A MICRO MAN WILL SOON BE AT OUR NATION’S HELM

An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a narrow field. ~ Neils Bohr

Donald Trump will become the 45th President of the United States (US) in exactly 30 days, following his unexpected election victory. The Electoral College voted yesterday to make him president and Congress will certify the Electoral College’s vote on Jan. 6. Coming into the presidency, Mr. Trump’s experience is narrowly founded on commercial real estate and reality TV. Unlike Neils Bohr, he would never admit to making any mistakes. His grandiosity-seeking persona has focused on specific, narrow, micro-oriented concerns, usually announced via 140-character Twitter posts.

Political commentators have been spewing too many speculations about how Donald Trump surprisingly won the presidency. Nate Cohn of The New York Times and others have concluded that his victory came from a fortuitous, slight “red-shift” in a few battleground states – Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

He narrowly won each of these states by one point or less of the popular vote. But these slender victories gave him a decisive Electoral College edge. Only with effective, focused and steady effort over the next several years on the part of Democrats will this red-shift be prevented from being a long-term political prospect. This is by no means a sure thing; currently the Democrats are leaderless and far from united. For example, when was the last time you heard that the Sanders-Warren progressive movement was succeeding in the political ground work to place strong candidates on 2018 ballots that can actually win elections?

Interestingly, the red-shift phenomenon has been examined for over 150 years, but not by politicians. Astrophysicists first discussed it in the 19th century. It was a basis for Edwin Hubble’s early 20th century Law that posited other galaxies are receding from Earth, causing a red-shift (Doppler) effect. The Hubble Law supports the dynamic Big Bang model of the universe.

Even though the headline-obsessed Donald Trump likely will cause a number of “bangs” as president, with any luck they won’t compare in the slightest to the Big Bang that Hubble described. Fingers remain completely crossed on this. But let’s now depart from cosmology and take off to the here and now.

Even before he’s president, The Donald (TD) pulled off one momentary bang on Dec. 1 in getting Carrier Corp. to "save" 800 jobs at its Indianapolis air conditioner plant. Nice work. However, despite all the media hoopla that TD created in Indianapolis, the next week United Technologies Corp.’s chief executive (UTC owns Carrier) stated that some of those “saved” jobs would be ultimately lost to automation. In other words, Carrier still plans to cut its workforce, so those 800 saved jobs are a chimera. And what about the other 400 Carrier workers that TD seems to have completely forgotten about who will be soon laid off? Oh well, sorry guys.

Is The Donald ducking his responsibilities to take a comprehensive view of his job as president? So far, as president-elect, it seems so. He is all about tactical, individual, bottom-up “deals,” (micro transactions), rather than a broader, strategic (macro) vision that might unify and preserve America’s greatness. [As I’ve already shown, we are now great, and have been, despite his incessant proclamations to the contrary.] And yes, in recent times certain groups of Americans have not seen much if any economic benefit, as other groups have. This vital issue of economic inequality, that TD’s announced economic policies will not remedy at all, does need to be rectified; but it does not detract from our overall distinction as a nation. There is no nation that can claim seamless distributional equity.

The Donald’s Carrier deal required now-governor Mike Pence to offer a lush $7 million taxpayer-funded bonus to the company. What happens after January 20 when workers beyond Indiana demand TD’s help? Maybe President Trump can create a rotating vice presidency of Republican governors who can bestow multi state crony capitalism outside the Hoosier State on an as-needed basis.

Irony abounds. The US unemployment rate declined to 4.6% in November, the lowest it’s been in over 9 years. This reduction represents a significant success for hundreds of thousands of US workers that the Obama administration has helped in bestowing. In fact, during President Obama’s time in office the economy gained 15 million jobs, which works out to 36,000 jobs per week. Yet TD’s public statements clearly emphasize his disparagement of this advantageous macro situation.

He campaigned with a micro focus on preserving manufacturing jobs, which have steadily declined during the last 63 years, on fending off the purported “war on coal” that has affected the nation’s 80,000 coal-miners and stopping imports. 
Mr. Trump’s allegations about why coal miners now represent only 0.05% of our labor force are, to be generous, misplaced. Sure, environmental policies established by Republicans and Democrats have played a part (and offered important, essential health and longevity benefits to all of us), but the most important factor reducing coal mining jobs has been competitive market forces, specifically the reduction of domestic natural gas prices due to significant improvements in extracting natural gas from the ground (e.g., fracking).

Coal’s share of its key market as a fuel for electric power generation has been cut by 15% during just the past 8 years. Natural gas and non-fossil-fuel technologies (solar, wind, biomass) have gained what coal has lost. No bully-pulpit phone calls or mouth-to-mouth meetings by TD will restore coal’s former markets. Why should they? He continuously accentuates his acumen as a businessman who understands markets and technology, and applauds market forces that he has taken advantage of in commercial real estate. Market forces are present in the energy sector as well.

