Should Counties Die?

Column for week of December 30, 2013                          

     The headline for an Associated Press article proclaimed
"Census estimates show 1 in 4 US counties are dying."  Nothing
new about headlines that scream disaster.  Also, nothing new
about the article under the headline not living up to the hype.

     Why did the writer conclude that the counties were
dying?  The counties recorded more deaths than births.  Does
this mean we should prepare to eliminate such counties from the
map?  The so called dying counties aren't even necessarily
experiencing a decline in population.

     I suspect that many retirement counties across the south
record more deaths than births.  Does that spell doom for the
counties?  So long as people can afford to retire, the retirement
counties will likely find people to fill the empty houses and
patronize the local stores.

     Birth rates don't measure the vigor of a county.  A
county may have a high birth rate and still have shrinking
population because people leave.

     Even shrinking population doesn't mean a county is
dying.  The population of many farming counties shrunk during
the past century.  Many of those counties now produce more
farm products than ever before.  The counties may have fewer
people while those people still there prosper.  The counties aren't
dead.  They downsized.

     The article laments that the federal government isn't
doing more to help those dying counties.  It is that kind of silly
thinking that is drowning this country in a sea of red ink.

     Some of the examples of dying counties were ones where
coal mines had closed.  If the main reason for living in a county
is to mine coal, people should leave when the mines close. 
Trying to keep people there with nothing to do is foolish. 
Trying to create an artificial economy and artificial jobs is even
worse.

     Government should butt out.  If there are sound economic
reasons for engaging in new production in the counties,
entrepreneurs and investors will find and develop them.  All that
government can do is subsidize inefficient, wasteful production.

     After the lumber boom, the population of towns and
counties in northern Michigan shriveled.  There was nothing for
the no longer needed lumber workers to do.  Some tried farming
for a while.  The soil was too poor in most of northern Michigan
to make farming work.  Eventually tourism restored some life to
northern Michigan.

     As technology changes old production will often cease or
move to a more economic location.  When that happens the
people should move too.  If a community's reason for existence
ceases, the community must find a new reason, or go away.

     This is part of a natural process.  Lamenting that
communities die is harmless.  Putting those communities without
any reason to exist on life support is wasteful and dangerous. 
The dying communities can suck the life out of areas that would
otherwise prosper.  Then the communities can all die together.

     Let businesses and people locate wherever they find that
it makes sense for them to locate.  Interfering with this
spontaneous order is costly and destructive.  It also creates strife
between those who are subsidized and those who pay the bills.

     If government butts out and allows people to freely and
peacefully interact, we can build a peaceful stable nation.  If we
continue down the road of propping up every special interest
with a strong lobby; waste, strife and a shrinking economy is all
we have to look forward too.

     There will be one bonus.  Shallow minded reporters will
find many dying counties to write about.  Will anyone be able to
afford to pay for those articles?

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum