Politics

[Downinthebend]

Chicago what is your opinion on tariffs?

 

[chicago51]

Chicago what is your opinion on tariffs?

Many would say tariffs are a thing of the past that globalization is the way things.

I am for mechantilism and doing things in house unless we just don't have the resources. So I am for bigger tariffs.

We technically still have tariffs but they are like 2 percent. Before Richard Nixon we had tariffs that were very large.

Basically say something cost $1 to make in the US but 50 cents in Mexico and 30 cents in Taiwan. You may have a tariff at the border that essentially brings the cost up of the imports so they cost $1.

Before Nixon companies figured how produce overseas we can just make it here it will cost the same and then we have to go through all the shipping logistics.

Now we sign all these free trades but countries the stick it to us with a value added tax or VAT. It functions like sales tax but basically through each stage production a small tax is added. It ends up functioning like a tariff.

We have a billion dollar a day trade deficit so we import more than we export. If you do double entry book keeping with public date being private savings then with kind of trade deficit we need a 350 billionair deficit for a public and private sector to balance out. So basically even if we ever have a balance budget it be starving the economy 350 billion dollars.

 

[DSully1995]

Many would say tariffs are a thing of the past that globalization is the way things.

I am for mechantilism and doing things in house unless we just don't have the resources. So I am for bigger tariffs.

We technically still have tariffs but they are like 2 percent. Before Richard Nixon we had tariffs that were very large.

Basically say something cost $1 to make in the US but 50 cents in Mexico and 30 cents in Taiwan. You may have a tariff at the border that essentially brings the cost up of the imports so they cost $1.

Before Nixon companies figured how produce overseas we can just make it here it will cost the same and then we have to go through all the shipping logistics.

Now we sign all these free trades but countries the stick it to us with a value added tax or VAT. It functions like sales tax but basically through each stage production a small tax is added. It ends up functioning like a tariff.

We have a billion dollar a day trade deficit so we import more than we export. If you do double entry book keeping with public date being private savings then with kind of trade deficit we need a 350 billionair deficit for a public and private sector to balance out. So basically even if we ever have a balance budget it be starving the economy 350 billion dollars.

I cant agree that tariffs would help, what if your buying is a screw, if china produces it for 50 cents instead of a hundred, the machine just gets that much cheaper, making what it sells cheaper, increasing demand, it helps overall,when you look big picture.

 

[chicago51]

I cant agree that tariffs would help, what if your buying is a screw, if china produces it for 50 cents instead of a hundred, the machine just gets that much cheaper, making what it sells cheaper, increasing demand, it helps overall,when you look big picture.

Yea if tariffs don't work does every country including Canada VAT tax which functions like a tariff.

There was formula in the United States that sustained greatest period of middle class growth from world war II until President Reagan.

We had high tax for income making over 3 to 4 million in today's dollars.

We had import tariffs.

We had a great deal of investment of American infastructure.

The American median income grew by 75 percent between the end of ww2 and the 1980 it has grown just 1 percent since 1980

 

[DSully1995]

Yea if tariffs don't work does every country including Canada VAT tax which functions like a tariff.

There was formula in the United States that sustained greatest period of middle class growth from world war II until President Reagan.

We had high tax for income making over 3 to 4 million in today's dollars.

We had import tariffs.

We had a great deal of investment of American infastructure.

The American median income grew by 75 percent between the end of ww2 and the 1980 it has grown just 1 percent since 1980

You have correlation on your side, but causation, i dont know.

 

[ND NYC]

Caterpillar was poised to sell BILLIONS of $$ in equipment into China about 15 yrs ago...China slapped a 40 %tax/levy/tarriff on the importation of these machines...so Caterpillar builds a plant in China to avoid this.

whats worse is they are selling the machines built in that Chinese plant back into the USA now.

there is no such thing as "free trade", not even fair trade, not with China, and not with anyone.

 

[DSully1995]

Caterpillar was poised to sell BILLIONS of $$ in equipment into China about 15 yrs ago...China slapped a 40 %tax/levy/tarriff on the importation of these machines...so Caterpillar builds a plant in China to avoid this.

whats worse is they are selling the machines built in that Chinese plant back into the USA now.

there is no such thing as "free trade", not even fair trade, not with China, and not with anyone.

