One of the primary problems in the affordable housing debate is that the phrase “affordable housing” means different things to different people—and, more to the point, that different people don’t know what they might be agreeing to by accepting the premise that housing is “unaffordable.”

What is meant when someone says that we don’t have affordable housing? What if my underlying definition of “unaffordable housing” is “housing that isn’t free”? To have a useful conversation about affordable housing, we must establish some consensus around what our expectations are for both “affordability” and for “housing.”

From my perspective, the first necessary point of consensus has to be that able-bodied Americans are expected to pay at least something for their housing. While that might seem like a superfluous thing to stipulate, it isn’t. If housing is in fact a “human right” as some activists assert, then assigning any dollar figure or percentage of anyone’s income is inherently a violation of that right. What sort of “human right” could be denied on the basis of cost?

If there is an expectation that people (in general) should be paying for their own housing, how much should people be expected to pay?

As the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, notes, there are many ways in which “affordability” can be defined by researchers and policymakers. Researchers and policymakers could look at average incomes in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA). They could use median incomes in a county and establish an absolute floor for affordable housing costs. They could create ratios, they could bundle together utilities with housing costs or not consider utilities at all, and they could transform data in myriad ways to come to reasonable, but radically different, conclusions.

You can see the issue.

But despite the plethora of possible (and possibly contradictory) affordable housing definitions, HUD has generally settled on a set definition of what is “affordable” that it applies to many of its programs. As the department explains on its website:

In the 1940s, the maximum affordable rent for federally subsidized housing was set at 20 percent of income, which rose to 25 percent of income in 1969 and 30 percent of income in 1981. Over time, the 30 percent [gross income] threshold also became the standard for owner-occupied housing, and it remains the indicator of affordability for housing in the United States. Keeping housing costs below 30 percent of income is intended to ensure that households have enough money to pay for other nondiscretionary costs; therefore, policymakers consider households who spend more than 30 percent of income on housing costs to be housing cost burdened.

Defining affordability can be like listening to good music—you recognize it when you hear it, and others may still disagree with you. But the HUD definition would seem to be a reasonable one, and that it has been adopted beyond the bureaucracy as a general rule makes it more compelling as a starting point for this discussion. While this “general rule” is a good starting point, the details for defining “affordable housing” matter, too. More on that in the next blog.

The post Part Three: Does Kansas City Have an Affordable Housing Problem? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That short description of Kansas City isn’t to imply that the region is some monolithic cow town with roads, and Kansas Citians have a plethora of living options to serve their lifestyle needs. Residents can make their home in a rural area and commute to an office downtown in as little as 15 minutes. Urban living options are plentiful, and the local art scene is vibrant and growing.

Indeed, variety is a hallmark of living in the City of Fountains, and that variety is facilitated by the vast geographic space available to its citizens. The Kansas City Metropolitan Statistical Area, or MSA, is the 31st largest in the country, but in terms of population density, the Kansas City MSA ranks far down the list at 121st. There’s space to live in Kansas City, and for years the living’s been relatively cheap.

With a variety of lifestyle choices and ample land, could Kansas City nonetheless be suffering from an affordability problem? Local reporting on its housing stock and costs has reflected many of the housing affordability journalism trends nationally, with most journalistic conclusions pointing to the Kansas City region being in the middle of some sort of a “housing crisis.” A June 2021 report by KCUR captures this dynamic well, suggesting that a “shortage of affordable housing in Kansas City is not a new problem. But the pandemic exacerbated the crisis and exposed the region’s failure to act” (Emphasis mine).

How can a region become “unaffordable” for housing, and what should constitute the region’s “action” to fight this “affordable housing” crisis? Often the solution provided by public officials to solve affordable housing problems is subsidies, typically either for new housing construction or some form of direct rent assistance. But the basis of the underlying claim—that affordable housing in Kansas City isn’t a “new problem”—requires greater evaluation than is typically given in news reports.

We’re told we have an affordable housing problem in Kansas City. But do we? This blog series will explore this question and consider whether the city and the state’s policies are aligned in a way to address the issue if it exists, or protect against its formation if it doesn’t.

The post Part One: Does Kansas City Have an Affordable Housing Problem? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The growth of the St. Louis MSA, which contains 7 counties in Missouri and 8 counties in Illinois, has been stagnant for years, driven in no small part by poor population growth in St. Louis City. While some lawmakers were pleasantly surprised that our 2020 numbers weren’t worse, I’m disappointed at what has become of a once booming and prosperous Midwestern region.

What is it that keeps St. Louis out of the race?

Maybe it’s the sales tax rates that can be over 11 percent. Or the earnings tax in St. Louis City. Perhaps it’s the poor public schools and lack of school choice. Or the crime. It’s likely a mix of all these things and more; anything that makes St. Louis a less attractive place to live, work, or start a business has negative effects on population growth. You would think that years of stagnant growth would inspire lawmakers to take steps in the right direction, but we’ve seen little change. Maybe this fall from the top 20 will finally light a fire under lawmakers.

The post We’re Not in Last Place—We’re Not Even in the Race appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri has eight metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), a term used to describe a city with a population of at least 50,000 and the surrounding area. Below is a graphic from my latest publication, The 2020 Missouri Tax Landscape, which provides an overview of Missouri’s economy and taxes at the state and local levels. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of these MSAs is a calculated rate helpful for evaluating growth over time. While GDP growth is volatile, the CAGR provides a calculated rate as if the growth had occurred at a steady rate during the period.

Notes: Some MSAs cross state lines, indicated by the inclusion of the states in the label. Real GDP numbers are for the entire MSA. Real GDP numbers are in chained 2012 dollars, meaning they are adjusted for inflation over time with 2012 as the base year.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis. Real GDP by County and Metropolitan Area.  https://apps.bea.gov/itable/iTable. cfm?ReqID=70&step=1#reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1

Columbia and Kansas City had the highest growth rates from 2009 to 2018, growing by 1.6 percent each year on average. St. Louis grew by less than half of that rate—a meager 0.7 percent. The CAGRs of Missouri’s largest MSAs are nowhere near those of large MSAs in surrounding states. In the same period, Oklahoma City, OK grew by a rate of 2.9 percent; Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN by 2.4 percent; and Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA by 2.2 percent. Additionally, all of Missouri’s MSAs fell below the national growth rate of 2.3 percent during this period.

There are a lot of factors that contribute to a metro area’s growth, and the tax climate is certainly one of them. High tax rates take spending money away from citizens and make cities and states less attractive to people and businesses. There’s a plethora of research showing that taxation (and especially taxation on income) has a negative effect on economic growth. Given the low growth rates of Missouri’s MSAs, it may be time for some tax-related New Year’s resolutions.

The post MSA Growth in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to an analysis of Census data conducted by Aaron Renn for the Show-Me Institute, the Missouri portion of the region is falling behind in every measure: per capita income, college degree attainment, population growth, job growth, and well as personal income and GDP growth. Renn points out:

The Missouri portion of the metro area by itself would perform worse and be ranked lower on all the statistics above as compared to the Kansas City metro area as a whole. This is due to the superior performance of the Kansas portion of the region compared to the Missouri portion.

Show-Me Institute researchers have written for years about the many things Kansas City can do to make itself a more attractive place to live, work, and shop. Too often rosy regional stories have lulled local leaders into a false sense of success. Kansas City, Missouri isn’t succeeding. This report should spur leaders and activists to look seriously at our own performance and work to improve it.

The post Kansas City is Falling Behind the Region appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To measure affordability, researchers divided the median house price within a region by the median household income. Regions scoring under 3.0 are considered affordable. The regions examined don’t just include cities; researchers examined metropolitan statistical areas, often including the several counties surrounding an urban area. So the Kansas City and St. Louis regions include a number of more suburban municipalities as well.

Rochester, New York earned the best score out of the major housing markets, with a score of 2.5. St. Louis was tied for fourth most affordable with a score of 2.8. (This is up from St. Louis’s 2010 score of 2.6.) Kansas City fell within the top 20 with a score of 3.3 among major housing markets, but this too is an increase from previous years. In 1990 and 2015, Kansas City’s scores were 2.3 and 2.9., respectively.

Missouri’s cities have often benefitted from relatively low costs of living, driven largely by housing costs. This is due in part to a lack of a certain kind of land-use regulations that became prevalent in cities in places like California, Oregon and Washington. Missouri and its cities ought to be congratulated for avoiding these pitfalls.

As Kansas City and St. Louis seek to increase housing affordability, they ought to remember that their successes so far stem largely from avoiding overregulation. Many policies, despite being well intentioned, only increase costs by restricting availability.

For more information on housing affordability, read our 2016 study on Kansas City or our 2012 study on St. Louis.

The post Good News on Housing Affordability in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What happened? A new paper published by the Show-Me Institute from economists Rik Hafer and William Rogers provides some insight into Missouri’s half-century of stagnation.

