The newest demography newsletter from Saint Louis University delivers a jarring wake-up call that regional leaders can no longer afford to ignore. For years, the conversation around St. Louis has been one of stagnation, but the 2025 population estimates from the Census Bureau reveal we have shifted onto a much more dangerous track toward structural decline. While the national birth rate is falling, St. Louis has emerged as an epicenter of this trend, ranking first among the fifty largest metropolitan areas in the percentage decline of births since 2021 (9 percent). We are now in a state of demographic winter where deaths outnumber births, and unlike our neighbors, we do not have a steady stream of new residents moving in to offset the loss.

When we look at our peers in Indianapolis and Nashville, the contrast is stark. Indianapolis has seen a domestic migration gain of nearly 20,000 people since 2020, while Nashville has increased by 89,000. Meanwhile, St. Louis saw over 31,000 people leave for other parts of the country during that same period. St. Louis is heading into a period in which it will carry a much heavier demographic burden of older residents compared to these peer cities, which are successfully maintaining a younger and more sustainable age structure.

Both of these other regions have more childbirths annually than they did just five years ago. But this isn’t just by chance. Indianapolis has aggressively aligned its economic incentives with family needs, requiring companies that receive tax breaks to reinvest in childcare and neighborhood infrastructure. Indianapolis families can also choose between universally available private school vouchers, charter schools, or any traditional public school in the district. Nashville has used Tennessee’s lack of a state income tax to attract high-earning families and has focused on building the kind of walkable, tech-ready neighborhoods that remote-working parents prioritize. Both cities have created an environment where it is easier and more affordable to raise a family, which in turn fuels both natural growth and domestic migration numbers.

St. Louis is currently operating under the outdated assumption that we will always have 35,000 births a year to sustain our schools and workforce. The reality is that we have declined by over 7,000 births annually since 2011, and that number is still searching for a bottom. If we want to avoid a future of shrinking school districts and a hollowed-out economy, we have to stop treating these numbers as theoretical. We must move toward a strategy that makes St. Louis a destination for families again, rather than a place they leave behind.

The post A Wake-up Call for St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Our two biggest cities—the economic engines of the state—have failed to grow as well. The City of St. Louis is emptying out, dropping from 622,236 in 1970 to 301,578 in 2020, though the larger metropolitan area has absorbed much of that loss. Kansas City saw dramatic population drops in the 80s and 90s, though recent growth has brought us up to over 500,000 around where we were in 1970. (Even still, the Kansas suburbs have been growing at a much higher rate than the city proper for decades.)

U-Haul publishes a migration index each year. For 2024, Missouri ranked 28th for growth.

Where is everyone fleeing to? The largest beneficiary of Missourian departures is Kansas—which is not a surprise to those of us here in the eastern part of the state. Kansas’s suburbs offer better schools, seemingly better-maintained infrastructure, and lower crime. Second is Illinois, with Texas, Arkansas and Florida rounding out the top 5 destinations.

(Aside: Yes, Florida and Texas have better climates than Missouri, but so do plenty of other states. Florida and Texas also have no state income tax. The Tax Foundation reports that low-tax states saw greater population growth than high-tax states.)

Missouri’s portion of the national GDP is shrinking as well. We produced 2% of the nation’s GDP in 1997. Today we produce only 1.5%.

Missouri’s leaders, at the state and local level, must decide if they are satisfied with our slow and steady decline. If they aren’t, what are their plans to reverse it? It can’t be more of the same, where we have driven up housing costs through foolish energy policies, or failed to deliver basic public safety. It certainly cannot be a continuation of former Governor Mike Parson’s profligate spending.

The Show-Me Institute has some ideas, thank you for asking, and most of them are about helping Missourians by getting government out of the way of families, businesses and entrepreneurs.

Not everyone will agree with our proposals. That is fine. But every leader should be asked: if not these policies, then what is your plan for reversing Missouri’s glide path to oblivion?

The post Missouri is Shrinking appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over the past decade, Missouri’s population grew by only about 160,000 residents, or 2.8 percent. This growth badly trails the national rate of 7.4 percent and every neighboring state except for Illinois. In fact, only eleven states in the country experienced less population growth than Missouri. Missouri dropped one spot in total population rank, from 18th to 19th. This is a significant decline from the state’s high-water mark of 5th at the turn of the 20th century.

