A woman farms in Plainfield as her daughter watches on. Photo by Josh Larkin
What are we doing wrong?
Such was official, establishment, Vermont’s reaction to last month’s Census results, which showed that the population in the state had grown by 17,000 human beings over ten years, a 2.8 percent increase.
“Anemic,” was how the Burlington Free Press described the growth rate. Without citing anything that might be considered evidence, outgoing Gov. Jim Douglas’ spokesman, David Coriell, suggested that Vermont’s taxes and cost of living, both on the high side, were keeping away hordes who might otherwise be flocking their way hither.
Somewhat more abstractly, Governor-to-be Peter Shumlin reacted to the news by promising to focus on job creation, perhaps unaware that the state with the fastest rate of population growth for the 1990s (Nevada, 35.1 percent) also has the highest unemployment rate (14.3 percent; Vermont has the fifth lowest rate, 5.7 percent.).
What seemed absent from the discussion were two significant questions: (1) Could Vermont’s low (though not the lowest) rate of population growth owe as much or more to where Vermont is and who Vermonters are than to anything the state and its citizens are doing? (2) Is low population growth so bad?
Where Vermont is, of course, is up north. The abnormally warm New Year’s Day notwithstanding, it’s cold up north. Americans, including quite a few Vermonters, love warmth and sunshine. That combination is what the economists would call a disincentive to move to the state.
Who Vermonters are is no mystery, either. They are, almost to a man-and-woman-Jack of them, non-Hispanic white folks (roughly 98 percent according to older figures. The racial breakdown by states of the 2010 Census will not be available for at least another month.).
The ethnic demographics of the state “might have something to do with” the low growth rate, said Will Sawyer, the manager of the Vermont State Data Center of the University of Vermont’s Center for Rural Studies. “Non-Hispanic whites have a lower fertility rate. Hispanics and Latinos have a higher fertility rate. They are also younger.”
The same is true of African-Americans.
The state’s minority population is growing, and as it does, so may the fertility rate.
Ethnicity may not fully explain why Vermont’s population grew more slowly than the nation’s (9.7 percent) or the Northeast’s (3.2 percent). When more statistics are released later this year, they may show that non-Hispanic whites nationwide grew at a slightly faster rate than Vermont’s 2.8 percent.
Still, it’s hard to exaggerate the connection between a population dominated by white Anglos and a population that will not grow. According to a Census Bureau projection, “the non-Hispanic White population would contribute nothing to population growth after 2030 because it would be declining in size.”
And Vermonters are not only white Anglos; they tend to be educated white Anglos. Almost 44 percent of Vermonters between 25 and 34 are college graduates, compared to not quite 39 percent nationwide, and college graduates are less likely to have large families, if they have families at all.
To be sure, Vermont has always been overwhelmingly white and Anglo, yet it used to grow faster. In fact, Sawyer said, “averaging out the decades of growth between 1960 and 1990, Vermont grew faster than the country as a whole. “
But that was not because of anything Vermont did or did not do. It was because of what outsiders did, both individually and collectively. The individuals were the “back-to-the-landers” who began flocking to Vermont at the end of the 1950s. The collectivity was the federal government, whose Interstate Highway system reached northeastern Vermont in the 1970s, later than in most of the rest of the country. Without those two external boosts, the rate of population growth was likely to slow.
The question of whether population growth is necessary – or even desirable – is a bit more complicated. Fast growth does not mean no problems. Texas, now a majority minority state (48.3 percent non-Hispanic white in 2006, no doubt less than that now) grew so fast in the 1990s that it will gain four seats in Congress. But it has a lower median household income than Vermont, a much higher poverty rate, and the highest rate of residents without health insurance in the country. It is also facing a $25 billion deficit on a two-year budget of roughly $95 billion, proportionately far greater than Vermont’s impending budget shortfall.
Almost all economists agree that a state (town, nation, county, whatever) does not have to grow larger to grow richer. If it did, then a big, heavy bicycle would cost more than a thin, light, one. Obviously, the opposite is true. As in so many cases, the source of the wealth is not the material, but the intelligence that enables construction of a lightweight bike.
So a state and its businesses can thrive without population growth. Vermont could see its small growth rate as a problem to be solved, or as an opportunity to lead the nation into an era of economic growth but population stability, perhaps a necessity in a finite world.
But perhaps not all businesses can thrive without more people. Bill Ryerson of the Population Media Center (headquartered in Shelburne, but global in scope), an advocate of population stability, pointed out that “real estate developers have a motive (for supporting population growth) because it means more housing starts.”
Lots of other businesses would do just fine without population growth, but as it happens, real estate developers and their allies in the home-building industry have political clout in just about every state, including this one. They help frame the conversation in a way that assumes that more people are always better.
They may be, in some places, but perhaps not here. Ryerson also pointed out that,” one of the reasons some people move to Vermont is that it is the most rural state. We have the highest percentage who live in small towns and villages, and the smallest who live in metro areas. That’s what attracts people to live here.”
Though, as Ryerson acknowledged, which state is “most rural” depends on how “rural” is defined. He certainly has a point, leading to what might be called the Vermont Population Paradox: the more people who move to Vermont, the less attractive Vermont becomes to precisely the kind of people who want to move to Vermont.
Up to a point, the state could alleviate that contradiction by trying to concentrate new housing in town and village centers. But those politically potent real estate developers and homebuilders make higher profits putting up suburban-style subdivisions and the shopping centers that serve them.
Besides, some Vermonters want more subdivisions, more big box stores in more shopping centers, and more people shopping in them. That’s not a paradox, though. That’s just a political debate.
Permalink |
It is the numbers that are important and not the percentage. A growth of 17,000 is very significant growth in Vermont’s population. That is approximately the population of Barre and Montpelier combined and in just ten short years! Think about what that means in terms of land development, sprawl, and loss of our working landscape. The U.S. Department of Agricullture Natural Rsources Inventory http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2007/2007_NRI_Summary.pdf
shows the amount of forest cover in Vermont is now decreasing for the first time in decades while the amount of developed land is increasing. This should be very concerning to us. Is this the direction that we want Vermont to be moving in?
With global warming and peak oil we should be striving to live more sustainably in a comprhensive way. Growth forever with very finite resources is unsustainable. To take a pledge to live more sustainably in ten meaningful ways go to the web site of Vermonters for Sustainable Population at http://www.vspop.org
Permalink |
Growth! Growth! Growth! they exclaim, “Good for this and Bad for that” In my opinion it isn’t the growth of our population or our economy that we should focus on. It is the growth of our communities. By community I mean, how Vermonters are getting along with each other and providing for each others needs. I see a lot of positive growth and a lot of potential for growth in this dynamic of our state. Forget the census! Every Vermonter can contribute to community growth! One out of the MANY way the State can encourage this growth, is through helping setup Community Land Trusts which can be created to address the diverse needs of individual communities. Trusts can help stabilize housing prices, protect private ownership, conserve natural resources and much more. We need to focus on real issues and not get side tracked by silly census numbers. More town events, more getting involved, more sharing, more Love, That is Growth!
Permalink |
Vermont is expensive because we have no “economy of scale.” Tiny schools and school districts are expensive and drive up property taxes. Vermont has several tiny prisons that are expensive and also impact cost. We don’t share resources well and regional planning is just a theory. Growth would benefit Vermonters. True, there are those that think everyone should live off the grid, shop at farmers market and heat with solar. That’s not affordable to most.
Permalink |
Rate of population growth is correlated inversely to average age of the state population too. Vermont’s older citizens are less likely to reproduce. In fast-growth Sunbelt retirement states, an influx of younger job seekers tends to hold down the average age. Here, many young adults look for jobs outside Vermont.
Permalink |
Mr. Dannenberg said, “Here, many young adults look for jobs outside Vermont.”
True. And the reasons are obvious. First, wages in Vermont are below average. If you graduate from college, have education debt, and see that you can make 40% more in New York or Boston, it’s a no brainer (the data is clear). So when Republicans complain about the outflow of young people, they might want to ask their employer friends why they don’t raise wages to help keep more kids at home.
Second, is it so strange that many young Vermonters want to experience more of the world? Certainly not. Indeed, we should applaud their courage and curiousity. Some (many) will come home when they’ve established careers, had families, and had their fill of urban life elsewhere.
Permalink |
Look at the benefits of slow population growth as Margolis points out. We don’t have the problems that Texas has. Now, though, as George Plumb points out, we do have 17,000 more people and they are not, for the most part concentrated in villages, towns and cities. They are spread all over, taking up wildlife habitat, turning farmland into sprawland. Much can be said for aging populatiions. In the book WAR AND SEX: How biology explains warfare and terrorism and offers a path to a safer world, author Malcolm Potts points out that societies with large numbers of young males between the ages of 14 and 30 historically have always been at war. Older societies tend to have the cautionary influence of the older people and tend to go to war less frequently. Do we need more people in Vermont? Probably not. Who benefits? As Bill Ryerson points out, it is mostly real estate developers. After they make their money and run, who is the loser?
Permalink |
I sent the below item as a letter to the Freep but they never published it. Too many real estate and developer ads in that paper for them to publish anything against population growth.
Re: “Vermont growth slows,” Burlington Free Press, December 22, 2010.
Dear Editor:
Of course the Chamber of Commerce, the developers, and other groups hoping to profit from the process of growth will agree with you that an adding nearly 17,000 people to Vermont’s population in the past decade was “anemic growth.” However, there is another way to look at it.
Our cash-strapped cities, towns, and state government now have nearly 17,000 more people for whom they must provide services. The March 24, 1996 Free Press reported, “Growth strains school budgets. Homes don’t cover school costs.” Earlier you reported, “Housing straps towns.” More people require more infrastructure and the new streets, water and sewer expansions, and other costs necessitated by growth are paid for by all taxpayers, not just the new people. Growth does not pay its own way but if it did––if it were not heavily subsidized––it would stop cold. Many valid studies have proven this but the myth lives on.
There are also significant environmental costs. New buildings and streets cover former farmland and destroy wildlife habitat and open space. Traffic, congestion, and pollution increase and our overall quality of life declines.
Where population growth is concerned, the key questions are, “Who profits and who
pays?”
Permalink |
At some point, humanity must stabilize–we can’t keep growing like bacteria in a petri dish!! And the first countries, or the first states to achieve population stabilization will confront the problems of this transition– ie, an aging population supported by a declining number of workers. But it’s not the end of the world. We needn’t panic.
This transition period with have some new difficulties– but it won’t last. Kind of like adolescence.And the new problems will be much easier to solve than the old familiar ones that we keep creating for the next generation with an endlessly growing population.
What I loved about this article is that it opened up a forbidden subject– namely, Americans are mindlessly indoctrinated in the religion of material growth,– more workers, more consumers,more people who need more stuff and lots more stuff–$ding $ding $ding—cut the trees! pour the cement! and keep making those widgets!! We’re going nuts! Maybe Vermonters will face down the panic attacks generated by the usual suspects whenever population growth slows down– and construct a more intelligent future for itself–I sure hope so– America needs a new vision for the future. And it isn’t Texas!!!
Permalink |
In our fiat, debt based money economy, people are ‘educated’ to believe that good paying jobs are the ultimate goal for a society. Money provides only power to access goods and services; it has no nutritional, caloric, shelter, or mobility value inherently. And the money economy is a subset of the physical environment, not vice-versa. No food, no economy; ditto for fuel and water. Natural wealth, including the commons of aquifers, air, waste (incl. carbon) sinks, etc., are devalued per capita the more people who share them. It is no surprise that fish stocks are shrinking, water bodies are acidifying and declining, biodiversity is crashing…Humans have quadrupled their numbers in one century. Vermont, and Maine (where I now reside) should think carefully about trashing their commons before seeking growth.
Permalink |
Jon, THANK YOU for offering a rare bit of sanity about the reaction of various communities to either fast or slow population growth in the latest census figures. And for understanding and articulating who is framing the conversations and why. I will be sending people to your blog to get a much-needed anti-dote to the grow, grow, grow Kool Aid!
