By Lynn Barrett, publisher
Vermont is blessed with stunning beauty; a multitude of natural attractions; recreational opportunities such as skiing, hiking, boating, and fishing; small villages; cultural attractions such as craft beer and farm-to-table restaurants; and an impressive creative arts and entertainment scene. Economists call these “positive amenity values.” We call them a golden opportunity.
We recently spoke to Tom Kavet, state economist for the Vermont Legislature, about a recent state-sponsored initiative to pay young people from out of state $10,000 to move here. He wasn’t impressed. He told us Vermont has it all and will attract people if we simply lead with our strengths.
“Bribing people with paltry cash ‘incentives’ has no meaningful impact on net migration, wastes public money that would be better used by lowering tax rates, and has the counterproductive effect of making the state look like it is desperate for anyone willing to move in,” he said.
He added that such policies “are not based on demographic or fiscal realities nor can they achieve their stated objectives. As such, they make no sense and are misguided and counterproductive.”
Certainly there are some things you can’t change: economic disamenities. Vermont is relatively cold and lacks large urban centers, for example. Fair enough. But every state has advantages and disadvantages. A coherent economic development strategy must be built around advantages and work to offset disadvantages.
According to Kavet, approximately 15,000 people move into the state every year with about as many leaving. Those moving in generally boast higher average incomes than those who leave. And if you assumed it’s the younger folks bringing in the money or who confer the greatest economic and fiscal benefit to the state, you’re wrong. It’s Vermonters over 65 who generally have higher incomes and pay more in state income taxes. This group rarely has children needing K-12 educational services—Vermont’s largest area of expenditure—so its net fiscal impact is even stronger.
For more than 50 years, migratory flows among young people have been from rural areas to urban centers—and there’s nothing state policy can do to significantly alter this. Big cities offer greater initial job and social opportunities, and those willing to share housing and use public transit can tolerate those downside costs.
The population inflow that benefits Vermont, and other rural areas where recreational amenity values are high, is generally older. These folks often come with their own businesses, substantial assets, and deep professional experience. Some are retired but also come with similarly high incomes and wealth. The benefit of older age cohorts simply dwarfs that of younger age cohorts.
Speaking from a purely economic vantage point, the most valuable age cohort are probably 35 to 55 year olds who bring—or start—businesses here. They have experience and wealth and don’t have to be bribed to come here. Luring up to two dozen younger folks in a given year with $10,000 is ineffectual and even counterproductive. Young people, wonderful as they are, aren’t Vermont’s saviors!
It seems that it should be so, and we’ve all heard the political and popular sound bite: I just want my kids to be able to stay in Vermont and have a job here and not leave. But that goes up against the nature of young people. How many reading this left home for a job in the city? What did you learn in doing so? Would you look back on your life and wish you hadn’t left Vermont? Demographic realities are tidal waves that no state public policy can alter.
Not with wishful thinking. Not with a bribe.
There are fewer young people in Vermont, New England, and in the United States as a whole because of a decline in birth rates, among leading reasons. Vermont has the lowest birth rate in the nation, and most of the rest of New England isn’t far behind. Why doesn’t anyone talk about this? Why are there no state policies to address this aspect of population growth? Why not pay people to have children in Vermont—or pay for meaningful maternity and paternity leaves, free births at state hospitals, greater child tax exemptions, and/or quality child care credits for pre-school-age children?
Programs hoping to retain college graduates by offering them free or discounted tuition if they stay and work a job—any job—diminishes their development of human capital and showcases at least a little unfounded desperation.
Our take: We think what makes sense for Vermont is a marketing and public relations campaign that features innovative entrepreneurs and others who have come here and succeeded in building businesses and enjoying all of the amenities and a quality of life that folks all over the country aspire to. Let’s tell the stories and show the images of the talented young and old who’ve moved here or visited here and returned because they wanted to be here and are happy and thriving and enjoying the beauty, the nature, and the rural yet culturally rich quality of life. Let’s show Vermont as she is: an ideal place to visit, to raise a family, to bring a business, or to start a business from scratch. Let’s tap the everyday excitement and challenge of living and working here and helping to build community. We’re not a rich state in the traditional sense, but we are forever and abundantly rich in the most untraditional sense: The people who come here—and stay—seeking an inspirational lifestyle. And that inspiration comes from the beauty of living in natural surroundings and in overcoming the struggles and hardships of country living—among friends and neighbors who get it.