Maybe, but does that make it not worth it? Has your life not gottten better since trade with china expanded?

 

[chicago51]

You have correlation on your side, but causation, i dont know.

Causation is a fair point. Things are not often as simple as the seem. The fact is the problems today are probably not as simple as reverting back to John F Kennedy policies is going to simply fix everything.

Let me ask you something. Years back my great grandmother who is pushing 100 was buying her prescription drugs in Canada. For some reason we could buy the exact same drug for a fraction of the cost. Does Canada set the drug prices and control the cost?

 

[DSully1995]

Causation is a fair point. Things are not often as simple as the seem. The fact is the problems today are probably not as simple as reverting back to John F Kennedy policies is going to simply fix everything.

Let me ask you something. Years back my great grandmother who is pushing 100 was buying her prescription drugs in Canada. For some reason we could buy the exact same drug for a fraction of the cost. Does Canada set the drug prices and control the cost?

Our government heavily subsidizes prescription drug cost through our medical care system, its only for Canadian citizens (dual citizen folk exploit this) but maybe back in the day there was less regulation. But yes a percentage is paid by the government on certain drugs deemed crucial to patients or price fixing.

Another one is that since we have single purchaser insurance, the government can bargain alot on drug costs, giving a take it or leave it deal
Another possibility is that the candian patent had already run out, allowing competition.

 

[chicago51]

Caterpillar was poised to sell BILLIONS of $$ in equipment into China about 15 yrs ago...China slapped a 40 %tax/levy/tarriff on the importation of these machines...so Caterpillar builds a plant in China to avoid this.

whats worse is they are selling the machines built in that Chinese plant back into the USA now.

there is no such thing as "free trade", not even fair trade, not with China, and not with anyone.

Yes other countries are not playing fair hence my argument that we need to play rough as well. Our manufacturing here is still really productive and is capable of much much more if the demand is there. We can do a lot more in house.

It used to be you want to sell here you build here. Now we our the only suckers that get burned while other countries tax the heck out our staff.

The sad thing I have not heard one politician mention tariff or VAT. There is talk reforming the tax code to build things here but nothing to the extent of VAT or high tariff would.

 

[Downinthebend]

Why aren't we allowed to buy perscripition (excuse my bad spelling) drugs from other countries?

 

[chicago51]

Why aren't we allowed to buy perscripition (excuse my bad spelling) drugs from other countries?

Its a good question. Like I said we found a back door way to get them for my great grandmother but that loophole eventually closed.

Crazy but true story: My dad a heavy smoker used to be able to buy American cigarettes in Romania for about half the price. Yes these were American cigarettes with North Carolina tobacco that was shipped across the ocean then shipped back to the United States and then to our house and yet the cost was less going to store down the block. In my 6.5 years of college that have had so far I still can not figure this one out.

 

[Downinthebend]

Its a good question. Like I said we found a back door way to get them for my great grandmother but that loophole eventually closed.

Crazy but true story: My dad a heavy smoker used to be able to buy American cigarettes in Romania for about half the price. Yes these were American cigarettes with North Carolina tobacco that was shipped across the ocean then shipped back to the United States and then to our house and yet the cost was less going to store down the block. In my 6.5 years of college that have had so far I still can not figure this one out.

Its a federal law that we can't buy across country lines. Heres some food for thought: Cover Story: Why Do Prescription Drugs Cost So Much?


In my opinion, the best way to reduce heath costs (and thus make it more available to more people) would be to get the government out of the way of that market. Another example is why can't we buy insurance across state or country lines? Hint, its a law. I don't really think that the government messing up a market gives the government cause and justification to have more control of that market.

But what I really want to talk about is the draft agency-- selective services, or whatever the political nerf'd term is.

 

[DSully1995]

Why aren't we allowed to buy perscripition (excuse my bad spelling) drugs from other countries?

Because the gov needs to protect you from yourself, you may purchase drugs that arent approved by the FDA thus unsafe.

