Who Are These Folks Moving Here?

We know that Nashville’s hot, and that as a result people want to move here. And we know from Census Bureau data that they are moving here, the numbers putting Nashville among the fastest growing large metro areas both in the last few years and since 2000. That’s great … we love newcomers, right? But who are these mooks relocating here?

Demographers don’t call it relocating; they call it migration, and The Atlantic‘s CityLab project is out with a nifty new analysis of migration in and out of U.S. cities — specifically, a look at the education level of people coming and going. So are we attracting smart, educated humans to Nashville? Can’t really speak to “smart,” but here’s what the analysis says about the education level for domestic migration to Nashville (which means it excludes immigrants):

citylab_nashville_500x282

It’s data from a single year, so just a snapshot, but that snapshot suggests that Nashville is losing its most educated residents, with the inflow of newcomers looking like a balanced mix of college educated and non-college folks. How does this compare with other cities, especially those with whom we like to compare ourselves?

Here are two sets of comparison cities. The first is a set of three sunbelt metro areas we often either compare Nashville to or benchmark against:

cityset1

These pictures show two big things that separate Austin and Charlotte from us. First, those cities are attracting more highly educated migrants — large net inflows of people with bachelor’s and postgraduate degrees. And second, although those two metro areas are similar in size to Nashville, look at how much bigger their raw numbers are: Charlotte’s net domestic migration is three times Nashville’s, and Austin’s almost four times. Atlanta, by contrast, is attracting a markedly less educated influx of new residents than Nashville, and is actually may be having problems holding on to its educated workforce.

The second set of comparison cities are tech-centric metro areas out west:

cityset2

These comparisons show just how far out of the big leagues Nashville remains in attracting the kind of very educated talent influx that some cities are enjoying. Putting together the two sets of comparison cities, we can see that Austin and Charlotte are approaching this level of well-educated migration; Nashville isn’t.

A prior CityLab post broke down flows of population in and out of metro areas in 2013 into their international (inflow of immigrants) and domestic components. Nashville, like most cities, showed net inflows in both categories. The exceptions were the largest cities: net migration was negative — more people leaving than coming — in New York, L.A., Chicago, Philadelphia, and Miami.

A version of this post appears on the Nashville Scene‘s Pith in the Wind blog.


The Ring of Neurofire

JC_and_RMN2From the world of medicine, and specifically the academic journal Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, comes news that a successful neurological treatment for severe obsessive-compulsive disorder can trigger a curious side effect of the Nashville kind. From the published paper’s abstract:

Recently, neuroscientists have discovered that music influences the reward circuit of the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), even when no explicit reward is present. In this clinical case study, we describe a 60-year old patient who developed a sudden and distinct musical preference for Johnny Cash following deep brain stimulation (DBS) targeted at the NAcc.

The patient, identified as “Mr. B,” is said by the team of Dutch neuroscientists who published the paper to have had broad musical tastes before the treatment, “covering Dutch-language songs, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.” After making no progress with conventional treatment, he was treated with deep brain stimulation, which is known for its use with Parkinson’s patients. Months after the DBS procedure Mr. B. happened to hear “Ring of Fire” on the radio and that’s when the man in black made neuroscience history:

Mr. B. reported that he felt good following treatment with DBS and that the songs of Johnny Cash made him feel even better. From this moment on, Mr. B. kept listening simply and solely to Johnny Cash and bought all his CD’s and DVD’s. When listening to his favorite songs he walks back and forth through the room and feels like he finds himself in a movie in which he plays the hero’s part. He reports that there is a Johnny Cash song for every emotion and every situation, feeling happy or feeling sad and although Mr. B. played almost simply and solely Johnny Cash songs for the following years, the music never starts to annoy him.

Okay, maybe a little lingering OCD there. Side benefit for the docs who wrote the case up: best academic journal article title ever — A case of musical preference for Johnny Cash following deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens.

A version of this post appears on the Nashville Scene‘s Pith in the Wind blog.


Right Track? Nation’s Worst? What’s the Diff?

CFCoverTennessee state house speaker Beth Harwell picked an odd week to write an op-ed (in this morning’s Tennessean) declaring that “Tennessee is on the right track” — unless she equates “on the right track” with “among the nation’s worst.” Because “among the nation’s worst” is precisely and appropriately how Tennessean reporter Shelley DuBois sums up the state’s standing in a new Commonwealth Fund report comparing states on dozens of measures of health care access, quality, costs and outcomes.

