(Jon Margolis writes political columns for VTDigger. His opinions are his own.)
[D]uring last year’s gubernatorial campaign, candidate Phil Scott often said that from 2000 through 2010, Vermont had “lost” 30,000 people who were between 25 and 40 years old.
In his inaugural speech, Scott edited himself. The number of Vermonters in that age group, he said, had “decreased.” He dropped the part about them being “lost.”
Good editing. They weren’t lost. They’re just not between 25 and 40 anymore. The youngest of them will turn 42 this year.
Besides, calling them “lost” suggests that something or someone had lost them, as though Vermont had been doing something wrong, and that this mistake had caused the decline in the number of young adults since 2000.
Possibly true, but at the very least not demonstrated.
The suggestion of a flaw, though, is consistent with the inclination of many Vermonters to emphasize the darkest, most discouraging characteristic of their own state. There is a gloom and doom caucus in Vermont that luxuriates in reversing the message of the old Harold Arlen-Johnny Mercer song. They “Ac-cent-chu-ate the negative and ee-liminate the positive” when describing Vermont.
Scott is not usually part of this moan and groan chorus. He’s too rational and optimistic. But it isn’t just that one need not look hard to find the moan-and-groaners. It’s that one cannot avoid them. In opinion columns, news releases, letters to the editor, comments on websites (including this one) a contingent of Vermonters – probably small but very outspoken – speaks as though their state can do nothing right.
And indeed there are problems and some worrisome indicators. But there are also some very positive signs.
Start with that decline of 30,000 people between the ages of 25 and 40. The oldest of them would be about to turn 57, and though 57 is not old, no doubt a few didn’t make it that far. They’re not lost; they’re just dead.
But they’re very few, because they live in Vermont, where people tend to live a long time. According to the Social Science Research Council’s 2013-2014 Measure of America study, Vermont was tied with Massachusetts and New York for the fifth-highest life expectancy in the country, with a life expectancy at birth of 80.5 years.
Does this mean Vermont is doing something right?
Well, about as much as the decline in 25- to 40-year-olds means it was doing something wrong. It’s just as likely that Vermonters live relatively long lives because so few of them are African-Americans, whose lifespans are shorter. Plus, there’s not much violent crime in the state, so a Vermonter is less likely to be murdered than, say, a Louisianan, who lives in the state with the highest murder rate. Vermont is tied with Iowa for second-lowest.
That low murder rate itself could be a sign that Vermont is doing something right. Or, again, it could just reflect who Vermonters are: relatively well-educated, slightly more affluent than average, less likely to live in a metropolitan area.
That’s worth remembering in connection with several reports that have emerged in recent weeks – barely noticed amidst all the political tumult – that compare how healthy, how wealthy, how safe and how well-run are America’s 50 states.
In most of these studies, Vermont comes off quite well. It’s in the top half in almost every category and in the top 10 in several of them. Those findings do not prove that the state is pursuing wise policies.
But neither do the few areas where Vermont is lagging – sluggish job growth, no population growth (or maybe even small decline) – prove that the state is following unwise policies.
The important question behind that decline in younger adults, for instance, is why they have not been replaced by a comparable number of 25- to 40-year-olds.
Perhaps because they didn’t have enough children to replace themselves. Being Vermonters, they were almost all non-Hispanic whites and more likely than most Americans to have a college education, precisely the kind of people who haven’t been having many babies for the last few decades.
And perhaps they have not been replaced by new folks moving into the state because Vermont remains largely rural and people have not been moving into rural areas anywhere.
No, make that: People have been moving out of rural areas almost everywhere. You want to see social and economic decay? Go to rural Kansas or Alabama. Demography and geography probably have more to do with whatever problems Vermont faces than anything Vermont actually does.
The state certainly does face problems and perhaps it should alter some policies. But all those areas where Vermont excels could be the result of good policies, and several recent comparative studies indicate that the state often excels.
Vermont is the fifth-healthiest state (after Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Minnesota) according to the latest ranking of the United Health Association, using the criteria and methods of the World Health Organization. A separate study by the business news website 24/7 Wall Street also ranked Vermont fifth-healthiest, noting that “almost everyone in the state (is) covered by health insurance” and Vermont has “one of the highest immunization rates … (and) one of the lowest rates of premature death.”
Vermont is the best state when it comes to providing “health access and affordability,” according to the Commonwealth Fund.
Vermont was judged the seventh-best state to live in by 24/7 Wall Street, based on an index composed of each state’s poverty rate, percentage of adults who have a bachelor’s degree, and life expectancy at birth, criteria the website said were “inspired by the United Nations Human Development Index.” This study also showed that more than 70 percent of the state’s housing units are owner-occupied, said to be the sixth-highest homeownership rate in the country.
Vermont was the 14th “best-run state” in the country according to another assessment by 24/7 Wall Street. The state has among the lowest rates of poverty and unemployment, a good credit rating, the fifth-lowest home foreclosure rate of all states and the lowest violent crime rate.
Sounds like a pretty nice place to live, doesn’t it?
Especially considering that it’s a bit on the rich side. Not rich like Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut or neighboring New Hampshire. But in the top half when it comes to affluence.
According to the official data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, Vermont has the 20th-highest median household income (19th among the 50 states; D.C.’s is higher). Family income (married couple households) is even higher and is also higher than the national average. According to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, Vermont’s gross domestic product is growing faster than that of most states in the Northeast and 22nd fastest in the country.
(Another nationwide survey by an advocacy group calls Vermont the second-poorest state in the country. This is, obviously, not merely wrong but absurd, an absurdity to be examined in a future column.)
Granted, not all the economic data are encouraging. The number of jobs grows very slowly. The population seems not to be growing at all and may be shrinking, though the annual population estimates are just that – estimates – and the exact figures will not be known until after the 2020 census. Some sectors of the Vermont economy are not doing well.
But that’s true in every state, and it’s worth wondering why – in light of all those findings of favorable conditions – so many Vermonters complain so much.
Maybe Vermonters just like to whine more than other Americans. Do you suppose some organization has done a state-by-state whining comparison?
