It's an interesting observation, that New York and Massachusetts both had significant population losses of young adults in the past twenty years. With the lost of adults in their mid-20s, these states also lost their children (their employment and their taxes). We mostly connect adults under 35 with support of gay marriage, but the migration of these same young adults from New York and Massachusetts are the precursors to the change of public policy.
New York's Aging Population a Concern for Public ResourcesEmpire State Exodus The Mass Migration of New Yorkers to Other StatesCompounding the problem is the exodus of young people who have been leaving the state for economic opportunities elsewhere, draining New York of educated entry-level workers.
The report also noted an "out-migration" trend of early retirees and "young-elderly" residents who are 55 to 74. They typically are healthy and financially stable couples who move primarily to southern and western states. Their departure represents a loss of disposable income, skilled and experienced community volunteers, and caregivers.
1 million taxpayers and their dependents moved from New York to other states between 2000 and 2007. Florida was the most common destination, favored by over 30 percent of New York migrants, followed by New Jersey, Pennsylvania and North Carolina in that order.So what does that mean? Is it even relevant? My amateur theory? Gay marriage didn't cause the out migration, it's only a result. How did New York and Massachusetts obtain this result?
My belief is that as families left, it created a vacuum for special interests. More on the special interest later. Those left who wanted to defend marriage, simply didn't have a chance in lobbying our elected officials as did the constituents did in Maryland.
What affect will this policy change on New York? It will probably maintain the status quo without the ability to address the out migration of young educated and skilled adults and their children.
Massachusetts and New York accepted gay marriage, not because of their strengths, but because of their weaknesses.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment