"Old South" states and "New South" states

[Aporkalypse]

I think Texas is a Southern state, maybe not so much west Texas but east Texas sure is.

[Mr.Marc]

I think Texas is a Southern state, maybe not so much west Texas but east Texas sure is.

[krazeeboi]

Here's one thing that lends credence to the notion of entire states being more "Old South" or "New South." While this report is a bit dated, it shows the states that experienced a net gain of single, college-educated young professionals (age 25-39) from 1995-2000. All of the states that I classified as "Old South" states, which were South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky, experienced a net loss of this coveted group, while the "New South" states, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas, all experienced a net gain (see page 7 for a graphic). Even when you look at net domestic migration rates for top metropolitan areas, none of the Old South states have a metropolitan area listed (except Myrtle Beach, which surprised me a little; even then, the gain wasn't really that much).

I think it's pretty telling that you can find metropolitan areas that have more of an Old South vibe in New South states, but it's much less common to find New South metropolitan areas in Old South states. For the most part, you really can't find anything resembling NoVa, the Triangle, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, Nashville, DFW, or Houston in SC, AL, MS, LA, AR, and KY--in terms of population, growth rates, and local economic composition and growth.

[Rardy]

Here's one thing that lends credence to the notion of entire states being more "Old South" or "New South." While this report is a bit dated, it shows the states that experienced a net gain of single, college-educated young professionals (age 25-39) from 1995-2000. All of the states that I classified as "Old South" states, which were South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky, experienced a net loss of this coveted group, while the "New South" states, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas, all experienced a net gain (see page 7 for a graphic). Even when you look at net domestic migration rates for top metropolitan areas, none of the Old South states have a metropolitan area listed (except Myrtle Beach, which surprised me a little; even then, the gain wasn't really that much).

I think it's pretty telling that you can find metropolitan areas that have more of an Old South vibe in New South states, but it's much less common to find New South metropolitan areas in Old South states. For the most part, you really can't find anything resembling NoVa, the Triangle, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, Nashville, DFW, or Houston in SC, AL, MS, LA, AR, and KY--in terms of population, growth rates, and local economic composition and growth.

[krazeeboi]

While that report seems plausible, I take issue with it for one simple reason. Apparently the "New South" states, according to that definition, are the most populated states in the South.

[Alabadrock]

Here's one thing that lends credence to the notion of entire states being more "Old South" or "New South." While this report is a bit dated, it shows the states that experienced a net gain of single, college-educated young professionals (age 25-39) from 1995-2000. All of the states that I classified as "Old South" states, which were South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky, experienced a net loss of this coveted group, while the "New South" states, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas, all experienced a net gain (see page 7 for a graphic). Even when you look at net domestic migration rates for top metropolitan areas, none of the Old South states have a metropolitan area listed (except Myrtle Beach, which surprised me a little; even then, the gain wasn't really that much).

I think it's pretty telling that you can find metropolitan areas that have more of an Old South vibe in New South states, but it's much less common to find New South metropolitan areas in Old South states. For the most part, you really can't find anything resembling NoVa, the Triangle, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, Nashville, DFW, or Houston in SC, AL, MS, LA, AR, and KY--in terms of population, growth rates, and local economic composition and growth.

[krazeeboi]

^True. Huntsville was actually one of the exceptions I was thinking about. But it still has a ways to go in terms of perception and notoreity as a truly "New South" metropolitan area along the lines of Charlotte or Orlando. But it's well on its way.

The best way to look at things here may be along a continuum. Some states will definitely fall more towards the "Old South" end of the spectrum, and some will fall more towards the "New South" end. Some will fall more in the middle (e.g., my own state). For those that fall more towards the "New South" end, I still think there is a marked difference in the way they generally do business as opposed to the others. Education is one such indicator.

[Rardy]

That gets to the issue here. Why are they the most populated? Because, by and large, they have been ahead of the curve economically. People will flock to where the jobs are. The Old South states have lower populations because they have also historically had less economic growth.

[krazeeboi]

This isn't so much about population growth as it is about those states that have been able to reinvent themselves economically and stay ahead of the curve; population growth is but a result of that. South Carolina was riding high at one point too, with a good amount of jobs and low unemployment--when manufacturing was still king. We failed to prepare for the shift away from manufacturing towards a knowledge-based economy, and now we're struggling to play catch up. So for the most part, we are indeed speaking recently--like within the past 20-25 years or so.

[Temeteron]

I'm not sure how easily we can classify entire states as "new south" or "old south." I think more in terms of metro areas, and in South Carolina alone, I would consider Charleston more "old south" and Greenville and Columbia more "new south." In Georgia, Savannah is more "old south" while Atlanta is "new south."

I think there are too many variances in attitudes, customs, and vibes within a state (in most cases, at least) to classify it as one or the other.

[Temeteron]

I agree. The southern accents and culture in East Texas are similiar to those of the southeast.

[kayman]

While that report seems plausible, I take issue with it for one simple reason. Apparently the "New South" states, according to that definition, are the most populated states in the South.

The New South according to that report: VA, NC, GA, FL, TN, and TX - the largest 6, and the largest for several decades now.

Old South: LA, MS, AL, SC, KY (though I dispute KY can even be considered in this discussion) - the smallest 4/5 based solely on population.

Furthermore, the largest city in these "Old South" states is New Orleans (pre-Katrina). All of these "New South" states have cities larger than NOLA.

Do larger states grow faster? Almost always in the South, especially when considering net migration which looks at raw numbers instead of percentage growth. More population means more resources, activities, and attractiveness - almost a "winner-take-all" theory.

This entire theory of "New South" seems obsessed with growth which can be misleading.

[krazeeboi]

I must agree it is very misleading and beyond obsessed with unsustainable growth.

[krazeeboi]

I think looking at the 2007 State New Economy Index helps here. This index measures how states are competing in the new economy by using 26 indicators that can be grouped into 6 categories: knowledge jobs, globalization, economic dynamism, transformation to a digital economy, and technological innovation capacity. Here are the rankings for Southern states, which correlates with my initial grouping of "Old South" and "New South":

8. Virginia

18. Georgia

23. Florida

26. North Carolina

36. Tennessee

39. South Carolina

44. Louisiana

45. Kentucky

46. Alabama

47. Arkansas

49. Mississippi

Some of the states in the bottom half fare better than those in the top half when it comes to certain indicators, and vice versa. However, the overall rankings demonstrate how these states are generally faring in the new economy. So again, what are the states that rank higher generally doing that the states that rank lower aren't? Surely some differences can be demonstrated.

[davidals]

I think the reason why he didn't include some cities, was because they just didn't instantly pop in his head. I doubt he was intending to make a definitive list. Probably just the cities he thought of at the moment.

[davidals]

I'm beginning to wonder if there's any point to these arguments anymore. We've all established that we don't believe some cities are Southern. I think it's going to be pretty impossible to say which city is more "Old Southish" than another. Let's just accept that every city is old, and most all of them are also new.

[kayman]

If you read the original post in this thread, I made it clear what distinguish "New South" states from "Old South" states, and it pretty much boils down to the economy. Population growth is a visible effect of a burgeoning economy, so it's easy to label this simply as a "growth" issue, when that's not the case. For instance, Myrtle Beach is the fastest growing metro area in SC, but I wouldn't label it a "New South" metro area in the sense we're talking about here. The economy isn't very diversified at all, nor is the city attracting a diverse demographic. So it's misleading to label this subject as one "beyond obsessed with unsustainable growth."

