success. but if you do not support your higher education system, that is pretty much a guarantee of failure. that is the path down which walker appears to want to lead the state.
“having a company like Xerox at Palo Alto many decades ago helped focus technology research on computers rather than automobiles ”
you think xerox would have opened their palo alto facility without the likes of berkeley and stanford already providing leading research and researchers in the area? you fail to understand how leading research universities influence the growth of technology in a region. silicon valley exists due to the research universities in the area-it could not have been born and grown without them. you place too much emphasis on local climate. ever wonder why miami is not a technology center?
Baffling,
Au contraire, I get your point, but you seem to have a time compression issue in which you think that economic trajectory responds quickly to some minor funding changes to a university system. California used to offer free college in the glory days of oil and Hollywood. Can’t do that anymore, but it is still a lot cheaper than going to UW.
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1090
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1703
Oh, wait….
I’ll reiterate for you:
I think that both Wisconsin and Michigan have done a reasonable job leveraging their university resources, but the focus has been different from California which has the draw of a great climate and, of course, having a company like Xerox at Palo Alto many decades ago helped focus technology research on computers rather than automobiles (Michigan) and ??? (Wisconsin). Trying to pin the blame for a half-century of both Democratic Party and Republican Party leadership on current state governors is hardly appropriate (as you indicated it took decades for California to take advantage of its universities and climate) to draw Google et al). Why didn’t California get Microsoft or Amazon? Bad state policy? I think this thread of attributing state success to a major university(s) is stretching things a bit.
Much of what happens regarding states economies is a vast interplay of location, resources, serendipity, prior commerce, and (of course) four years of Scott Walker.
Oh, heck. It’s all about Scott Walker. Nothing else matters.
Bruce Hall: In re, your last comment. Well, one could examine the historical correlation between Wisconsin employment up to end-2010, and then use the historical correlations to build a counterfactual. If the actual deviates substantially from the counterfactual, one could then conclude that it is some effect exactly contemporaneous with beginning-2011, of which there are probably multiple events, but few that one would tag to macroeconomic policymaking at the state level — except of course the ascension of a new governor.
I wait for somebody to do this…oh, wait, someone did do it….
Baffling,
Two other points:
1) Stanford University is private and while in California is not funded by the state.
2) Stanford University celebrated its 50th anniversary this year for its computer science program. That means the program was 5-years old when Xerox set up its research facility and it was not because of Stanford’s program. It did, however, provide Stanford graduates great career opportunities.
“In 1969, Chief Scientist at Xerox Jack Goldman approached George Pake, a physicist specializing in nuclear magnetic resonance and provost of Washington University in St. Louis, about starting a second research center for the company.
Pake selected Palo Alto, California, as the site of what was to become known as PARC. While the 3,000 mile buffer between it and Xerox headquarters in Rochester, New York afforded scientists at the new lab great freedom to undertake their work, the distance also served as an impediment in persuading management of the promise of some of their greatest achievements.
PARC’s West Coast location proved to be advantageous in the mid-1970s, when the lab was able to hire many employees of the nearby SRI Augmentation Research Center as that facility’s funding from DARPA, NASA, and the U.S. Air Force began to diminish. Being situated on Stanford Research Park land leased from Stanford University[4] allowed Stanford graduate students to be involved in PARC research projects, and PARC scientists to collaborate with academic seminars and projects.
Much of PARC’s early success in the computer field was under the leadership of its Computer Science Laboratory manager Bob Taylor, who guided the lab as associate manager from 1970 to 1977 and as manager from 1977 to 1983.”
Menzie,
So you are of the opinion that reduced funding to UW is the cause of Wisconsin’s economic “malaise”? That’s a bit self-servicing, eh?
You still want that 6-foot center to turn pro? Wisconsin is a nice state, a comfortable state. It plods along with cows and Harleys and Kohler fixtures and lots of paper products. What has UW contributed to a new state focus for the 21st century? Besides football, I mean. Manufacturing employment continues to decay in the U.S. except for high technology stuff. Manufacturing touchless faucets doesn’t fall in that category. Specifically, what is UW contributing? Sure, graduates students, but what research is changing Wisconsin?
Okay, unemployment has plateaued at 4.6%. What do you want it to be and how would you get there? I’ve heard a lot of platitudes about UW being the engine of the economy. Spell it out. Please.
BTW, California has plateaued in the low 6s. Minnesota’s is beginning to rise.
bruce, support to higher education occurs in many other avenues other than tuition. walker is making a choice in his support of higher education, and it will not bode well for the long term success of the state. as i said, companies like the xerox lab exist because of the institutions of higher education, not the other way around. if you do not provide continuous support for those institutions over time, you cannot expect the next generation of technology companies to even consider your state. that is the position walker is taking with wisconsin. it is a shame.
bruce,
stanford was a very important part of the initial xerox labs. stanford may be a private university, but it also obtains funds from the state of california to conduct research relevant to the state. a private university still has access to state funds. and the stanford program may have been only 5 years old, but the creation of a program does not happen overnight. they would have been active in that research area for many years prior. it is not as though you had hundreds of computer science programs around the country, the field was in its infancy. this was one of the early programs. they collected the best people. in addition, berkeley was also in the area, and has been known to produce pretty good technology as well. the state of california has been a solid supporter of higher education for decades. silicon valley has been a beneficiary of this support, as has the entire state (and country and world). not providing continuous support is a quick way for a state to lose the valuable resource of knowledgable workers. wisconsin leadership appears interested in this path.