Census results are important because they have real-world implications for states. Aside from being a measure of a state’s relative desirability, these population totals determine the apportionment of representation in Congress over the next decade. After losing a seat following the 2010 census, Missouri’s population is still sufficient to maintain eight congressional districts for another ten years, but Illinois was not so lucky. Along with Missouri’s neighbor to the east, six other states will be losing a congressional seat: California, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. States gaining these lost seats will be Florida, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas, which gets two additional seats.

While it can be difficult to fully understand what is driving the country’s population shifts, there appears to be a relationship with cumulative tax burdens. The state’s losing seats rank 1st, 8th, 10th, 18th, 23rd, and 26th in total tax burdens. On the other hand, the state’s gaining seats rank 11th, 21st, 32nd, 34th, 43rd, and 47th (Texas). While this isn’t the only factor in migration, people are indisputably moving from high-tax states to states with lower taxes.

State and local governments competing for residents via tax rates is not a new idea, and is something my colleagues have written about for years. Charlies Tiebout originally proposed the idea that people would “vote with their feet” by moving to communities with their preferred level of public services and taxes. If Missouri’s population growth continues to lag much of the country, there’s reason to believe the state’s taxes are contributing to the problem. Over the next decade, it should be a priority for Missouri’s elected officials to bring more people to the Show-Me State, or we could face the same fate as Illinois.

The post Missouri’s Population Growth Is Still Lagging appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But while population loss in roughly half of Missouri’s counties sounds terrible, there’s more going on here.

A great deal has been written about the growth of big cities across the country, but news outlets are slowly picking up on a trend that shows small and middle-sized cities gaining steam with young people. Think cities like Waco, TX and Knoxville, TN as opposed to Austin, TX and Nashville, TN—cities that aren’t necessarily state population hubs but that play an important role in their regional economies.

In fact, it seems that young people’s attraction to big cities is often overstated. Research increasingly suggests they are equally drawn to the less-costly option of smaller cities and suburban areas. Census Bureau data show that suburban growth is outpacing large city growth, with large city growth tapering off.

How is this playing out in Missouri? While most rural counties and Saint Louis City saw population declines, many medium-sized cities—Springfield, Columbia, and Lee’s Summit to name a few—have seen population increases according to the Census Bureau. Since Missouri’s total population only grew by a small percent, most of this population change is attributed to intrastate migration.

So while it is true that rural populations are dipping, it’s at least in part because of regional population consolidation in cities not far from where residents formerly lived.

And when you think about it, this migration trend makes a lot of sense. Small and medium-sized cities provide many employment, entrepreneurial, and social opportunities that may not always be available in rural areas, and these cities are often more affordable and community centered than big cities. While this trend isn’t great for rural counties—that is, the political subdivisions themselves—it is good for the people moving toward better economic and social prospects. As farms in rural areas become more productive and require fewer laborers, having access to city resources and opportunities will be all the more important for these residents.

Unfortunately, Missouri has struggled with overall population growth in recent years. During that same July 2017 to July 2018 time period mentioned above, Missouri was 29^th in the nation in population growth, with a paltry 0.3% increase. This rate is consistent with the low population growth rates that we’ve seen for years. So, while this trend of intrastate migration is positive, we can’t forget that Missouri still struggles to attract new residents.

The post Many Missourians Are Moving . . . To Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Between January 1 and December 31 of 2016, Atlas reports that 1,062 households left Missouri and 989 households moved in. A similar tale is told using the data from United Van Lines: Of the 4,362 total moves made in 2016, 2,256 were outbound and 2,106 were inbound. Although the numbers are close, it is still true that on net more Missouri households are deciding to leave the state.

The United study is valuable because it breaks down the total number of into reasons for moving, and they disaggregate the data by income and age. In terms of reasons for moving, not surprisingly the vast majority of households move because of jobs. Sixty-two percent of those moving out cited job-related reasons, and 60 percent of those moving into the state did so because of work. The second highest category was “family,” with about 20 percent inbound and outbound choosing that reason for the move.

The income and age characteristics of those moving are more revealing. The table below breaks down of inbound and outbound moves by income (left-hand side of table) and age (right-hand side of table). The data suggest that those in the highest income ranks—incomes exceeding $100,000—were, in 2016, net out-migrants: more left Missouri than moved in. This accords with earlier results: Michael Rathbone and I found that, based on IRS data, those who moved out of Missouri tended to be higher income individuals.

When age is the common denominator, it appears that in-migration in 2016 is concentrated in the younger age groups (those younger than 44). Of those between the ages of 45 and 64, prime wage-earning years according to a New York Federal Reserve study, there was a net migration out of Missouri, however. And for the 65-plus age group, it is essentially a wash: just about as many moving out as moving in.