The improvement in the nation’s overall (macro) employment – now 124 million full-time workers – isn’t his concern; he’s purely focused on micro transactions – industry-specific situations – like Appalachian coal miners or air conditioner builders. Micro matters to him. Perhaps he believes macro is for losers.

If we didn’t know it before, most of us now know that working class wages have stagnated for more than a decade. This upward wage inertia has turned John M. Keynes' famous downward "sticky wages" insight on its head. The wages of less-educated, primarily non-urban workers, among others have been stuck from rising. White working-class people strongly voted for TD and gave him a crushing 39% margin over Clinton. With TD’s beauty-contest cabinet appointments and his suggested economic policies (e.g., not raising the $7.25/hr federal minimum wage) how can wages for working-class laborers be improved? They can’t.

Under the Trump presidency, I expect average real (inflation-adjusted) wage rates will continue to decline or at best stay steady. Inflation is likely to increase if he convinces his congressional buddies to fund his ideas for improving the nation’s infrastructure (an eminently worthwhile, if overdue measure of expansionary fiscal policy), and increase the defense department’s budget (an utterly mistaken, uncalled for scheme). Among other reasons, such sizeable spending, along with Republicans’ incessant desire to cut federal income and remove estate taxes for the richest Americans, will require large amounts of deficit spending. Increased deficit spending will raise interest rates on government bonds. Ten-year Treasury notes’ interest rates have risen 55.7% since Nov. 1.

Right after the Federal Reserve increased the Federal Funds interest rate last week by 0.25%, the US dollar appreciated as expected. The new president’s suggested increases in deficit spending will further strengthen the dollar. With the stronger dollar, US exporters will have a more difficult time selling their goods overseas and imports will become less expensive, something that can threaten a larger trade deficit and lower macroeconomic growth, neither of which is likely to please the new president. Watch for Congressional Republicans to fortify their discussions about reducing the Fed’s much-needed independence.

In his 44 days as president-elect, I’m convinced that TD thinks solely in micro terms, he’s a distinctive deal guy. He is likely to be a pervasive transactional president, unmoored by any unifying vision of meaningful macro objectives. Perhaps learning from the Kardashians (although he’d never give Kim even a milligram of credit), he banks on the broadening power of social media – especially Twitter – to provide pseudo-breadth to his micro moves.

Can micro TD convince us and the world that his narrow, transactional perspective is sufficient to lead our nation? Is this the change that his acolytes voted for? We'll be finding out on a day-by-day basis beginning in 30 days.

A CULINARY HISTORY OF SALAD DAYS

Vulgarity is the garlic in the salad of life. ~ Cyril Connolly 

 Salad is my escape path from now; from the startling, dispiriting events that began on Nov. 8. It’s a fresh means of branching way beyond anything drearily political.

So here’s my hopefully appetizing blog about the cliogastronomy of the green salad. [For you etymologists, I’ve tossed Clio, the Greek muse of history, into the bowl with gastronomy, the study of culinary customs, to create cliogastronomy, an historic analysis of culinary customs, in this case of salads.] I picked the green salad because it is parsecs distant from vulgar, citrusy orange-ish hair. Lettuce proceed...

A brief history of salad.  According to the Oxford Companion to Food, salad is a term derived from the Latin sal (salt), which yielded the form salata, salted things such as the raw vegetables. Salt is associated with salad because vegetables were seasoned with brine or salty oil-and-vinegar dressings during Roman times.

The phrase "salad days", meaning a "time of youthful inexperience" (on notion of "green"), is first recorded by Shakespeare in 1606. Salads ware eaten in ancient Roman and Greek times with a dressing of vinegar, oil and salt. Apparently ancient Roman salads were quite similar to modern-day ones.

Salad also appeared in late 14th century when the English, perhaps including Richard II, were eating salad or sallet at their meals. International trade records in the 17th century include cargo logs from the island of Curaçao to the Dutch colony of New Netherland (that later became New York, New Jersey and Delaware) of "a can of salad oil at 1.10 florins" and "an anger of wine vinegar at 16 florins", primal precursors to Newman’s Own Italian dressing. Back in the Old World, Louis XIV, the Sun King, probably enjoyed several types of salads, including mixed greens, pickled vegetables and boiled salads (warm vegetables dressed in vinegar/spices). Yum!

Unsurprisingly, salads have evolved over the centuries. The Food Timeline enumerates 23 different varieties of salads, everything from Caesar salad to Watergate salad. Caesar salad wasn't concocted by Augustus, the first Roman emperor; it was created by Caesar Cardini, an Italian immigrant who opened a series of restaurants in Tijuana, Mexico. On Fourth of July weekend in 1924 at Caesar's Place, Cardini created the salad as a main course, arranging the lettuce leaves - together with garlic, olive oil, croutons, Parmesan cheese, Worchestershire sauce and anchovies - on a plate with the intentiion that they would be eaten with his customers' fingers. The salad became particularly popular with Hollywood movie people who visited Tijuana. The rest is history. 
And now we have space salads, way beyond Tijuana. Space salad farming is now officially a thing according to NASA. After proving that lettuce grown entirely in space was safe to eat back in 2015, NASA has announced that the first crop of orbital veggies has now been cultivated exclusively for consumption by the crew.

This latest crop of “Outredgeous” red romaine lettuce grown entirely on the International Space Station (ISS), operation name, Veg-03, is the newest step in NASA’s ongoing efforts to create a sustainable, renewable food source aboard their spacecraft. The first space lettuce eaten by American astronauts (Veg-01) was produced back in 2015, and was sampled both plain, and with balsamic vinegar by the ISS crew. Astronaut hero Scott Kelly said at the time that it tasted like arugula.

Lettuce.  Cliogastronomically speaking, what’s known about lettuce, the primary ingredient in green salads? Lettuce is a member of the daisy family. Its first recorded production was in Egypt 4700 years ago. It was initially grown for the oil from its seeds and considered a sacred plant of the reproduction god Min.

Lettuce leaves’ consumption came at bit later. Based on hieroglyphics, Egyptian lettuce may have been an ancient ancestor of what we now call romaine lettuce. There are 2 broad types of lettuce, head lettuce – like the iceberg lettuce you consumed as a child; and leaf lettuce – like romaine, bib and red-leaf. California’s Central Valley accounts for 71% of US head lettuce production, followed by Arizona producing nearly 29%. These 2 states also produce over 98% of leaf lettuce in the US. Lettuce is grown year-round in California, much of it in the Salinas Valley the nation’s salad bowl, and Arizona.

According to the USDA Census of Agriculture, 3.88 billion pounds of lettuce were produced in 2012 on 323,359 acres, up 3% since 2007. In 2014, annual consumption was 14.1 pounds and 10.8 pounds per person for head and leaf/romaine lettuce, respectively. Due to its very high water content (94.9%), lettuce cannot be successfully frozen, canned or dried and thus must be eaten fresh. The number of farms producing lettuce on 5 acres or less (such as vertical farms) increased 38% between 2007 and 2012. Sales of US lettuce in 2013 totaled nearly $1.5 billion, making lettuce a leading vegetable crop in terms of value. In 2014, salad restaurants in the US were earning more than $300 million. This seems like a fair amount of green (money), nevertheless it represents a minuscule 4 one-hundredths of a percent of total US restaurant industry revenues. Lots of room for growth.

Tomatoes.  As you know, a myriad of other veges can be tossed with lettuce to create a mixed greens salad, including artichoke hearts, avocados, carrots, celery, cucumbers, hearts of palm, mushrooms, olives, onions, peppers, radishes, red onions, shallots, and spring onions. For me, the most important vegetable to include in a mixed greens salad is the tomato, all others pale in comparison. The US popularized mixed greens salads in the late 19th century.

Tomatoes are a new-world fruit, probably originating in what’s now Peru. They made their way to Europe in the 16th century, courtesy of Spanish explorers. There are more than 3,000 varieties of heirloom or heritage tomatoes in active cultivation worldwide and more than 10,000 known varieties. The name tomato comes from the Aztec xitomatl (or tomatl, that means “plump thing with a naval.”) gave rise to the Spanish word "tomate," from which the English word originates.

Rudolf Grewe dug into the earliest of Europe’s culinary encounters with the tomato and discovered that although some Europeans knew tomatoes could be eaten; few actually did, because most thought tomatoes were poisonous. [Since it is a relative of the nightshade family, a tomato plant’s leaves are indeed poisonous.] One writer in 1585 suggested they be prepared “with pepper, salt, and oil.” But this writer didn’t recommend it, as tomatoes “give little and bad nourishment.”[Tomatoes are 94.5% water, so he had a nutritional point. But despite their low calories, they offer a fair amount of vitamins C and K and minerals.] Even though they were widely grown in European gardens as a decorative plant, it took more than a century for Europeans to record any formal culinary preparations for tomatoes.

Likewise, some early colonists in the US also believed that the brightly colored fruit was poisonous. By the time commercial production began in the mid-1800s, the tomato was well established as a popular produce item in the American diet.

From coast to coast, we love tomatoes. Tomatoes are the second most consumed vegetable in the US, behind potatoes. Ninety-three percent of American gardening households grow tomatoes. My parents planted them in their WWII “victory gardens” and every year afterwards. As a youth, I remember driving past miles of commercial tomato groves in Southern New Jersey (the “Garden State”) when we vacationed on the Jersey shore in the summer.

There are 2 general categories of tomatoes, fresh market and processed. Fresh tomatoes are grown in all 50 states. In 2014, annual per capita fresh market and processed tomato consumption was 20.6 pounds and 67.2 pounds, respectively. Florida produces the most fresh-market tomatoes. California grows 96% of all US processed tomatoes that you eat in salsa and other tomato products such as sauce, paste, ketchup and canned tomatoes. Americans have increased their tomato consumption 30% over the last 20 years, mostly in processed forms.