Dave Gardner
Producing the documentary
GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth
http://www.growthbusters.org
Permalink |
Like it or not, you need some growth to sustain Vermont, at least until you reach an economy of scale as Mr. Belini said, at which point you only need enough new people to take the places of the ones dying off. Our problem is that towns get greedy when the big-buck developers show up with their wallets full of goodies. They use eminent domain to kick people out of their humble domiciles just so developers can put up unaffordable multi-unit condos or McMansions. What Vermonter is going to be able to live there?? If we held our elected officials accountable for enforcing desireable community standards and actively planning sustainable growth instead of selling to the highest bidder for a quick influx of cash, we’d be much better off.
As for our current population, let’s face it, we may live in the greatest state in the union, but we don’t live in a vacuum – our fate is tied to the national economy as well. Family farms and dairies are dying off at an alarming rate because there aren’t enough local people to buy their wares, and selling regionally or nationally through middle-men who make all the profits is killing the little guy. As farms disintigrate, families (white or other) no longer need to produce a passel of kids to hold down the homestead, leaving us with even fewer local consumers. And not once do we hold our government officials accountable for robbing us blind through price fixing, fraud and wasteful spending – we simply vote for the next guy who promises us the world and then sigh and complain when he (predictably) doesn’t deliver.
And people who say we need to increase social services baffle the heck out of me. Who is going to pay for it? Fewer people may mean less drain on local resources, but it also means fewer people ponying up their share of the community kitty. Our state is a bonanza for people who require social services (welfare, housing or childcare assistance, etc.), and any Vermonter lucky, smart, or hard-working enough to support their own family is taxed to death at a local and national level in order to subsidize those who are unable or unwilling to do so. The towns’ answer to that problem? Make people who own a second property pay a higher tax rate. What the heck, most of them are flatlanders just taking up space in our precious state and they don’t have the right to vote anyway, so why not rook ‘em? Except that a lot of these people are our neighbors, who often use their spare property to offer fairly priced housing to our other neighbors, or try to find sustainable ways to live. The flatlanders? They’re getting sick of the abuse and are selling or defaulting on their properties, lowering the tax base and increasing the burden on residents who either have to make up the difference in lost revenue or buy the properties in question – and then get penalized for owning a second property!
Our young are getting fantastic educations from our high-tax schools and leaving for greener pastures to make their fortunes. Yes, they may come back to VT eventually, but even if they come back in the prime of their family years, they too will have fewer children, being white and potentially lower in fertility, and more often than not they will return as childless retirees. Elders may be less war-like, but they are also less healthy and have lower incomes, and thus require more services.
It’s like a never ending cycle that will inevitably kill our state. It may be that “money provides only power to access goods and services” as Mr. Kurtz said, but filthy lucre has been around since time immemorial, and it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere. It doesn’t matter if you have abundant natural resources if people aren’t willing to freely share them, as is sadly the nature of the human race. Someone will always take advantage and ruin it for everyone, or the guy with the resevoir on his property will say one day, “hey, what’s in it for me?”. It is irresponsible and unrealistic to believe we don’t have to play on the same field with the rest of humanity, which means getting jobs and making money to support ourselves and our families. You don’t have to be materialistic and consumeristic, but everyone needs to have enough to survive.
Sadly, I don’t see that happening if we keep going the way we have been. We don’t have livable wages because we don’t have a lot of good jobs available. We don’t have good jobs available because companies will not set up shop where taxes are high and there are no qualified employees to staff them. We don’t have qualified employees because the kids are fleeing with their degrees and no one else is filling in behind them. So far as I can tell, every Vermonter is going to get their wish sooner or later. Live sustainably all you want, but this increasingly childless population will simply age and die off (p.s. – taxes should be lower because we will no longer need to support schools). With no new influx of people, you will again be able to go for miles without seeing another soul, and once all the people are gone, the land will return entirely to nature. Yay Vermont.
Permalink |
This alarm has been sounded before – the end of Vermont has been predicted from populations losses when the sheep industry collapsed in Vermont, and also after the Civil War, I believe. Things are very different now of course; demographic changes are different in scale and occasioned by different forces, but I’m skeptical that Vermont will suffer awfully. Rates of taxation, educational achievement and the other cited factors help to explain some changes, but other less-measureable (and hence unpredictable) factors play a more important part in my view.