Only half as crazy as not being able to buy raw milk.

 

[Downinthebend]

Because the gov needs to protect you from yourself, you may purchase drugs that arent approved by the FDA thus unsafe.

Only half as crazy as not being able to buy raw milk.

Oh, the same drugs from Canada aren't safe? I find that hard to believe. And, wouldn't people only buy drugs that are good, or are made by reputable companies (just like they do now?) I doubt that without the FDA we'd all overdose in a day. Furthermore, clearly all the people in Canada are overdosing from their drugs because they don't have the FDA to protect them from themselves.. right?

 

[DSully1995]

Oh, the same drugs from Canada aren't safe? I find that hard to believe. And, wouldn't people only buy drugs that are good, or are made by reputable companies (just like they do now?) I doubt that without the FDA we'd all overdose in a day. Furthermore, clearly all the people in Canada are overdosing from their drugs because they don't have the FDA to protect them from themselves.. right?

I was mostly being satirical man, the drug companies just wanna gouge americans

 

[chicago51]

The private market on perscription drugs in America is basically capitalism unchecked.

When company gets a patent they essentially have a monopoly like say Standard Oil did in the late 1800s for I believe 7 years. Plus the demand is inelastic ie not price dependent as people that need the drug to live will pay a high amount for it.

I am conflicted because I feel we need to award companies for their research. I think it is interesting though how government can help fund research and then via Medicare Part D end up paying a heavy amount of deficit money for it. We do need incentive research to help our nation's population but it would be nice to do it a bit more cost effectively.

 

[DSully1995]

The private market on perscription drugs in America is basically capitalism unchecked.

When company gets a patent they essentially have a monopoly like say Standard Oil did in the late 1800s for I believe 7 years. Plus the demand is inelastic ie not price dependent as people that need the drug to live will pay a high amount for it.

I am conflicted because I feel we need to award companies for their research. I think it is interesting though how government can help fund research and then via Medicare Part D end up paying a heavy amount of deficit money for it. We do need incentive research to help our nation's population but it would be nice to do it a bit more cost effectively.

A bad situation, with only worse alternatives really

 

[Buster Bluth]

The private market on perscription drugs in America is basically capitalism unchecked.

"Capitalism unchecked," as in a bad way of saying laissez-faire? There are thousands upon thousands of pages of regulations in the prescription drug market and health care in general. Didn't the last bill look something like this :

It has been checked ad nauseum. That's what you get when you concentrate power and let government control markets. But noooo, it's capitalism. Uh huh.

When company gets a patent they essentially have a monopoly like say Standard Oil did in the late 1800s for I believe 7 years. Plus the demand is inelastic ie not price dependent as people that need the drug to live will pay a high amount for it.

I'm going to guess that the laws aren't similar to what they were in the 1890s.

I am conflicted because I feel we need to award companies for their research. I think it is interesting though how government can help fund research and then via Medicare Part D end up paying a heavy amount of deficit money for it. We do need incentive research to help our nation's population but it would be nice to do it a bit more cost effectively.

The prescription drug market is so complicated that it could not be hashed out on an internet forum, and certainly not by a bunch of guys who don't have a clue what they're talking about (all of us).

However it's important to recognize that while the pill over the counter costs $.03 to make, the first one took $900,000,000 to make.

Why don't we get our omniscient government to make some policies that reduce the price of fresh vegetables and promote exercise (i.e. walkability) so we don't need to take a dozen pills a day to keep our unhealthy asses alive so often?

 

[Downinthebend]

The private market on perscription drugs in America is basically capitalism unchecked.

When company gets a patent they essentially have a monopoly like say Standard Oil did in the late 1800s for I believe 7 years. Plus the demand is inelastic ie not price dependent as people that need the drug to live will pay a high amount for it.

I am conflicted because I feel we need to award companies for their research. I think it is interesting though how government can help fund research and then via Medicare Part D end up paying a heavy amount of deficit money for it. We do need incentive research to help our nation's population but it would be nice to do it a bit more cost effectively.