In 2014, approximately, 27.3 million pounds of fresh market tomatoes were harvested with a total value of $1.14 billion. A total of 14.6 million tons of processed tomatoes were grown in 2014, with a total value of about $1.32 billion. Tomato production has become much more efficient. Half a century ago, harvesting California’s 2.2 million tons of tomatoes for ketchup required as many as 45,000 workers or barely 49 tons per worker. In the 1960s, scientists and engineers at the University of California – Davis, developed an oblong tomato that lent itself to being machine-picked and an efficient mechanical harvester to do the job in one pass through a field. By 2000, only 5,000 harvest workers were employed in California to pick and sort what was by then a 12-million-ton crop of tomatoes. That’s roughly 2,400 tons per worker, a 49 times increase in productivity over 5 decades.

As mentioned before, there are innumerable varieties of tasty, colorful tomatoes such as beefsteak, plum, cherry and grape cultivars. Our favorites include dry-farmed Early Girls, where the tomato plants are no longer watered after they reach maturity. This lack of water stresses the plant, forcing its roots deep into the soil in search of water and focuses its efforts on producing fruit.

But no matter what the size, shape or color, when tossed in a mixed greens salad the tomato provides the perfect accompaniment for a wondrously fresh, flavorsome dish that many have enjoyed over the centuries. May every day be a salad day; it trumps anything. 

WHAT HAPPENED? The demise of Hillary Clinton

Success consists of going from failure to failure without lose of enthusiasm. ~ Winston Churchill

This was not an exciting “election cycle”; there was no hope involved, only accusations and denigrations. We were politically exhausted by Nov. 8, and the turnout data have confirmed this. Voter turnout for all 50 states was 58.0% of eligible voters; in 2012 it was 58.6%; in 2008 it was 62.2%. This means more than 97 million eligible voters did not vote last week.

Too many Democratic voters simply stayed home. California had the 4th lowest state voter turnout of any state, just 51.8%. State turnout rates ranged from 74.0% (Minn.) to a trifling 34.0% (Hawaii). Although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with a 1% margin, she will garner only 228 Electoral College (EC) electors. Donald Trump will win with 290. Many liberal-progressive Democrats understandably remain distraught and upset. I certainly empathize.

Although Republicans intimidated certain voters, and created deceitful barriers to reduce or eliminate likely Democrat voters from casting ballots, that is not the only reason she lost. More importantly, the Trump voter turnout was unexpectedly much stronger and broader than anticipated. Hillary Clinton’s loss wasn’t merely caused by what the Republicans did. It was also due to what the Democrats didn’t do.

First, the Democrats couldn’t hold together Obama’s 2012 coalition, and didn’t spend any real effort to peel away much of a sliver of white middle-class and lower-middle class voters who Trump focused on.

In my last blog, “Voter Turnout,” I mentioned that Clinton’s grand challenge for this election was to persuade more Hispanics, Blacks, women, millennials and college graduates to actually vote for her than they did for President Obama. Her campaign failed this challenge. Only 12% more women voted for Clinton than Trump; only 18% more millennials voted for her. Other published voter turnout analyses have stated that Trump won 53% of the white women’s vote. At this point, so soon after the actual election, there is a fair amount of conflicting information about the characteristics of voters and who they voted for. These discrepancies probably arise from differences between specific exit polls’ sampling methods and analysis. Nevertheless, the results are woeful.

The efforts Democrats undertook to entice Hispanics, Blacks, millennials and other pro-Democrat voters to vote for Clinton did not raise their turnout. In fact, initial turnout analysis indicates that Clinton’s support margins (the difference between people who voted for her and who voted for Obama in 2012) declined for Black, Hispanic and Asian voters, as well as for men and people who earn less than $50,000 per year.

In past elections, two key demographic categories for the Democrats – Hispanics and millennials - have been difficult to lure into voting booths. Again this time they didn’t vote enough or give her sufficient margins for her to win on Tuesday.

Nationally, only 11% of votes cast on Nov. 8 were by Hispanics, the same turnout as in 2012. No other turnout data are yet available regarding ethnicity/racial voter participation, but when they are I doubt they will show anything that speaks of a successful turn-out-the-vote effort for Clinton.

Second, Clinton’s campaign seemed to have forgotten the importance of the archaic, but elemental Electoral College. In close elections like this one, the EC can provide additional importance for the smaller-population states that Trump won.

She overwhelmingly won urban-dwellers (by a 24% margin), but lost small-city and rural voters (by a 28% margin). Guess what; the states away from America’s coasts with lots of small cities outnumber the fewer states with very large cities.

This is one reason why this election’s state-by-state results’ map resembles a landscape with  blue-tinged boarders (all of the west coast and the northern part of the east coast) and a very wide, red middle, with just 4 blue exceptions (CO, NM, MN and IL). It’s been a long time since the red middle has been as wide. Trump won 30 states, Clinton just 21, including Washington, DC. This landscape became the election victory for Mr. Trump, at Sec. Clinton’s expense.