The report titled Aiming Higher (full text pdf here), which covers the period 2007-2012, finds widespread gains among states in areas that were getting a lot of policy attention, such as child immunizations and hospital readmissions, but on the down side rising costs and declines in access to care. In comparisons of states, Tennessee comes out rather badly. Skimming through the report’s various charts and graphs (pdf), this is easy to see.

Exhibit 12: Percent of adults who went without care because of cost, Tennessee ranks 10th from the bottom, unchanged from 2007.

Exhibit 16: Mortality amenable to heath care, Tennessee is in the bottom 10 for both black and white residents (they do that one by race).

Exhibit 8: Tennessee has the 16th highest rate of Medicare 30-day readmissions.

Exhibit 3: An overall state scorecard summary of health system performance across five dimensions (access and affordability; prevention and treatment; avoidable hospital use and cost; health lives; equity) ranks Tennessee’s 40th, in the bottom quartile.

Two bright spots: Exhibit 6 shows Tennessee ranks 11th in percent of children receiving all recommended vaccine doses, and Exhibit 11 shows Tennessee in top third of states in percent of children with insurance.

Perhaps these weak results mask improvement, making it possible to couch them in Harwell’s “on the right track” optimism. Is that plausible? Not so much. The CF report captures trends in Tennessee on 34 indicators, and finds improvement on 12 of them, worsening on 10, and no change on the rest — pretty much a wash. With the state’s ongoing stubborn refusal to entertain Medicaid expansion, it’s hard to look at the data here and predict upward movement in Tennessee’s health care quality and outcomes anytime soon.

“Right track” indeed.

A version of this post appears on the Nashville Scene‘s Pith in the Wind blog.


Moose Headlines

moosignNews from the world of moose…

There’s a moose at large in Vermont.

In New Hampshire, a brain worm was apparently the culprit.

Moose on the upswing in Michigan.

Up in Maine, Max the moose calls it quits.

Last but not least, a moose flip on video. Reportedly ok.


What Democracy Looks Like

Republicans around the country have put a lot of effort in recent years into enacting laws that limit voter access to the polls, with the GOP accelerating these vote suppression efforts in swing states in time for year’s midterm elections. So in other words, for the modern Republican Party, making it harder for people to vote (especially those who aren’t likely to vote for you) is what democracy looks like.

I stumbled onto a different view of what democracy looks like as I was ambling through Terminal 3 at Perth Airport in Western Australia last week. I happened upon Gate 22 — which had been temporarily converted into a polling place for early voting in upcoming state elections. Voting at the airport!

perth22

It is worth noting that Australia has a system of compulsory voting (if you don’t have an acceptable documented excuse for failing to vote you pay a fine), and that arguably obliges the government to make voting as readily available as possible. Also, Western Australia’s economy with its reliance on mining and energy spread over a large territory has a lot of so-called “fly-in, fly-out” workers who come and go to work by air for lengthy intervals. The opportunity for these workers to meet their voting obligation at the airport makes good sense, as Perth discovered in last fall’s Australian federal election.

It turns out, though, that airport voting isn’t unique to that western side of Australia with its mining economy; in the most recent federal election early voting sites were set up at major airports (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and others) in every Australian state.

In the U.S. right now, democracy (in the view of one major political party) means rigging public policy to keep people away from the polls. In Australia, democracy means creating opportunities to vote that reach people where and when they are. Making it hard to vote vs. making it easier to vote … hich smells more like real, functioning democracy?

[Plus in Australia you get to choose on the ballot among all these groovy political parties!]

ballot22

A version of this post appears on the Nashville Scene‘s Pith in the Wind blog.


Scalia Watch: Which Nino Will Show Up for Hobby Lobby?

ninoscaliaThe U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, a case about whether for-profit businesses can on religious grounds avoid a legal requirement that employer-provided health insurance include full contraceptive care. The owners of the privately-held corporations that brought the suit are, to be sure, religious people who run their businesses in part on religious principles. But this case isn’t about their individual beliefs so much as whether the entity they own and operate can itself as a corporation claim a First Amendment right to religious free exercise, and in doing so avoid complying with generally applicable law having secular intent. This case made it to the Supreme Court after a mix of rulings in different federal appeals courts, and where the high court will go with this one is seriously open to question.

With that in mind, it will be entertaining to see how Justice Antonin Scalia plays this one out. On one hand, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which Hobby Lobby wins without Scalia in its corner. On the other hand, Scalia did write the majority opinion in the important 1990 case Employment Division vs. Smith, ruling against a couple of guys in Oregon who sought exemption from a particular application of drug laws on religious grounds after ingesting peyote as a sacramental ritual at their Native American Church. In Hobby Lobby, one of the issues the court will ponder is whether the contraception requirement, which as a regulation has no religious character or intent, substantially burdens religious exercise to an extent that would justify letting some evade the law.