Much of the problem can be traced to the underwhelming growth of Missouri’s two major metropolitan areas: Kansas City and St. Louis. Hafer and Rogers found that from the late 1960s to the mid-2010s, the Missouri portions of the Kansas City and St. Louis metropolitan statistical areas (or MSAs) grew by about 20 percent, which at first glance might not seem terrible. The problem is, similar “mid-major” MSAs around the country grew by nearly 90 percent during the same period.

At least in some respects, the issue boils down to job growth and the retention of trained workers in high-growth industries. Certainly, individual states may be more predisposed toward certain industries based on their geography, their natural resources, and other factors, but in the five industries that have seen the largest growth in the U.S. over the last 20 years—information, professional business services, education, financial services, and mining/logging—Missouri has lagged the national average. For years, Missouri has had weak domestic in-migration, and in particular, the state has had weak in-migration of holders of bachelor’s and advanced degrees who might fill the jobs in these fast-growing industries.

Indeed, in at least four of these industries, a bachelor’s or advanced degree might be expected for a substantial number of these jobs, and arguably those jobs tend to be more urban in nature rather than rural. And that brings us back to Missouri’s two major cities: The industries that need these workers aren’t growing as fast there as they are elsewhere in the country. And although Kansas City and St. Louis are generally regarded as the “engines” of the state’s growth, Missouri’s economic horsepower has sounded more like a Pinto than a Porsche over the last few decades, in no small part due to these losses in talent.

But not every part of the state has been caught up in the state’s overall growth malaise. The metropolitan areas of Springfield and Fayetteville, Arkansas—specifically the parts in Missouri—have exceeded the state’s growth averages over this roughly 50-year horizon. And even within Missouri’s mid-major MSAs, places like St. Charles County and Platte County have been bright spots for the state, offsetting some of the weak economic performance seen in places like Jackson County, St. Louis County, and St. Louis City.

What can be done? That question is beyond the scope of Hafer’s and Rogers’ work, but it merits a discussion among the public and by policymakers. Different regions will have to grapple with different problems; last year, for instance, I wrote that St. Louis City’s long-standing woes can be traced back to its dysfunctional educational, crime, and tax policies, all of which incentivize current and prospective residents to put down their roots elsewhere in the region, or beyond it entirely. Similar criticisms can be leveled at Kansas City. Elsewhere in the state, educational and tax issues are perhaps the more pressing issues for long-term economic growth in their regions.

Regardless, Missourians must begin a serious and deliberate process to ensure that the state is creating an environment for people of all educational backgrounds to succeed here. Hopefully, by the next time astronauts set foot on the Moon, the state will have gotten a handle on its growth problems.

The post A Moonshot of Mistakes: Missouri’s Missing Million appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The study found Missouri’s top two cities to be middle of the pack when it comes to economic freedom; of the top 52 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) Kansas City and St. Louis ranked 24^th and 22^nd respectively. Note that these are measurements of the city and the several counties around them, and so the policies of suburban communities like St. Charles and Johnson County are contributing to the whole.

The freedom index looked at three areas, each with three measures. Below are the three measures for each category, and St. Louis and Kansas City’s ranking in each category:

Government spending (Kansas City ranked 16^th, St. Louis 20^th)

• General consumption expenditure by government as a percentage of personal income
• Transfers and subsidies as a percentage of personal income
• Insurance and retirement payments as a percentage of personal income

Taxation (Kansas City ranked 30^th, St. Louis 20^th)

• Income and payroll tax revenue as a percentage of personal income
• Sales tax revenue as a percentage of personal income
• Revenue from property tax and other taxes as a percentage of personal income

Labor market freedom (Kansas City ranked 32^nd, St. Louis ranked 33^rd)

• Minimum wage (full-time income as a percentage of per capita income)
• Government employment as a percentage of total state employment
• Private union density (private union membership as a percentage of total employment)

All the urban core areas studied likely scored worse than the larger MSA they were in due to higher sales, property and income taxes, lower incomes, greater government employment and the resulting higher costs of public pensions.

The irony of municipal public policy is that cities are filled with the doyens of “do something.” They argue that cities must increase taxes here and there to fund programs that do this and that to solve real and imagined problems. But the real success is not in top-down command-and-control economies but rather in open and free economies where the people are free to earn and invest. It’s true of nations and it’s true of cities.

The post Free Your City and the Growth Will Follow appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

William Frey of the Brookings Institution just published a report entitled “How migration of millennials and seniors has shifted since the Great Recession,” and it has some promising numbers for Kansas City. In the report, Frey writes:

Another feature of young adult migration magnets is their location in the South and West “Sun Belt” region where all except three of the top 20 magnets are located. (Those three—Minneapolis-St. Paul, Columbus, and Kansas City—are among the most highly educated Midwest areas for millennials.)

…Today’s young adults, now encompassing those in the prime millennial ages, show a penchant for “educated places”—including Denver and Seattle—as well as more affordable areas like Minneapolis and Kansas City with pre-recession hot spots like Riverside, Phoenix, and Atlanta showing reduced appeal. 

Frey, as do most researchers, uses the term Kansas City broadly, to encompass an entire metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The Kansas City MSA stretches from Independence to Lawrence and includes 14 counties. Its population is 2.1 million, compared to the under 500,000 within the political boundaries of Kansas City, Missouri itself. Knowing whether a statistic describes a city or a metropolitan area is important, lest you conclude, as some would have you believe, that Kansas City gets 25 million visitors a year. It doesn’t.

It’s important to remember the Brookings Institution numbers on millennial migration speak to the broader MSA. Frey doesn’t report how much of the growth is taking place in downtown Kansas City, or how much is taking place in Olathe and Overland Park, two places recently listed as top destinations for millennials. Frey doesn’t report it because he doesn’t know it; I asked him.

As has happened before, it is possible that reports like this will be set upon by groups like the Downtown Council and the City of Kansas City as proof that the billions of dollars spent subsidizing wealthy developers in downtown Kansas City are bearing fruit. But until we know migration numbers within the MSAs, all that optimism is premature and skepticism is warranted.

Below: a map containg data from Frey’s analysis.

The post Some Promising Numbers About Millennials in Kansas City. Maybe. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Why are there a smaller percentage of workers in startups, considering the state is at a new record high level for the number of non-farm jobs? Data suggest that Missouri startups are taking less of that job growth pie than they did before. Since 1995 to 2015, job growth from startups was near 72% of all job growth in the state of Missouri. If we look at this 20-year performance as a “normal” share of job growth from startups, then seeing a startup share at 62.5% should come as a disappointment. Of course, growing shares of workers in large, established firms can also spur growth. However, there are specific advantages that startups bring to a region that can be more difficult for established firms to provide. For example, research has shown that increased prevalence of startups can bring more innovation through increased competition (pp. 2–3) , allow for better adoption of new information, can create new industries (pp. 328–330), and improve labor productivity.  The graph below lists the share of startup job growth of Missouri, its metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), and non-MSA portion relative to its 20-year average.

From the graph, we observe that Missouri currently runs below its 20-year average by more than 9 percentage points. Unfortunately, this statewide drop comes from underperformance in nearly every population center; with strongest losses coming from Kansas City, Joplin, and Saint Joseph. 

Interestingly, two of those three MSAs include areas in both Missouri and Kansas, a state that improved its tax climate by lowering individual income taxes by 30% for its residents and eliminating income taxes for personal businesses. The Saint Louis metro area shares a border with Illinois, a state suffering from population loss and which hiked corporate income taxe levels from 2011 to 2015 to more than 3 percentage points above Missouri’s.  A look at the Kansas side of the KC Area shows that it also underperformed its long-run growth, albeit by a smaller margin. In the Saint Joseph area, the Kansas side is currently exceeding its long-run trend and is seeing exceptional growth. There is good news however; the Missouri side of the Saint Louis area is outperforming the Illinois side.

What factors entice entrepreneurs to move or start their business in a new area? Could it be overall migration flows, or how cheap it is in an area to start and grow a business? Part 3 of my “Entrepreneurship in Missouri” will review a study published by the Brookings Institution that may shed some light on reasons as to why entrepreneurship is falling. 

The post Entrepreneurship in Missouri, Part 2: Where Is the Job Growth? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data on personal income across states and metropolitan areas (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/rpp/2016/_images/rpp0716.png ) shows that real per-capita personal income for the state of Missouri—personal income adjusted for inflation and measured on a per-person basis—increased at a rate of 2.1 percent in 2014.  That puts Missouri squarely in the middle of the pack, with the 26th-fastest growth among states.  Several neighboring states fared worse: Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, and Nebraska all registered slower growth rates. 

Because the state is a mixture of rural and urban areas, it’s worth asking if this middling record is reflective of all areas in the state?  To answer this question, we use BEA data for metropolitan areas in the country to see how real per-capita personal income grew in Missouri’s metropolitan areas.

The table below lists the name of the metropolitan area (metropolitan statistical area, or MSA as defined by the BEA), each MSA’s growth in real per-capita personal income and the MSA’s national ranking based on that growth rate.  For some perspective, the average growth rate in real per-capita personal income across the 381 MSAs nationwide was 2.04 percent in 2014.  The Hanford-Corcoran, California, MSA had the highest growth rate at 7.5 percent; the Danville, Illinois, MSA the lowest growth rate at -3.1 percent.

From the table we see that real per-capita personal income growth in Missouri’s MSAs lags behind most of the nation’s other metro areas.  Only Springfield and St. Louis are at or above the national average, though Cape Girardeau and Kansas City are close to the average.  Columbia basically saw personal income in 2014 remain at its 2013 level. 

The upshot is that the majority of the MSAs in the country had better personal income growth in 2014 than Missouri’s metro areas.  It might not be wise to look to urban growth to raise the state’s average.

(Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis)

The post Personal Income in Missouri Continues to Lag appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Stay above the line and you gained jobs; drop below the line and you’ve lost them. And to be clear, the Kansas City, Kan./Kansas City, Mo., designations here are references to the Metropolitan Statistical Areas that compose the Kansas City metropolitan area; indeed, the data used here is appropriately broad and provides a fuller picture of Kansas City’s regional economic picture by including other large Kansas and Missouri cities along and around the border — from Overland Park to Platte City and beyond.

In the past, we’ve talked about how jobs have moved, or simply disappeared, from Kansas City’s city center in the past decade. These BLS figures provide further meat to those bones, showing that when it comes to job creation and growth, the advantage right now appears to be very much in Kansas’ favor. The question is, how long will Missouri let that undesirable status quo remain?

The post The Kansas/Missouri Economic Border War, In A Graph appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Consider that, according to the 2010 U.S. Census, 3,879,695 Missourians currently live outside of Saint Louis. Consider further that, as my colleague Audrey Spalding recently calculated, the proposal would cost at least $80 for each person living in Missouri. This means that Missourians living outside of Saint Louis will be forced to spend $310.4 million on the project. In other words, this policy would remove $310.4 million from the economy in the rest of the state, and funnel it into Saint Louis.

The editorial board at the St. Louis Business Journal certainly seems to get it:

That this is essentially a St. Louis-only measure is an insult to the rest of the state, making us look like the greedy urban jerks the outstate legislators love to hate. Not to mention our colleagues in Kansas City.

Speaking of our friends in Kansas City, they in particular will see more costs than benefits. Kansas City residents will collectively pay $36.8 million for this policy. However, they are unlikely to receive direct benefits from the policy because they live 235 miles away from Lambert Airport. Is sending $36.8 million to Saint Louis the best use for their money? Could it perhaps be better spent on projects in Kansas City (e.g., education, transportation), or returned to Kansas City residents to spend, save, and invest in the private sector?

Supporters of large publicly funded projects tend to argue that they generate lots of economic activity that resonate across the economy. These, however, are mere conjectures; I am aware of no study that proves it. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that few, if any, spillovers or multipliers arise from targeted tax credit programs. I will elaborate on this point in a future post. (Stay tuned to the blog!)

The money that is spent in this program could otherwise benefit Missourians through a tax reduction or another form of state spending. If the China hub project doesn’t happen, taxpayers will be able to keep a greater percentage of their earnings, which they can then spend on additional goods and services. Much of this economic activity (e.g., hotel stays, restaurant meals) would be generated by individuals in the private sector. However, if the government takes half a billion dollars out of the economy, Missourians won’t be able to spend and invest it themselves, and this economic activity will be lost.

How China Hub Costs Are Diffused, by Region

* Metropolitan Statistical Area, defined by U.S. Census

The post Benefits of China Hub Focused on Saint Louis; All Missouri Taxpayers Forced to Pick Up $480 Million Tab appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Let me briefly review my empirical evidence. I looked at more than 100 MSAs in the United States. The dependent variable I studied was the ratio of aggregate income reported by the U.S. Census for each primary city in that MSA to the aggregate income for the entire MSA. Basically, I measured the size of the city economy relative to the suburban economy. I then estimated a regression in which the city-to-MSA income ratio was the dependent variable and the earnings tax rate was the independent variable. The result was a significant negative correlation; in other words, cities with higher earnings tax rates tend to have smaller economies relative to their suburbs than cities with lower earnings tax rates. This result held both when using the 1990 Census as the data source and the 2000 Census as the data source.

In the article, I argued that this empirical finding was entirely consistent with sophisticated models of business and household locations within local economies. My analysis was grounded in a widely cited paper by Haughwout and Inman (2001). In it, they analyzed a model economy in which people living in a city took the tax structure as given and made consequent location decisions. When dealing with aggregate economic data, even at the city level, economists do not have a laboratory to run their experiments. Facts are extracted from the data — these are the economists’ observations — and economic theory is employed to account for these facts. Other models exist, but the Haughwout and Inman model can account for the many empirical regularities observed in city growth around the country.

Professor Strauss took an alternative approach and asked a different question. He estimated a regression in which the dependent variable is the growth rate of income in an MSA. The growth rate was computed for the period 1969 through 2007. His regression uses at least two independent variables. One is a dummy variable set equal to one for an MSA in which the primary city has an earnings tax, and set equal to zero otherwise. The other independent variable is the income level for the MSA in 1969, the so-called initial income level. The basis for Prof Strauss’ inquiry was the notion of economic convergence. If the coefficient on the initial income level is negative and statistically significant, the evidence indicates that cities with higher initial income levels tend to grow slower than cities with lower initial income levels. The convergence hypothesis follows, because the evidence suggests that cities starting off poor tend to catch up to the initially richer cities. The convergence hypothesis has been applied to cross-country datasets, and is useful for explaining why Japan and Korea — and, more recently, China — grow so fast. The return to capital is higher in these poor countries, and provides an opportunity for them to catch up to those already-rich countries. The convergence hypothesis cannot explain why Sub-Saharan Africa remains so poor. For our purposes, it is not obvious why convergence should apply to MSAs, but I will blog about this lesson more fully in the future.

In Prof. Strauss’ results, the coefficient on the earnings tax dummy is not significantly different from zero after one includes the MSA’s initial income level as an explanatory variable. He concludes that the earnings tax does not explain economic growth. He interprets these findings as indicating that cities across the United States are catching up and not affected by earnings taxes. I would proffer a slightly different interpretation. Metro areas that started off with lower incomes in 1969 are, on average, catching up to cities that started off with higher incomes. His unit of measurement is the MSA, not the city. This is kind of interesting. At first pass, convergence can characterize MSAs across the United States. The more difficult part is why rural areas are not catching up. If convergence can be attributed to low capital in the low-income metro areas, then it seems that rural areas — ones with low capital accumulation — would catch up to high-income urban areas. For me, the nagging problem about the convergence hypothesis is that Rocheport should start looking like Columbia in terms of capital. But Rocheport’s economy does not look like the Columbia economy. Agglomeration, or increasing returns, probably has something to do with this. As I said, I will save this digression for a future blog.

I do not dispute Strauss’s findings; however, he did mischaracterize my research. He asked a different question than I did. I contend that my question is more relevant for the question of earnings taxes. People can avoid the earnings tax by eschewing the political jurisdiction in which the tax is implemented. Insofar as the suburban area is not a perfect substitute for the city area, economic efficiency is lost and the earnings tax is distorting people’s behavior.

Consider the following situation for illustrative purposes. Suppose there are two cities. In City A, the metro area’s income increased at a 1-percent annual rate between 1969 and 2007. However, all the businesses moved out of a city and into the suburbs in 2000. In City B, the metro area’s income increased at a 1-percent annual rate between 1969 and 2007. In both City A and City B, Prof. Strauss’ measure of income growth would be 1 percent. If I further told you that City A had a 1-percent earnings tax and City B had no earnings tax, then according to Prof. Strauss’ unit of measure — the growth rate of income in the MSA — would indicate no statistical relationship between the earnings tax dummy and the growth rate of MSA income.

In contrast, I estimate the regression for city income to MSA income in 2000 and find a negative relationship between the earnings tax rate and the city-to-MSA income. The purpose of this illustration is to point out that his results do not contradict mine. His findings do not render my interpretation of the evidence as faulty. He asked a different question and got a different answer. Thus, a reasonable person could walk away believing both results are accurately depicted. Because we have different units of measurement for the city economy, we are clearly asking (and answering) different questions.

My results were mischaracterized in the Kansas City Star’s recent op-ed by Prof. Strauss. My goal is to properly characterize both sets of results. I am sure that more “teachable” moments will be forthcoming. Let’s proceed with skepticism before we accept any economic interpretation of the results.