The electoral bottom line: Clinton couldn’t get enough of her targeted voters in enough states to vote for her to win. Trump’s dark, nefarious, emotion-based appeal to “the forgotten” middle-class won the day, and is now changing the political panorama of the nation. 

VOTER TURNOUT: EVERY POLITICIAN’S CHALLENGE

It’s not the voting that’s democracy; it’s the counting. ~ Tom Stoppard

Breathe a sigh of relief, it’s almost over. There are only two days left before this year’s election; can you count that low?

Seemingly forever, the media have been flooding us with a tsunami of election ads and information, including wayward stories about what young teenage girls’ views are of the election and the candidates. Really? I feel a deep sense of relief that November 8 is almost upon us. Despite feeling this bit of relief from “the election cycle” almost reaching its proverbial high noon, the anxiety accompanying the result more than whelms my passing feelings of reprieve.

And it’s not just me. Therapists across the country have reported a growing number of people seeking assistance from election-induced fatigue and trauma syndrome (EIFTS). I suggest you take this handy, insightful and quick quiz to determine if you’re suffering from EIFTS. Should your quiz score indicate you qualify for EIFTS assistance, don’t forget to thank Wolf Blitzer, Rachel Maddow and Bill O’Reilly, along with The Donald and Hillary, among others.

More seriously, probably the most crucial challenge facing every politician in every election, including this one, is voter turnout. Getting people to actually vote, and vote for you, is of ultimate, prime importance. At this point the candidates and their surrogates still remain busy hoarsely making public speeches. Like Donald Trump’s mystifying decision to speechify in Albuquerque, New Mexico last week, a solidly-blue state this time around. But beneath the lecterns, their campaigns are franticly focused on nudging and cajoling likely voters to the polls. Far more concerning are some nativist Republican Trumpophiles who are erecting deceitful barriers to reduce or eliminate likely Democrat voters from casting ballots. Perhaps we should send them to jail.

It’s been a while since US voters have been so unexcited about casting ballots in a presidential election. What happened to Hope? In 2012’s presidential election just under 219 million people, accounting for 57.5% of eligible voters, cast their ballots, down from 62.3% in 2008. This modest voter participation/turnout rate ranks the US 31st out of the 35 developed democracies comprising the OECD.

The chart below illustrates the participation by voters’ racial/ethnic characteristics in the past 4 presidential elections. As shown, white and black voters participate more by a noteworthy margin over Hispanics and Asians. Despite significant efforts, getting Hispanics and Asians to actually vote has long been a dispiriting quandary. Hopefully the Democrats’ efforts over the past several weeks will be more successful this time.

Since 2000, a maximum of just 49% (in 2008) of Hispanics voted in any presidential election. In contrast, 66% of eligible black voters and 65% of eligible white voters on average participated in the past two presidential elections. Uniquely among the four racial/ethnic groupings shown in the chart, black voters have increased their voter participation consistently since 2000.

Percent of eligible electors who voted in presidential elections, 2000-2012 

Source:  New York Times

The relatively small voter participation rate for Hispanics is a particular challenge for Hillary Clinton, because they represent a growing, core constituency for Democrats.

Another constituency that has been targeted by Sec. Clinton’s campaign is millennials, who like Hispanics have a diminutive record of voting. In two of the media-designated “most important” swing states - North Carolina and Florida – less than one in five millennials voted in this year’s primaries; 15% in Florida, 18% in North Carolina. Hopefully far more millennials will vote rationally on Tuesday.

These disparities in voting participation exist in non-swing states as well. In California, an overwhelmingly blue state, only 17% of eligible Hispanics and Asians voted in the 2014 election. In that year, the California voting electorate was 60% whites and 18% Hispanics, which is far different than the state’s overall demographics. Actual California population demographics are 38% whites and 37.6% Hispanics.

Another important constituency for Sec. Clinton and Democrats has become educated voters. For once the Democrats have an advantage over Republicans. Because the more educated a person is, the more likely she/he will vote, and vote Democratic. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) and the United States Elections Project,  54.9% of all voters nationally in the 2012 election were 60 years or older; just 16.3% were young people aged 18 to 29 years. From CPS data only 17.6% of people with less than a high-school degree voted in the 2012 election and just 29% of high-school graduates voted. In contrast, 59.9% of folks who have an advanced degree turned out to vote in 2012.

Finally there is the gender distinction between voters. In every presidential election since 1980 more women have voted than men. For our last national election in 2012 63.7% of women reported voting versus 59.8% of men. This translates into almost 10 million more women voters than men.

So who are the most reliable voters; voters that need the fewest nudges to get into the voting booth? Simply stated, the most dependable voters are female, older and more educated folks.

The above-cited voter turnout data illustrate why Democrats need larger and more effective get-out-the-voter efforts than Republicans. With the exception of women and college-educated people, Democrats’ target constituencies – people of color, urbanites and young people – don’t vote as reliably as the historically-targeted Republican electorate – white, middle- and upper-middle class suburban folks. Just ask Bernie Sanders.