@Bruce Hall:
No one is expecting Wisconsin to match California’s performance post-1940, but mirroring Utah’s recent expansion would be cause for celebration:
Population growth (2010-14)
UT: 6.5%; WI: 1.2%; CA: 4.2%
Real GDP growth (2007-14 annual)
UT: 1.2%; WI: 0.7%; CA: 0.8%
Interesting data. WTF is going on with Washington, Oregon, and Mississippi?
That’s the nice thing about percentages. Small absolutes can be big percentages in backwaters.
California has outmigration too. Detroit is a wasteland. Socialism sucks. More Walker needed, not less.
Bring in some liberal who raises taxes and cedes more to civil servants and things will get worse. (Everything else the same…as there are like a gazillion confounding factors….which of course makes these before/after Walker posts flawed anyways.)
Nony: California net domestic immigration rate is -0.00084, vs. -0.00173 for Wisconsin (2013 to 2014). In addition net total immigration is positive for California; it is negative for Wisconsin.
So if we just had someone who was as far to the left of Brown as Brown is to Walker, then Cali would be down to no outmigration. 🙂
‘The moving company United Van Lines has been doing the survey for 36 years and analyzed some 125,000 residential moves in the continental U.S. last year. While **not scientific**….’
My **, of course. And, guess what an actual scientific survey of the phenomenon thinks Wisconsin (and Great Lakes states generally) do pretty well.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/005038-the-comeback-of-the-great-lakes-states
‘For generations the Great Lakes has been hemorrhaging people to the rest of the country, mainly the South and West. But that outflow has recently slowed, and in some cases reversed. According to demographer Wendell Cox, the rate of outmigration from Cleveland and Detroit has been cut by half or more while some metro areas, including Indianapolis and Columbus, Ohio, are firmly in positive territory. In contrast, Los Angeles, New York and even the Silicon Valley hub of San Jose continue to lose people to other regions.’
Menzie will want to hide his eyes from this paragraph;
‘Ultimately the durability of the Great Lakes recovery depends on building off its natural strengths in engineering, its central location along water routes, ample natural resources and low living costs. Pro-business policies have enhanced these advantages and made several Midwestern governors into serious national political figures, namely Snyder in Michigan, Walker in Wisconsin, and Ohio’s Kasich.’
And if all those pensioned Wisconsin public sector employees weren’t heading for Florida, Wisconsin would look even better.
Patrick R. Sullivan: You never answered my question about why you come here, since you have no faith in my conclusions. Hence, I must conclude you come here to spread dis-information.
The paragraph you quote is what I call a data-free assertion. In fact, if we look to ALEC-Laffer rankings of pro-business economic environments, we know there is no statistically significant evidence supporting the paragraph’s assertions. Of course, you also cite the grossly deficient Pacific Research Institute’s analysis of energy regulation and growth, so kudos for consistency!
Let’s return to data assessment, which you seem to be profoundly unable to do competently. I am still waiting to hear you admit you were in error regarding depth of the downturn in Canada vs. US during the Great Depression. As you recall, you stated unequivocally:
And this statement is wrong.
Not surprising. Policies that cut funding for transportation, education, care for the disabled, and the top research-generating institution in the state does at some point make a place less desirable to live. These important job generating and quality of life areas are being cut while $250 million in public funding is being provided for a questionable new sports arena. This “investment” may cost the state upwards of $400 million in a state with a projected $2.2 billion deficit. These are not the actions of a fiscal conservative.
Patrick,
In the lnk you provide the only mention I see of Wisconsin is about Madison as a high tech center. I see no mention of Walker. Needless to say, Madison is exactly the part of the state that is most resisting the Walker approach, with it being well known that he hates the place. Hey, can hardly wait to cut that university budget to fund a basketball stadium in failing Milwaukee, although every study ever done has shown that investing in higher ed is good for growth while investing in sports stadiums is a total loser. Walker is a total loser and major drag on the state economy.
I have just seen that the Wis legislature is about to ban stem cell research in the state, something Walker will surely sign and trumpet all over Iowa in his failing presidential campaign designed to destroy the state of Wisconsin. This will severely impact research at the UW, but, heck, it is only that awful liberal city of Madison that will be affected. All the more to turn into a depressed loser economy like the rest of the state and drive those libs away so the neo-McCarthyites can cement their hold on the state politically, except that polls seem to suggest this game is up, although unfortunately it has a bit mroe to run, all to further wreck the state economy.