I think you are missing the point that it is the government that is allowing them use patents like that and that it is the government that is restricting the market from competing in order to save everyone costs (and get a better product too). Do you know how much cheaper perscripition drugs are in other countries? That is (virtually) solely the fault of the government.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think you are missing the point that it is the government that is allowing them use patents like that and that it is the government that is restricting the market from competing in order to save everyone costs (and get a better product too). Do you know how much cheaper perscripition drugs are in other countries? That is (virtually) solely the fault of the government.

It's Reagan's fault. Trust me on this one...

 

[chicago51]

"Capitalism unchecked," as in a bad way of saying laissez-faire? There are thousands upon thousands of pages of regulations in the prescription drug market and health care in general. Didn't the last bill look something like this :

It has been checked ad nauseum. That's what you get when you concentrate power and let government control markets. But noooo, it's capitalism. Uh huh.



I'm going to guess that the laws aren't similar to what they were in the 1890s.



The prescription drug market is so complicated that it could not be hashed out on an internet forum, and certainly not by a bunch of guys who don't have a clue what they're talking about (all of us).

However it's important to recognize that while the pill over the counter costs $.03 to make, the first one took $900,000,000 to make.

Why don't we get our omniscient government to make some policies that reduce the price of fresh vegetables and promote exercise (i.e. walkability) so we don't need to take a dozen pills a day to keep our unhealthy asses alive so often?

Fair point Buster.

I am going into the medical field but I am not going even pretend to know what I am talking about when it comes to drug regulations. Basically as physical therapists we make sure the nurse gave the patient his or her pain pills how it gets there is none of our business.

I had class that devoted a unit that dealt with FDA safety requirements and needing X amount of trials pre humans X amount of human trials. Small samples first then large samples. I hated that class.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Caterpillar was poised to sell BILLIONS of $$ in equipment into China about 15 yrs ago...China slapped a 40 %tax/levy/tarriff on the importation of these machines...so Caterpillar builds a plant in China to avoid this.

whats worse is they are selling the machines built in that Chinese plant back into the USA now.

there is no such thing as "free trade", not even fair trade, not with China, and not with anyone.

What plant in china is cat using to supply us markets?

 

[NDFan4Life]

Looks like sequestration is going to hit the DHS, especially the Secret Service:

Homeland prepares budget cuts, up to 1,000 furloughs at Secret Service - Washington Times

Homeland prepares budget cuts, up to 1,000 furloughs at Secret Service

Bracing for the possibility of budget sequestration next month, the Homeland Security Department is making plans to furlough as many as 1,000 Secret Service agents, officers and others employees, officials say.

Homeland Security issued its first agency-wide memorandum late last week preparing for sequestration, the sweeping automatic budget cuts set to take effect as early as March 1 under a prior deal between the White House and Congress to reduce the deficit. The Feb. 6 memo advised all federal employees that the “department leadership is engaged in extensive planning efforts” determining how best to deal with the potential budget cuts.

The memo, obtained by the Washington Guardian, hints at specific areas DHS officials are looking to reduce costs, including “operational or administrative costs in areas such as travel, facilities, and supplies.”

DHS officials also warned that they may “have to consider placing employees on temporary furlough, or taking other personnel actions, should sequestration occur. With respect to furloughs, all affected employees would be provided at least 30 days’ notice prior to executing a furlough.”

The Secret Service, which beyond protecting the president also investigates major financial crimes, is among the agency targeted for extensive furloughs. A Homeland Security official, with knowledge of the impending cuts, told the Washington Guardian that the Secret Service “is looking at reducing their forces by up to a thousand people” but added that “all federal agencies are facing drastic cuts if sequestration happens.”

Secret Service Spokesman Brian Leary said he could not comment on the agency’s sequestration preparations, referring all questions to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

OMB did not return numerous emails and calls seeking comment. DHS spokesman Peter Boogaard declined comment on the memo or impending cuts.

The details emerge as the Obama administration and Democrats try to pressure congressional Republicans to stop the sequestration cuts before they take effect, making public plans for specific cuts in national security program that long have been dear to the GOP.