Nevertheless, the white, non-college educated working-class people who Mr. Trump has apparently captured don’t vote as reliably either. Although it makes no difference for Tuesday’s election, the white working class has noticeably diminished over time. Two demographers have noted that in 1940 82% of Americans 25 and older were whites with no more than a high school education; by 2007, that figure had dwindled to 29%.

The waning prominence of white working-class people is directly linked to the electorate. In 1980 according to exit polls, 63% of the electorate was comprised of voters who were whites without a four-year college education. That had dropped 10 points by 1992, when Bill Clinton won the presidency. That election marked the last time exit polls would find whites without college degrees to be a majority of voters. By the time Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, just 39% of those who cast ballots were whites without college degrees.

For this and other reasons, white working-class men have reason to feel disremembered. That is until The Donald pledged to focus his ethno-nativist attention on them. As we’ve seen during the past year, some white working-class people remain vocal and motivated by ephemeral Trumpian messages.

My advice for those of you who haven’t yet voted is to make absolutely sure you do. Your vote counts, and can make a very real difference. The resilient, postive destiny of this great country depends on every eligible citizen to vote for Hillary Clinton. She is infinitely more qualified, knowledgeable and capable than her opponent. And unlike her opponent, she will keep our republic from heading over a precipice too fraught to imagine. 

STATES OF DESTINY

Demographics is destiny. ~ Arthur Kemp   

We residents of the United States usually describe our nation as the sum of all 50 states, emphasizing the “united” part of our nation’s name. For example, our national population is now over 324 million people and our gross domestic product (GDP) is $18.45 trillion, the world’s largest. The all too incendiary nature of this year’s protracted presidential campaign has sadly imperiled this emphasis on our united states.

Nonetheless our individual states reflect a vast and distinct array of characteristics. Such a range of features has historically contributed to our collective strength – dare I say greatness – as a nation. It still does.

This blog offers a palette of how different individual states are with regard to their demographic and economic characteristics. In a very real sense the six (6) states that I have selected from different US Census Divisions, and displayed in the map below, are states of distinct destinies. Travelling west to east, they are: California, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Maine. Each state has distinguishing geography, climate and economic traits, as well as demographic characteristics that I will discuss. [If I haven’t picked your favorite state, you can readily get specific information about it and see how it compares to the 6 states I have selected by going to the US Census’ Quick Facts website here.]

Map of the United States with My Six Selected States

Table 1 lists the 16 demographic, economic and other characteristics I examine and provides national values for each of these characteristics that I will also examine for the 6 states.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of the United States

Characteristic	United States
Population (millions)	324.6 (3)*
Population growth rate	0.81% (135)
GDP (billions)	$18,450 (1)
Per Capita GDP growth (2010-13)	1.2%
Median Household Income (2014)	$53,482
Median age	37.9 years (62)
Life expectancy at birth	79.8 years (42)
Millennial generation	23.5% of pop.
Generation X	20.6%
Baby Boomers	23.3%
Silent generation	8.7%
Pop: White / Hispanic / Black (%)	61.6 / 17.6 / 13.3
Poverty Rate	13.5%
Fertility rate (births per woman)	1.87 (142)
BA or higher degree, 25 years or older	29.3% (9)
Average Temperature (degrees F)	54.4

Source: US Census, CIA World Factbook, NOAA. *World rank in parentheses.

Our national demographics.  The US has the third-largest population in the world in 2016, over 324 million people, behind China and India. Our 2016 national population growth rate of 0.81% is quite modest from an international perspective; it ranked 135th highest. The US fertility rate, measuring the number of births per woman aged 15-44 years old, is 1.87. This relatively low fertility rate is internationally ranked 142nd highest and below the 2.1 births per woman population replacement rate. The US median age is 37.9 years and growing, ranked 62nd and in the oldest third of nations internationally. Niger is the world’s youngest nation, with a median age of only a fledging 15.2 years; Monaco is the oldest nation at 51.7 years. US life expectancy at birth is 79.8 years, in the top one-fifth of nations and ranked 42nd internationally, and comparable to that of Taiwan and the European Union.

A significant and inevitable generational transformation is underway in the US nationally and on a state-by-state basis, as I discuss later. The millennial generation, people 18 to 34 years old in 2015, for the first time outnumber the baby boomers, as shown in Table 1. We boomers – ages 51 to 69 – have had a lengthy run being the most attended to generation, based on our numbers and activities. This run is now ending. 

The figure below shows how the generational composition of the US population will change from 2015 to 2050. As shown, the current national population splits between millennials, boomers and Gen Xers are fairly comparable to each other – millennials represent 23.5% of the US population, boomers embody 23.3%, Gen X 20.6% and the silent generation 8.7%. As I will show, states’ generational composition can vary widely.

This figure demonstrates that with every tick of the clock and click of the mouse, millennials’ numerical preeminence grows larger and boomers’ diminishes. Generation X (ages 35-50 in 2015) is projected to pass the boomers in population by 2028. The silent generation, ages 69 to 87 in 2015, represents only a diminishing 8.7% of the US population.

