>This suggests a possible positive reinforcement cycle, where deep blue areas, which often have fewer children, explicitly deprioritize family friendly policies, which leads to even fewer families there (either through lower birth rates or relocations).
There are also cultural effects, which I think might be more profound than policy effects (at least within the range of pro-natal policies that are currently in the Overton Window). I'm acquainted with some easygoing, go-with-the-flow young couples, who are not especially religious, who nonetheless had 3 kids by age 30, because this is just a family-friendly, early-marrying area. Having lived in much more liberal places, you're definitely not go-with-the-flow if you're doing that there; you're intentionally countercultural and disagreeable.
>Politico: Colorado’s Weed Market Is Coming Down Hard and It’s Making Other States Nervous - Businesses are shuttering or laying off workers as sales have plunged by $700 million
I don't think it's been commented on enough that legalized weed is much like gay marriage, in that it has basically played out exactly as the most negative naysayers anticipated. Consumption has increased, it is very public and literally stinking up a number of our major cities, and much of it remains in the black market and therefore it has underdelivered in terms of tax revenues -- and we now see those revenues have peaked and are declining further.
This highlight an underappreciated consequence of legalizing vices: if you're the first place to legalize a vice, there are certain costs, but you do tend to enjoy an economic windfall. When other places follow your lead, the costs of that vice remain the same, but the windfall decreases as you share it more widely. I suppose this is a form of tragedy of the commons.
In the case of both pot legalization and gay marriage, I'll admit that while I was opposed, I was insufficiently opposed. I've been genuinely surprised by how poorly they turned out, and I've been further hardened against both these causes as a result. We all know this stuff already, but here is a decent summary I saw the other day, with receipts, of how gay marriage turned out exactly as the most negative predictions indicated, even as the left assured everyone that the concerns were all paranoid.
It's frustrating when laymen cannot think beyond stage 1 in their economic reasoning. What if I made the proposition that we'll take an industry with a large established black market and give licenses to a certain number of businesses to sell that product legally, and heavily regulate and tax the legal market, making it much more expensive than what's available in the black market? What did they think would happen?
Also frustrating is that it seems as though the actual policy options that are possible are much more limited than I previously thought. I am coming to understand what people mean when they say that a radically libertarian society is only for one primarily populated by high IQ autists. That is, it seems that we cannot have a situation where the externalities of one's marijuana use are all internalized because once it's legalized then it will be tolerated in the public domain, state services will flow to its deadbeat users, etc. We aren't truly willing to let people bear the consequences of their actions and so it's less costly to try to prevent them from making bad decisions.
The Pew Research poll was not clear on "compared to what?" when asking if marriage and children should be a priority.
>This suggests a possible positive reinforcement cycle, where deep blue areas, which often have fewer children, explicitly deprioritize family friendly policies, which leads to even fewer families there (either through lower birth rates or relocations).
There are also cultural effects, which I think might be more profound than policy effects (at least within the range of pro-natal policies that are currently in the Overton Window). I'm acquainted with some easygoing, go-with-the-flow young couples, who are not especially religious, who nonetheless had 3 kids by age 30, because this is just a family-friendly, early-marrying area. Having lived in much more liberal places, you're definitely not go-with-the-flow if you're doing that there; you're intentionally countercultural and disagreeable.
>Politico: Colorado’s Weed Market Is Coming Down Hard and It’s Making Other States Nervous - Businesses are shuttering or laying off workers as sales have plunged by $700 million
I don't think it's been commented on enough that legalized weed is much like gay marriage, in that it has basically played out exactly as the most negative naysayers anticipated. Consumption has increased, it is very public and literally stinking up a number of our major cities, and much of it remains in the black market and therefore it has underdelivered in terms of tax revenues -- and we now see those revenues have peaked and are declining further.
This highlight an underappreciated consequence of legalizing vices: if you're the first place to legalize a vice, there are certain costs, but you do tend to enjoy an economic windfall. When other places follow your lead, the costs of that vice remain the same, but the windfall decreases as you share it more widely. I suppose this is a form of tragedy of the commons.
In the case of both pot legalization and gay marriage, I'll admit that while I was opposed, I was insufficiently opposed. I've been genuinely surprised by how poorly they turned out, and I've been further hardened against both these causes as a result. We all know this stuff already, but here is a decent summary I saw the other day, with receipts, of how gay marriage turned out exactly as the most negative predictions indicated, even as the left assured everyone that the concerns were all paranoid.
https://x.com/America_2100/status/1800640195106046128
It's frustrating when laymen cannot think beyond stage 1 in their economic reasoning. What if I made the proposition that we'll take an industry with a large established black market and give licenses to a certain number of businesses to sell that product legally, and heavily regulate and tax the legal market, making it much more expensive than what's available in the black market? What did they think would happen?
Also frustrating is that it seems as though the actual policy options that are possible are much more limited than I previously thought. I am coming to understand what people mean when they say that a radically libertarian society is only for one primarily populated by high IQ autists. That is, it seems that we cannot have a situation where the externalities of one's marijuana use are all internalized because once it's legalized then it will be tolerated in the public domain, state services will flow to its deadbeat users, etc. We aren't truly willing to let people bear the consequences of their actions and so it's less costly to try to prevent them from making bad decisions.