Although DHS officials have not officially released current plans to handle possible sequestration, Democrats on the House Appropriation’s Committee have.

A “Dear Colleague” letter, signed by former House Appropriation’s Committee ranking Democrat Norm Dicks, of Washington, in October, listed the Secret Service, among other agencies, which will have to make major cuts to balance their budget.

Dicks‘ letter noted the Secret Service faces a reduction of 819 personnel “a cut to below FY 2006 force levels from current on-board levels which impacts the work of Special Agents, uniformed division officers, and protective detail personnel.”

Unlike the Defense Department, which has taken the lead in disclosing its plans to make $4 billion in drastic cuts, Department of Homeland Security officials have kept relatively quiet on their internal preparations for the March 1 deadline.

The DHS official, who was not authorized to speak on the matter, added that many agencies, including the Secret Service, have not authorized work “transfers due to the looming budget crisis and the cuts will reduce protective detail personnel.”

Beyond the reduction of personnel to Secret Service, the letter states that the DHS is facing personnel losses of more than 24,000, to include:

reduction of 3,400 Border Patrol agents to below FY 2009 levels.

reduce 7,403 U.S. Coast Guard personnel –facing force levels below FY 2006.

reduce 7,240 Transportation Security Officers

reduction of 932 Immigration and Customs Enforcement “a decrease of this magnitude would significantly impact efforts to investigate crimes involving counter-proliferation, terrorism, and transnational threats.”

FEMA will see a reduction of 536 core personnel

$116.6 million cut to the Federal Air Marshals program.

Federal employees, however, are expected to report for work on March 1, regardless of sequestration. The Office of Personnel Management issued new supplemental guidelines for administrative furloughs on Jan. 11.

Even “under sequestration, agencies would still have funds available after March 1, but the overall funding for the remainder of the fiscal year would be reduced” and employees should still report to work on March 1, the OPM guidelines state.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Looks like sequestration is going to hit the DHS, especially the Secret Service:

Homeland prepares budget cuts, up to 1,000 furloughs at Secret Service - Washington Times

Homeland prepares budget cuts, up to 1,000 furloughs at Secret Service

Bracing for the possibility of budget sequestration next month, the Homeland Security Department is making plans to furlough as many as 1,000 Secret Service agents, officers and others employees, officials say.

Homeland Security issued its first agency-wide memorandum late last week preparing for sequestration, the sweeping automatic budget cuts set to take effect as early as March 1 under a prior deal between the White House and Congress to reduce the deficit. The Feb. 6 memo advised all federal employees that the “department leadership is engaged in extensive planning efforts” determining how best to deal with the potential budget cuts.

The memo, obtained by the Washington Guardian, hints at specific areas DHS officials are looking to reduce costs, including “operational or administrative costs in areas such as travel, facilities, and supplies.”

DHS officials also warned that they may “have to consider placing employees on temporary furlough, or taking other personnel actions, should sequestration occur. With respect to furloughs, all affected employees would be provided at least 30 days’ notice prior to executing a furlough.”

The Secret Service, which beyond protecting the president also investigates major financial crimes, is among the agency targeted for extensive furloughs. A Homeland Security official, with knowledge of the impending cuts, told the Washington Guardian that the Secret Service “is looking at reducing their forces by up to a thousand people” but added that “all federal agencies are facing drastic cuts if sequestration happens.”

Secret Service Spokesman Brian Leary said he could not comment on the agency’s sequestration preparations, referring all questions to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

OMB did not return numerous emails and calls seeking comment. DHS spokesman Peter Boogaard declined comment on the memo or impending cuts.

The details emerge as the Obama administration and Democrats try to pressure congressional Republicans to stop the sequestration cuts before they take effect, making public plans for specific cuts in national security program that long have been dear to the GOP.

Although DHS officials have not officially released current plans to handle possible sequestration, Democrats on the House Appropriation’s Committee have.

A “Dear Colleague” letter, signed by former House Appropriation’s Committee ranking Democrat Norm Dicks, of Washington, in October, listed the Secret Service, among other agencies, which will have to make major cuts to balance their budget.