Source: Pew Research Center, US Census

Nationally, 29.3% of people over 25 years old have received an undergraduate (BA) degree or higher. This percentage has steadily grown during the past several decades, as I have discussed previously. Despite this rise, the US is ranked just 9th among 34 OECD (developed) nations and 10 others in terms of our adult population’s level of tertiary education. In 2014 the racial composition of the US reflects over 60% white, almost 18% Hispanic and 13% African-American. This ethnic/racial composition widely varies by state, as we shall see. Across the US, 13.5% of families live in poverty, which this year means making less than $20,100/yr for a family of 3 people.

Our Macroeconomic State of Affairs.  Our GDP is first-ranked and continues to grow at a solid annual pace of 2.9% in 2016Q3. Unemployment currently is a low 5.0% of the work force, after peaking in Oct. 2009 at 10.0% at the end of the Great Recession. Since the end of the recession the US economy has added 15.1 million jobs. Median household income finally rose 4% in 2015 to $55,775 from $53,482 in 2014 (shown in the table) after declining for almost a decade. But between 2010 and 2013, per capita GDP grew an anemic 1.2%, reflecting the lingering effects of the recession.

From a climate perspective, the average annual national temperature in 2015, 54.4F, was the second warmest on record since weather records began being collected 121 years ago in 1895.

Before examining each state individually, I explore their vibrancy and educational attainment.

State Vibrancy.  The dictionary defines vibrancy as having or showing great life, activity, and energy. Here, I gage a state’s vibrancy as a combination of having a youth-full population, measured by lower median age, a high proportion of millennials and high state GDP and GDP growth. Using each state’s ranking in these 4 factors, I created my modestly-fashioned Vibrancy Index (VI) for each of the 6 states. The higher the value of this index, with a maximum of 100, the more vibrant is the state. The more vibrant it is, the brighter the state’s future can be.

The most vibrant state is Utah (VI=100), which has the largest millennial population share in the US and the second lowest median age; California (98) closely follows Utah’s vibrancy; Kansas (84) is a somewhat surprising third; Mississippi (69); Pennsylvania (52) and Maine (11) significantly trails the rest as the least vibrant state of my 6 states. Maine has the nation’s most advanced median age and the smallest proportion of millennials of any of the 50 states.

College Education.  During this election season a high degree of media attention has been focused on voters’ education levels, particularly whether they have a baccalaureate (BA) degree or not. The talking heads apparently have decided that having a BA (or not) can explain a lot of folks’ voting preferences. Perhaps, but probably not. It’s an interesting dichotomy, but I doubt it has much causal/explanatory power. I won’t bother to delve into the clear post hoc ergo propter hoc issues behind this association.

The 1996 presidential election’s media magic of “soccer moms” as a meme has evolved this year into one’s level of educational attainment. It’s one of the most cited voter characteristics of current political insight.

So how do my 6 states rank with respect to college degree realization? Except for Mississippi, these states’ tertiary education attainment is fairly comparable. California, Kansas and Utah each have the highest percentage of residents with a BA or graduate degree, over 30% attainment. California has the highest national rank of any of these states at 14th highest, with Utah close behind at 19th. Maine’s and Pennsylvania’s degree attainment, at 28%, is marginally lower but comparable with the national rate. Mississippi, however, is the odd state out, with a much lower tertiary education rate, 20.4%, than the other 5 states, that’s practically 9 percentage points less than the national average and ranked 48th.

Individual States’ Characteristics.  Let’s now look at each of the states, starting with California and heading east. Table 2 reports the state-by-state values of the same traits that were shown above in Table 1 for the entire US.

Table 2: Demographic and Economic Characteristics of Selected States:

Characteristic	Maine	Pennsylvania	Kansas	Mississippi	Utah	California
Population (millions)	1.33 (42)*	12.8 (6)	2.91 (34)	2.99 (32)	2.99 (31)	39.1 (1)
Population growth rate (2010-15)	0.1%	0.8%	2.1%	0.8%	8.4%	5.1%
GDP (billions) with comparable nation	$55.1 (44) Luxembourg	$677.6 (6) Switzerland	$146.2 (32) Kuwait	$106.9 (36) Angola	$146.7 (31) Hungary	$2,424 (1) France
Per Capita GDP growth (2010-13)	0.4% (42)	1.2% (26)	1.9% (16)	1.1% (27)	2.0% (12)	0.8% (34)
Median Household Income	$48,804 (32)	$53,115 (23)	$51,872 (26)	$39,464 (50)	$59,846 (14)	$61,489 (3)
Median age (years)	44.1 (1)	40.7 (6)	36.2 (41)	36.7 (36)	30.5 (51)	36.0 (45)
Life expectancy (yrs.)	79.2 (23)	78.5 (28)	78.7 (27)	75.0 (51)	80.2 (10)	80.8 (4)
Millennials	23.8% (51)	16.2% (43)	28.2% (9)	18.1 (10)	32% (2)	29% (6)
Gen X	19.4% (45)	19.6% (41)	19.5% (44)	20.1% (28)	21% (15)	21.8% (5)
Baby Boomers	29.7% (1)	26.7% (7)	24.3% (42)	24.3% (41)	18.6% (51)	23.4% (47)
Silent Gen	13.3% (3)	12.2% (5)	10.4% (37)	10.8% (32)	7.5% (50)	9.4% (45)
Pop: White / Hispanic / Black (%)	93.6/1.6/1.4	77.4/6.8/11.6	76.4/11.6/6.3	57/3.1/37.6	79/13.7/1.3	38/37.6/6.5
Poverty Rate	13.4%	13.2%	13.0%	22.0%	11.3%	15.3%
Fertility rate	1.66 (45)	1.76 (42)	2.05 (8)	1.89 (21)	2.33 (1)	1.84 (29)
BA or higher degree	28.4% (23)	28.1% (26)	30.7% (16)	20.4% (48)	30.6% (19)	31.0% (14)
Average Temperature (degrees F)	41.0 (48)**	48.8 (30)	54.3 (19)	63.4 (6)	48.6 (32)	59.4 (12)

