last entry's Mobility poll considered.

[jonathankaplan]

I am going to write some statements and connections about yesterday's Mobility poll. Please feel free to comment critically in any way, about any aspect.

Comments

[prock]

The problem with the smoking question is that it leaves the whole question of how many people actually smoke open. So, if smoking is allowed everywhere, but no one smokes, who cares? I mean, even Las Vegas casinos aren't half as bad as they used to be.

[jonathankaplan]

I live in an area where there are still a large number of public smokers, Smoking ban alternatives were recently on the ballot, again. To me, there appears to be no great decline in the number of smokers, even at the younger levels. That is part of why I made the question two-way, pick the evil. I recall quite easily public environments that were smoke-filled, and I don't see that possiblity as impossible now, I don't see the great decline in smoking that is implied in your second sentence. In my area, two towns right next to each other have had contrary policy, one non-smoking in public, the other allowing smoking even in restaurants.
It definitely matters which Waffle House we frequent.

[dogofthefuture]

It's my understanding (which may be entirely incorrect) that New Zealand is significantly more socialist than the United States, and that tax rates are higher. I could be very wrong, of course.

Also, I cannot speak for anyone else who answered the poll, but for myself part of the reason I wouldn't immediately leave the country if taxes or regulations became somewhat more onerous is that I'd like to stay and fight. Only if it became clear that there were not enough people on my side to make a change would I then abandon my fellow citizens to their fate.

[tinymammoth]

New Zealand and the United States are tied on economic freedom, according to the Fraser Institute:
http://www.freetheworld.com/

[libertarianhawk]

Re: NZ--I believe that was truer 20 years ago, but there was a reforming government.

As for staying and fighting, it looks like I'm not the only to use the "serfdom" answer as proxy for "overthrow the oppresive regime or die trying."

[jonathankaplan]

Forget "somewhat more onerous".
I'm talking "oppressive".

I appreciate the stay and fight argument, but picture the nature of the fight. By then, the debt is going to be outrageous, government will have started some very austere measures, and there is going to be a climate to get the financial house in order and get rid of those who are still profligate. It is going to be nearly impossible for taxes to NOT go up dramatically, it is just a matter of degree. By that time, arguing against oppressive tax levels is going to seem like the poor finance of today's age that will have gotten us into the problem in the first place.
So, who are y'all going to fight, at that time? And how?

If you want to fight THAT fight, I think NOW is the time, and you should be pushing for more financial conservatism NOW in order to insure against the tax calamity I am forecasting. At the moment, more financial conservatism would mean higher taxes and lower expenditures.

[pb9617]

I see a coming storm very similar to what you are forecasting, and it's the reason that I'm planning on moving to Costa Rica or possibly Chile. I know that taxes in CR are higher already, but the tradeoff is the weather, people, environment and so forth.

[jonathankaplan]

I think using the 1-10 scale was very problematic, in part for the reason you state.
The "kid" moves I didn't think were as much impact because they reflect the movement of (presumably) American parents. I hadn't really considered the aging issue, though. If the respondents reflected more of society age-wise (or suppose this poll was posed to a group made up of mainly 60-70 year olds), I think the "transient-time" moves of people in their twenties would be less statistically relevant. If the sample group has NO one who is truly aged, and many youngsters, that could be a very large effect to the numbers.

[jonathankaplan]

I see your point, but I am not sure that I get more meat that way.
Perhaps one way in which North Americans are more mobile is exactly in that they make more choices, explore more options right during the leaving nest phase? If that is so, then eliminating moves to/from parental houses could tend to lower that score when that part of the moving distribution needs to be represented, not eliminated.
Maybe something like the first move away from parents either doesnt (or is the only one to) count? That would tend to put a control on the situation that moderates the result not too incorrectly in most cases...?
Polling is tough....grin....