The post New Results on the Earnings Tax – For a Different Question appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the Show-Me Institute study, “How an Earnings Tax Harms Cities Like Saint Louis and Kansas City,” Haslag shares his findings that there is a measurable negative impact for cities with an earnings tax. The opening of the paper itself provides an ideal summary: “About one in four large cities in the United States has an earnings tax. I attempt to quantify the relationship between the earnings tax rate and the growth rate of cities relative to their metropolitan statistical areas (MSA). I find that cities with an earnings tax tend to have a significantly lower ratio of city income to MSA income than those without them.”

Haslag goes on to argue that the earnings tax distorts the growth of the MSA, encouraging people to locate in outlying areas rather than in the city center — discouraging investment in the city and reducing per-capita income.

The counter offered by Gladson and Strauss is responding to a different point — one not made in the Show-Me Institute study. They claim that Haslag’s study “offers a simple negative correlation between cities with earnings taxes and real per capita income growth.” This is emphatically not the point being made in the study. Growth implies a comparison over time, whereas the Show-Me Institute policy study to which they refer used side-by-side comparisons of population proportions and where they happened to be located within the MSA. Haslag does not make any arguments about the level of growth, but rather about where the people are located. It may be that the MSAs grow faster or slower because of the presence or absence of an earnings tax, but Haslag’s study drew no connection between growth and the presence of an earnings tax. Haslag may or may not be surprised to learn that Gladson and Strauss “found no relationship between earnings taxes and a city’s income growth, and no evidence that earnings taxes are a reason for a city’s slow growth,” because this is not what he looked at in his study.

Haslag found, with careful, externally reviewed analysis, that the presence of an earnings tax negatively impacts the income of the cities that implement them when residents can easily shift to a nearby area without such a tax. Perhaps after a more careful reading of the piece, Gladson and Strauss will find some salient point on which they can disagree with this study, but for now their offering is an argument without an opponent.

The post The Earnings Tax Is Still Bad, for All the Reasons We’ve Already Said appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Saint Louis and Kansas City earnings taxes, 1-percent income taxes imposed on those living or working within city limits, have consequences. People have ways of avoiding these taxes, and the single easiest way is through their mobility. Put another way, people choose where to work and what businesses to operate based on a variety of factors, including the taxes in competing political subdivisions. This location decision is particularly pertinent to both Kansas City and Saint Louis, because each one’s metropolitan area straddles a state line. In contrast to metro areas that lie in the center of the state, any tax avoidance in Missouri’s largest cities will have repercussions for the state coffers as well for Kansas’ and Illinois’ benefit. Thus, in addition to the losses in economic efficiency and total productivity that it brings, earnings taxes leave the state and municipal governments with a shrinking tax base and a commensurate decrease in tax revenue, affecting all Missourians.

It is undeniable that the Kansas side of the Kansas City metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and the Illinois side of the Saint Louis MSA are gaining on their Missouri counterparts. The former has made such substantial gains in the last several decades that Kansas City is approaching an even split between the two states in terms of population, retail sales, and total employment. During the last decade, Missouri’s share of total employment within the Kansas City MSA slipped down to 0.57 in 2006, from 0.59 in 1998. Put another way, Missouri would have had another 19,000 people working in our state if the employment ratio had stayed the same. While Missouri is still by far the dominant state in the Saint Louis MSA, Illinois also has gained relative to the Missouri side. The ratio of Missouri employment to total employment in the Saint Louis MSA has fallen during the last decade from 0.85 in 1998 to 0.84 in 2006, reducing Missouri’s employment by 9,500 workers. In both cities, evidence indicates that employment is seeping across state lines, taking with it opportunities for tax collection and revenue accumulation for the state of Missouri.

How much of this phenomenon can actually be attributed to the city earnings tax? Saint Louis and Kansas City are hardly the only earnings-tax-enforcing cities that are losing economic power from their base state. Cities such as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Cincinnati have also seen losses in employment to neighboring states. In fact, from 1998 to 2006, every MSA that includes counties from two or more states, in which one enforces a city income tax, has seen a decline in the ratio of employment within the area subject to an earnings tax relative to total MSA employment, even while similar multistate MSAs without earning taxes have experienced, on average, a modest increase in that ratio during the same period.

An elimination of the earnings tax could have a real, quantifiable impact on the level of total employment retained by Missouri in its two largest metropolitan areas. According to our calculations, eliminating the earnings tax in Kansas City would increase the ratio of Missouri employment to total employment in that metropolitan area by over one-half of a percent, an increase of approximately 4,700 Missouri jobs. Such an injection of employment into the state of Missouri would represent an annual gain of nearly $134.5 million in total state earnings. This increase in earnings would impact the municipal and state tax coffers as well, infusing over $4 million in additional tax revenue into Missouri state and municipal governments.