So with the qualifications you gave for what constitutes a "New South" city, you don't see how legislation and policies at the state level influence any of that at all? Even though this is a hypothetical scenario, could you see the Raleigh-Durham area prospering as much as it is or even more so if it were located in Mississippi instead of North Carolina? I want to focus on the role that states play in establishing "New South" economies. So yes, the more progressive states do indeed have their depressed areas, but for the most part, the less progressive states only boast average cities or a little above average in terms of the composition and growth of the economy and things that result from that (e.g., population growth).

[Alabadrock]

LMAO! I didn't think I could hurt feelings by improvising a list, but I stand corrected! I see that I also forgot to include the up-and-coming metropolis of greater Meat Camp, NC. Cat's out of the bag now...all my icky, flatland prejudices - revealed!!!!!!!!

[Alabadrock]

Precisely.

In fact, I propose a new grouping altogether, which would generate some not entirely dissimilar results: cities and states in which a Burt Reynolds character has driven a Trans-Am* through at 100+ mph, vs the cities and states he hasn't. Howzabout mosquito size, or aggressiveness, or - the postsecondary intellectual fortitude of the Virginia mosquito, as opposed to the Tennessee mosquito? Or...states in which the whirr and hum of 1,060,020 operational air conditioner units has been recorded and mixed into post-industrial ambient musical soundscapes, vs. the states in which this has yet to occur.

The possibilities are endless! I can already see the next Richard Florida tome looming on the horizon...

*(Boldfaced, italicized and underlined because this is the South after all. Vehicular relevance is ... um ... relevant. Especially if it's a Trans-Am, with an optional sunroof, which has been removed to maximize the aerodynamic attributes of Sally Field.)

[krazeeboi]

I did read it, and I still stand by my conclusion. Some of these "New South" cities are more concerned with being the "largest in the South" than becoming more sustainable in the long-term.

[Rardy]

Well, let's talk about the progressive economic legislation and the state laws that hurt states as a whole. We're always discussing what separates the more progressive cities/metro areas from the others on the local level, in some form or another. I just want to look at the discussion from the standpoint of the roles that states play in the effort, how it affects their cities (even the depressed cities), and so on.

[krazeeboi]

Thank you for actually addressing the issue here and adding something substantial to the conversation. It is much appreciated.

The situation with Memphis and Arkansas is quite interesting. Of course, I can see both sides of the issue there. Living in a metro area with a similar geographic arrangement (Charlotte on the SC border), I haven't really known of anything like that. The situation here is that in recent years, a few companies have jumped the state line in order to benefit from lower taxes and bigger incentives from the state of South Carolina. But Charlotte doesn't have as much blue collar industry as Memphis, so a similar situation would probably be unheard of here. This metro area would be more likely to attract another bank headquarters before a large manufacturing facility, and there's no doubt that it would choose uptown Charlotte as a location. But there are indeed other issues in which regionalism should be a rallying point for multi-state metro areas.

Next you say, Most major projects that locate in one state are often leaving another. In this way, the South has been functioning as the economic "suburbs" of the Midwest and Northeast. But is this really the case? Think about the major automobile manufacturing facilities in the South--BMW in South Carolina, Mercedes and Hyundai in Alabama, Kia in Georgia, etc. These didn't leave a Midwest or Northeast state in order to locate here. The only exception I can think of is the Nashville area luring the Nissan HQ's. As a matter of fact, I would say that many of the largest players in the local economies of our largest cities have been homegrown.

[Rardy]

Think about the major automobile manufacturing facilities in the South--BMW in South Carolina, Mercedes and Hyundai in Alabama, Kia in Georgia, etc. These didn't leave a Midwest or Northeast state in order to locate here. The only exception I can think of is the Nashville area luring the Nissan HQ's. As a matter of fact, I would say that many of the largest players in the local economies of our largest cities have been homegrown.

[krazeeboi]

Without getting too much into capitalism, you can definitely make an argument that the South's entry into auto-making has definitely been to Detroit and the state of Michigan's severe detriment...

[Rardy]

As a matter of fact, I'm more than certain that Chicago and New York beat out all Southern cities combined when it comes to corporate relocations.