So what does Scalia think about situations in which public policy created through a democratic process collides with individual claims to a right to religious free exercise? It is instructive to read some of the things he had to say in 1990 in the Oregon case:

“The government’s ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector’s spiritual development.”

“Respondents urge us to hold, quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable conduct is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be free from governmental regulation. We have never held that, and decline to do so now.”

“Our cases do not at their farthest reach support the proposition that a stance of conscientious opposition relieves an objector from any colliding duty fixed by a democratic government.”

“It is horrible to contemplate that federal judges will regularly balance against the importance of general laws the significance of religious practice.”

Quoting with approval a 19th century case: “‘Laws…are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices…Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.’”

Which Scalia will show up today for Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby? The one from 1990 who understood the proper balance between democratic government and religious freedom? Or the twenty-first century version who just seems to make it up as he goes to suit his ideological whims?

A version of this post appears on the Nashville Scene‘s Pith in the Wind blog.


Questions for Marriage Equality Foes

A new poll last week showed a striking continuation of the dramatic shift in national public opinion toward broad acceptance of same-sex marriage. The trend is hard to miss:

Source: Washington Post-ABC News poll

Source: Washington Post-ABC News poll

This latest Post/ABC poll also finds that 61 percent favor allowing same-sex couples to adopt children, and 81 percent say businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians. And there’s an accelerating body of judicial opinion to go with public opinion: In the wake of last summer’s Supreme Court ruling on DOMA we’ve seen federal judges striking down gay marriage bans in Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah and Texas, along with state court rulings in New Jersey and Mexico.

Here in Tennessee, of course, a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage enacted in 2006 remains in effect, although a federal lawsuit of the sort that has worked in these other states is in process.

All of which raises the question: What is going through the minds of stalwart opponents of marriage equality as they digest these developments? The Family Action Council of Tennessee’s David Fowler is among those trying to stop the tide from coming in. Some questions for Mr. Fowler:

[1] Mr. Fowler, you are fond of reminding us that a very large majority of Tennessean voters “approved our constitutional definition of marriage” and that most still say that “marriage is between a man and a woman.” Both of these things are true, but while geographic splits on same-sex marriage approval do show the South lagging other regions, it’s no longer a minority view even here, and it isn’t hard to fathom which way it’s trending. Do you look at the polling data, Mr. Fowler, and honestly convince yourself that this shift happening everywhere is not actually occurring here in Tennessee?

Source: Washington Post-ABC News poll

Source: Washington Post-ABC News poll

[2] You have written that if federal court decisions like the one in Ohio ultimately extend to Tennessee, “a conflict will immediately arise between what the federal government, through the courts, will require Tennessee to recognize as a marriage and what Tennesseans voted to recognize as a marriage.” Is your grasp of constitutional law and the Fourteenth Amendment so tenuous that you will regard federal court decisions striking down bans on same-sex marriage as inciting conflict between federal law and Tennessee voters? Do you believe, accordingly, that the 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia invalidating state laws prohibiting interracial marriage was wrongly decided?

[3] You wrote last summer that “if same-sex marriage advocates want equality, then the burden is on them to prove that a same-sex union is essentially the same as a heterosexual union in all regards. Otherwise, everyone knows that there is nothing ‘unequal’ or ‘unfair’ about treating two different things two different ways.” Do you really believe that threats to equal protection under the law are taken seriously only if those in a social category denied equal protection can prove that they are just like those whose rights are protected “in all regards”? So black people have to be able to prove they are like white people “in all regards”? Muslims have to be like Christians “in all regards”? Women have to be like men “in all regards”?

The fact is, Mr. Fowler, that you and your organization cling to a viewpoint support for which is rapidly deteriorating everywhere. Do you imagine that Tennessee will somehow defy the trend and become a heterosexual oasis of bigotry? You are free to believe these things, of course, but why not just admit publicly what you no doubt understand privately: that opposition to marriage equality almost certainly will not outlast judicial momentum toward a Supreme Court ruling that throws Tennessee’s constitutional ban under the bus of history.

So what’s your end game, Mr. Fowler? Will you help usher Tennessee into the 21st century by hopping on the bus now in a gesture of humility and humanity? Or do you choose to remain defiantly in its path, somehow imagining that everyone else is going to suddenly wake up from a Fourteenth Amendment nightmare and reclaim bigotry and discrimination as righteous paths to Tennessee’s glorious future?

A version of this post appears on the Nashville Scene‘s Pith in the Wind blog.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.