Dicks‘ letter noted the Secret Service faces a reduction of 819 personnel “a cut to below FY 2006 force levels from current on-board levels which impacts the work of Special Agents, uniformed division officers, and protective detail personnel.”

Unlike the Defense Department, which has taken the lead in disclosing its plans to make $4 billion in drastic cuts, Department of Homeland Security officials have kept relatively quiet on their internal preparations for the March 1 deadline.

The DHS official, who was not authorized to speak on the matter, added that many agencies, including the Secret Service, have not authorized work “transfers due to the looming budget crisis and the cuts will reduce protective detail personnel.”

Beyond the reduction of personnel to Secret Service, the letter states that the DHS is facing personnel losses of more than 24,000, to include:

reduction of 3,400 Border Patrol agents to below FY 2009 levels.

reduce 7,403 U.S. Coast Guard personnel –facing force levels below FY 2006.

reduce 7,240 Transportation Security Officers

reduction of 932 Immigration and Customs Enforcement “a decrease of this magnitude would significantly impact efforts to investigate crimes involving counter-proliferation, terrorism, and transnational threats.”

FEMA will see a reduction of 536 core personnel

$116.6 million cut to the Federal Air Marshals program.

Federal employees, however, are expected to report for work on March 1, regardless of sequestration. The Office of Personnel Management issued new supplemental guidelines for administrative furloughs on Jan. 11.

Even “under sequestration, agencies would still have funds available after March 1, but the overall funding for the remainder of the fiscal year would be reduced” and employees should still report to work on March 1, the OPM guidelines state.

D's are really risking it here. The worst thing for them would be the cuts happen, and, the world doesn't end. In fact, most people might not notice anything. Of course, if there is a problem, R's get the blame. It's a game of chicken.

 

[NDFan4Life]

D's are really risking it here. The worst thing for them would be the cuts happen, and, the world doesn't end. In fact, most people might not notice anything. Of course, if there is a problem, R's get the blame. It's a game of chicken.

As I mentioned earlier, I work for the DHS. The last time we had something like this, I was considered "essential". I don't know the situation this time around. Just in case, I told the wife not to spend our tax refund. Better safe than sorry.

IMO, both parties are to blame. Neither one wants to compromise, and the little guy gets hurt. I think all of them should be run out of DC .

 

[Ndaccountant]

As I mentioned earlier, I work for the DHS. The last time we had something like this, I was considered "essential". I don't know the situation this time around. Just in case, I told the wife not to spend our tax refund. Better safe than sorry.

IMO, both parties are to blame. Neither one wants to compromise, and the little guy gets hurt. I think all of them should be run out of DC .

I posted an article before that showcased how stupid the law was when it was signed in 2011. Essentially, the law was so rigid, it leaves many experts thinking that what is happening is exactly what both parties wanted. They knew nothing would happen in 2012 to fight this (considering the election and fiscal cliff).

The simple solution would be to remove the portion of the law that says departments have to have across the board cuts. Instead, allow them to institute the costs they want to cut. But, if this happens, all of the special pork projects that politicans love would be the first to get the axe. That isn't good for your random congressman.

 

[Black Irish]

Can we furlough Congress to save money?

 

[NDFan4Life]

Can we furlough Congress to save money?

I'd just as soon fire them all. They make too much money as it is.

But I do like where you're going with this.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Some will call this conservative propaganda. I say the numbers don't lie and people vote with their feet. Just throwing it out there...


America's Red State Growth Corridors Low-tax, energy-rich regions in the heartland charge ahead as economies on both coasts sing the blues.
By JOEL KOTKIN

In the wake of the 2012 presidential election, some political commentators have written political obituaries of the "red" or conservative-leaning states, envisioning a brave new world dominated by fashionably blue bastions in the Northeast or California. But political fortunes are notoriously fickle, while economic trends tend to be more enduring.

These trends point to a U.S. economic future dominated by four growth corridors that are generally less dense, more affordable, and markedly more conservative and pro-business: the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, the Third Coast (spanning the Gulf states from Texas to Florida), and the Southeastern industrial belt.