Missouri would stand to gain even more from elimination of the Saint Louis earnings tax. Our calculations indicate such a change in tax policy would precipitate an increase of more than 6,500 Missouri jobs in the short run, along with nearly $157 million in additional earnings within the state of Missouri. Local governments within the Missouri side of the Saint Louis MSA stand to gain nearly $5 million dollars in supplemental tax revenue from these additional Missouri jobs alone.

Perhaps an even more salient point is that all of these figures forecast benefits for the state of Missouri and its citizens in the immediate future. If the long-term gains are nearly as substantial as the immediate gains appear to be, eliminating the earnings tax could be a paradigm-shifting change for the Kansas City and Saint Louis MSAs, and for Missouri in general. It could help stem the trend of economic activity shifting outside city limits, fleeing toward suburban and out-of-state destinations, and help preserve Missouri’s fading dominance in those areas.

The earnings tax is, even without the concerns raised here, an economic force that adversely affects the cities that levy it, their metropolitan areas, and the state. It discourages investment and cultivation in the urban core, often the part of a city with the most infrastructure and economic potential, thereby weakening the entire economic structure of a metropolitan area and a state as a whole. When these potential pitfalls are combined with increasingly appealing out-of-state commercial options, the earnings tax becomes a formidable enemy to the economic stability of a state like Missouri. It is time to consider whether the costs of the earnings tax are worthwhile. Would the citizens of Missouri be better served by a balanced playing field that allows Saint Louis and Kansas City to compete with surrounding suburban and out-of-state areas unencumbered by the economic distortions produced by the earnings tax? The economic vitality and fiscal solvency of their state may depend on it.

Joseph Haslag is executive vice president of the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank, and a professor in economics at the University of Missouri–Columbia. Alex Schulte is an intern at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Missouri Suffers From the Saint Louis and Kansas City Earnings Taxes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The statistic quoted by McCracken, that St. Louis was once the fourth-largest city in the United States, but is no longer among the top 50 cities, likely comes from the same statistical source used in this wikipedia list. There, it is plain as day: Austin: #16 (pop: 743,000); St. Louis: #52 (pop: 356,000). Never .mind the footnote in the list indicating that, like Baltimore, St. Louis is an independent city that is not a part of any county. More relevant is the fact that a city’s true population rarely comprises only the people who reside in its boundaries, but also the people who live and work within the vicinity.

There’s a standard measure of such population groupings, called “metropolitan statistical areas” (MSAs). Here’s a list of the top 25 MSAs and their populations. St. Louis is listed 18th now, with a population of 2.8 million. That’s more like it. Notice that Austin is not in the list? I found it here, listed 48th (2002 population: 1.3 million).

It’s true that the Austin MSA is growing fast, much faster than St. Louis’, but it’s unlikely that it will overtake us soon. What can residents of St. Louis and the state of Missouri do to ensure that we remain significant and grow strong? The Show-Me Institute has definitely covered some of this ground before. Here are some reminders.

The post In Defense of St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

About one in four large cities in the United States has an earnings tax. I attempt to quantify the relationship between the earnings tax rate and the growth rate of cities relative to their metropolitan statistical areas (MSA). I find that cities with an earnings tax tend to have a significantly lower ratio of city income to MSA income than those without them.

These findings are particularly relevant to Missouri because Missouri’s two largest cities have an earnings tax. I compare changes to major economic indicators in St. Louis, Kansas City,and Springfield and find that Springfield is losing ground to its suburbs, but not nearly as rapidly as St. Louis and Kansas City in terms of income and employment. I then extend the analysis, estimating the relationship between the earnings tax rate and the city-to-MSA income ratio using a cross-state dataset. The cross-state evidence indicates that a city with a one-percent earnings tax rate will, on average, have a five-percentage-point lower city-to-MSA income ratio than a city with no earnings tax. Thus, the evidence points to a substantial relocation occurring in those cities that adopt an earnings tax.

The economics is quite straightforward. By adopting an earnings tax, a city gives businesses and residents an incentive to locate production outside the city. People go where they will obtain the highest after-tax return on their labor or investments. In order to raise the return, people locate more productive capacity outside the city limits in order to avoid the tax burden. This incentive effect can account for why the city share of per capita income is smaller in cities with earnings taxes than without.

The bottom line is that city earnings taxes do matter. Cities that wish to increase their rate of economic growth should consider reducing or eliminating their earnings taxes.

Related Links

The post How an Earnings Tax Harms Cities Like Saint Louis and Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.