{"id":23792,"date":"2020-10-23T16:25:49","date_gmt":"2020-10-23T20:25:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=23792"},"modified":"2020-10-23T16:25:50","modified_gmt":"2020-10-23T20:25:50","slug":"manhattan-institute-population-growth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/10\/23\/manhattan-institute-population-growth\/","title":{"rendered":"Manhattan Institute Confuses Cause and Effect When it Comes to Population Growth"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Manhattan Institute\u2019s<\/a> City Journal is normally one of the best sources for analysis of important contemporary issues. But a long-time blind spot for the Manhattan Institute has been on issues like population growth and immigration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A prime example of this tunnel vision is Brian Chen\u2019s October 21 article<\/a> about how many U.S. cities, and even states, have been burned so badly by the COVID-induced economic downturn. Chen observes, correctly, that an economic downturn was inevitable \u2013 if not brought on by the COVID pandemic, then by something else \u2013 but cities and states that now find themselves in fiscal crisis have acted as though the sun would shine forever.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the pillars of\nfiscally troubled jurisdictions\u2019 pollyannnaish forecasting is that perpetual\npopulation growth would bail them out of whatever long-term financial\ncommitments they made to satisfy the short-term demands of some special\ninterest or another. Other faulty assumptions included a belief that the stock\nmarket would rise forever, and that people would be willing to pay whatever it\ncosts to enjoy the excitement of Manhattan or the Los Angeles sunshine, driving\nup property values, rents and tax revenues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPopulation growth is a\nremedy for budget troubles,\u201d Chen asserts, semi-accurately. More broadly, Chen\nseems troubled by the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has scaled back\nits 2040 U.S. population projection to 366 million \u2013 22 million fewer than it\nforecast four years earlier. The underlying assumption is that population\ngrowth, rather than the skills and productivity of the population, are the\ndeterminant of prosperity and fiscal solvency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the people growing\nyour population are high-earning, taxpaying folks, then the jurisdictions where\nthey live will have more money to spend. If your population growth is being\ndriven by an influx of low wage earners who are dependent on a lot of public\nservices and benefit, then population growth merely blows bigger holes in\nbudgets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

COVID-19 has exposed the\nobvious flaws in all of the assumptions many state and local governments made.\nIn fact, places like New York and California were not just losing population\neven before COVID, but losing their middle class tax bases. These are people who\nfinally decided that the negatives \u2013 high costs of living, burdensome taxes,\npoor public services \u2013 outweighed the benefits that these places offered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, Chen makes that\nexact point. \u201cWith unfunded pension liabilities looming, a decline in revenue\nwas bound to push states and municipalities over the edge at some point,\u201d he\ncites as one example of why these places are in trouble. Population decline in\nthese places is not a cause of them being on the brink, but rather a symptom\ntheir reckless policy decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nor is mass immigration the answer. Continued large-scale immigration (the primary driver of population growth in the United States) of people who are heavily dependent on government assistance<\/a> will not undo fiscal messes created by enormous unfunded pension liabilities and other irresponsible policy decisions. Moreover, recent trends have shown that immigrants are avoiding these poorly managed places<\/a>, especially those who are likely to be net tax contributors, just like the native-born are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A better immigration\nsystem, as opposed to a bigger one that just creates greater population growth,\nis part of the formula for generating government revenues that would help fill\nsome of the yawning deficits faced by government at all levels. Fewer\nimmigrants, but ones who are selected based on their likelihood to succeed and\ncontribute, would be a step in the right direction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even a complete overhaul\nof our immigration policies (and ending the self-inflicted additional fiscal\nand social harm caused by sanctuary policies) will not offset the damage caused\nby decades of bad fiscal policies and unrealistic promises to government\nretirees and other poor spending decisions that were predicated on ridiculously\noptimistic revenue assumptions. These fiscal projections closely mirror\nunsubstantiated claims that the ill-prepared immigrants we admit today will\neventually become net contributors at some point in the future and that it will\nall work out well in the end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Massive immigration-induced\npopulation growth is no substitute for good old fashioned fiscal discipline. It\nwill likely only compound the problem.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Manhattan Institute\u2019s City Journal is normally one of the best sources for analysis of important contemporary issues. But a long-time blind spot for the Manhattan Institute has been on issues like population growth and immigration. A prime example of this tunnel vision is Brian Chen\u2019s October 21 article about how many U.S. cities, and<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":23793,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[548,10],"tags":[169,10262,580],"yst_prominent_words":[10261,3005,10255,3084,2846,1983,7083,1963,10260,10257,1994,10259,6021,10258,1955,8256,1945,3191,10256,10254],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23792"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23792"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23792\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23794,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23792\/revisions\/23794"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23793"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23792"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=23792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}