Overall, these corridors account for 45% of the nation's land mass and 30% of its population. Between 2001 and 2011, job growth in the Great Plains, the Intermountain West and the Third Coast was between 7% and 8%—nearly 10 times the job growth rate for the rest of the country. Only the Southeastern industrial belt tracked close to the national average.

Historically, these regions were little more than resource colonies or low-wage labor sites for richer, more technically advanced areas. By promoting policies that encourage enterprise and spark economic growth, they're catching up.

Such policies have been pursued not only by Republicans but also by Democrats who don't share their national party's notion that business should serve as a cash cow to fund ever more expensive social-welfare, cultural or environmental programs. While California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Minnesota have either enacted or pursued higher income taxes, many corridor states have no income taxes or are planning, like Kansas and Louisiana, to lower or even eliminate them.

The result is that corridor states took 11 of the top 15 spots in Chief Executive magazine's 2012 review of best state business climates. California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts were at the bottom. The states of the old Confederacy boast 10 of the top 12 places for locating new plants, according to a recent 2012 study by Site Selection magazine.

Energy, manufacturing and agriculture are playing a major role in the corridor states' revival. The resurgence of fossil fuel–based energy, notably shale oil and natural gas, is especially important. Over the past decade, Texas alone has added 180,000 mostly high-paying energy-related jobs, Oklahoma another 40,000, and the Intermountain West well over 30,000. Energy-rich California, despite the nation's third-highest unemployment rate, has created a mere 20,000 such jobs. In New York, meanwhile, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is still delaying a decision on hydraulic fracturing.

Cheap U.S. natural gas has some envisioning the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge as an "American Ruhr." Much of this growth, notes Eric Smith, associate director of the Tulane Energy Institute, will be financed by German and other European firms that are reeling from electricity costs now three times higher than in places like Louisiana.

Korean and Japanese firms are already swarming into South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee. What the Boston Consulting Group calls a "reallocation of global manufacturing" is shifting production away from expensive East Asia and Europe and toward these lower-cost locales. The arrival of auto, steel and petrochemical plants—and, increasingly, the aerospace industry—reflects a critical shift for the Southeast, which historically depended on lower-wage industries such as textiles and furniture.

Since 2000, the Intermountain West's population has grown by 20%, the Third Coast's by 14%, the long-depopulating Great Plains by over 14%, and the Southeast by 13%. Population in the rest of the U.S. has grown barely 7%. Last year, the largest net recipients of domestic migrants were Texas and Florida, which between them gained 150,000. The biggest losers? New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California.

As a result, the corridors are home to most of America's fastest-growing big cities, including Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City and Denver. Critically for the economic and political future, the growth corridor seems particularly appealing to young families with children.

Cities such as Raleigh, Charlotte, Austin, Dallas and Houston enjoy among the country's fastest growth rates in the under-15 population. That demographic is on the wane in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco. Immigrants, too, flock to once-unfamiliar places like Nashville, Charlotte and Oklahoma City. Houston and Dallas already have more new immigrants per capita than Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle and Chicago.

Coastal-city boosters suggest that what they lose in numbers they make up for in "quality" migration. "The Feet are moving south and west while the Brains are moving toward coastal cities," Derek Thompson wrote a few years ago in The Atlantic. Yet over the past decade, the number of people with bachelor's degrees grew by a remarkable 50% in Austin and Charlotte and by over 30% in Tampa, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta—a far greater percentage growth rate than in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago or New York.

Raleigh, Austin, Denver and Salt Lake City have all become high-tech hubs. Charlotte is now the country's second-largest financial center. Houston isn't only the world's energy capital but also boasts the world's largest medical center and, along with Dallas, has become a major corporate and global transportation hub.

The corridors' growing success is a testament to the resiliency and adaptability of the American economy. It also challenges the established coastal states and cities to reconsider their current high-tax, high-regulation climates if they would like to join the growth party.

Mr. Kotkin is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and a City Journal contributing editor. This op-ed is adapted from a report released by the Manhattan Institute on Tuesday, "America's Growth Corridors: The Key to National Revival."