This 2016 data builds on the prevailing story that Missouri’s residents continue to reveal their preferences and, on net, seek other, more attractive economic environments. 

The post Was It Something We Said? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Our earlier analysis used information provided by Atlas Van Lines and United Van Lines. These moving companies track outbound and inbound moves for all states. Calculating the ratio of outbound moves to total moves provides a rough gauge of whether more households are relocating into or out of a state.

Both companies recently published their findings for 2014. The table below reports the ratio of outbound to total moves for Missouri and its neighboring states. The evidence from Atlas Van Lines shows that more households moved out of Missouri (55.5 percent of total moves) than in. United Van Line’s 2014 National Movers Study also finds that outbound moves exceeded inbound moves.

Here are two aspects about these numbers. First, they prolong a trend that began several years ago: more households moving out of Missouri than moving in. Second, in 2014 Missouri’s percent of outbound moves exceeded that of most neighboring states. The Atlas report found that the percent of outbound moves was lower in six states relative to Missouri. Five states had relatively fewer outbound moves than Missouri, according to the United study.

“Relying on data sources as varied as moving companies to the Census Bureau and the IRS,” Rathbone and I noted, “our evidence reveals that, especially since 2007, more of Missouri’s residents have relocated out of the state than others have moved in.” Updating the moving company figures does not alter that conclusion.

The post Still Movin’ On Out appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the full essay:

The post Movin’ On Out: Missouri’s Migration Patterns Since 2004 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Ted Dabrowski, vice president of Policy, Illinois Policy Institute
• Jonathan Williams, director of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force, American Legislative Exchange Council
• The Honorable Larry Parman, Oklahoma Secretary of State
• Travis Brown, author of How Money Walks, who will also serve as our moderator

Our talk is tentatively scheduled to begin at 11:45 a.m., following speeches from former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and current Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Suffice to say, if you want to get a good seat . . . you may want to arrive early. And if the formal schedule changes between now and then, I will update this post with the new details.

It should be a fantastic event. I would be utterly delighted to meet our readers, so if you have time that day, I’d encourage you to register and attend our event. You can sign up for the conference here.

The post Meet Me In Saint Louie, Louie! Meet Me At CPAC (on Sept. 28) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

At the Show-Me Institute’s policy breakfast on Feb. 8 titled “Rich State, Poor States”, Jonathan Williams of ALEC said people are voting with their feet in this country, and moving to states that have the lowest tax burdens. . . .

“Rich States, Poor States” was the theme of the Show-Me Institute policy breakfast on Feb. 8. Show-Me Institute chief economist Joe Haslag said the data is clear. Missouri is falling behind the country.

The post policy bfast clips appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Saint Louis, Mo., has one of the United States’ most affordable housing markets. One of the reasons for the affordable housing in Saint Louis is the lack of centralized planning by governments in the area. The greater Saint Louis metropolitan area should position itself to continue to benefit from these domestic migration trends by limiting the planning requirements it imposes on homebuilders and developers.

That lack of government regulation and planning and the resulting lower housing costs leads to a lower overall cost of living for residents of the Saint Louis area. There is evidence that the more affordable cost of living is making Saint Louis more attractive to outsiders and resulting in growth for the entire region.

The post Housing Affordability: The Saint Louis Competitive Advantage appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Using the IDEAS web tool, I restricted the selective tax rates on alcoholic beverages for Missouri and Kansas over time, and then exported this information to Excel to produce the following graphs:

Click graphs to enlarge.

Generally, residents of Missouri are taxed less on alcoholic beverages than residents of Kansas are taxed. Specifically, Missouri assesses lower tax rates on beer and spirits, but as of 2005, the state has higher tax rate on wine.

In an effort to encourage or to protest their economic and social situation, people tend to vote with their feet. This is why I included domestic net migration data for Kansas and Missouri in the second graph. The data show that Kansas has experienced negative net migration every year in the last decade (i.e., people are moving out of the state). Missouri experienced positive net migration during this period, except for 2008 (i.e., people are moving into the state).

Although these trends can be attributed to a combination of factors, it may be possible that the higher taxes on alcohol in Kansas influenced some marginal number of people to move out of the state, and the low taxes on alcohol in Missouri influenced people to move into the state.

I encourage our blog readers to play with the IDEAS web tool and determine to which states they would consider domestically migrating.

The post Check Out the Show-Me Institute’s Newest Web Tool in Action! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.