Source: US Census, Governing.com, Wikipedia. * Rank by state, in parentheses, includes Washington DC. ** Rank by warmest temperature.

I’ll examine each of these states, from sunset to sunrise, west to east, 

California.  California has the largest population, more than 39 million residents, of any state. Although its average temperature, 59.4F, is ranked 12th warmest, Death Valley maintains its record as the very hottest spot (ever) on Earth with a 134F temperature on Sep 13, 1922. Baby, that’s really hot outside. At Furnace Creek in toasty Death Valley, the thermometer regularly rises above 120F on 5 to 20 days a year. Make sure you bring lots of water.

The Golden State’s economic activity also is the largest in the nation, $2.4 trillion, about as sizable as France, the sixth internationally-ranked nation. For many decades, California has enjoyed a strong influence on American culture and commerce. Wikipedia lists more than 500 popular songs that are “about California.” Despite its only being the 24th least-flat (aka, mountainous) state, two California valleys are known across the globe: Silicon and Yosemite.

In California just 2.2% of its labor force works in agriculture, reflecting the significant degree of technology, mechanization and automation now present in its fields. Notwithstanding the small proportion of laborers, California’s agricultural output is ranked highest of any state, $50.2 billion (B). Dairy products have the highest value ($7.6B), followed by almonds and grapes. California produces two-thirds of the nation’s fruits and nuts.

After WWII, California pioneered high-quality, publicly-funded college/university education with its famed University of California, California State University and community college systems that now have 146 campuses throughout the state. Thirty-one percent of the state’s residents have a BA or higher, ranked 14th in the nation and the highest of the 6 states I’m looking at.

Its median age, 30.4 years, is ranked sixth youngest; its median household income is the third largest in the US and the third fastest-growing. California’s racial/ethnic composition has no majority group and is unique with its balance between white (38%), Hispanic (37.6%) and black people (6.5%). At 15.3% its poverty rate is higher than the national rate. Its fertility rate is ranked 29th among states. California’s population also tilts young with the sixth-highest share of millennials and fifth highest share of Gen Xers, together with a lot of boomers.

Overall, California’s destiny appears sunny. Its population is fairly young, diverse, growing, educated and productive.

Utah.  The Beehive State has much different demographics than my other 5 states. Most of Utah’s demographics are coupled with the prevalence of the Mormon Church. Sixty percent of Utahans are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. In contrast, about one-third to 40% of Salt Lake City residents, Utah’s largest city, are members of the Mormon Church.

Utah’s population is comparable to Mississippi, but its population growth rate is practically 10 times higher. Utah’s fertility rate, 2.33 children per woman, is the highest of any state. Its median age is the lowest of any state, 30.5 years. Its young population is reflected generationally. Utah has the 2nd highest proportion of millennials, the lowest proportion of baby boomers and second lowest share of silent generation members of any state.

Almost four-fifths of Utahans are whites and dominate the culture of the state. Curiously, Utah’s average temperature places it on a par with far-away Pennsylvania’s. Its level of tertiary education accomplishment, 30.6%, ranks high in the second quartile of all states.

Utah’s economic characteristics also reflect strong growth. Its GDP is ranked in the second quartile and comparable to Hungary’s; its per capita GDP growth of 2% places it in the top quartile of states, and the highest of my 6 states. In sum, Utah is a youthful, fast-growing state economically and demographically; its destiny seems bright.

Kansas.  Kansas is one of the rectangular states that fill up a lot of the great middle of America, west of the Mississippi River. It has a middle-sized population – 2.9 million people, ranked 34th – that has a healthy growth rate. Its GDP is $146 billion, ranked 32nd, is comparable to that of Kuwait (who’d of guessed). Kansas’ per capita GDP growth is quite strong, ranking 16th. 

Kansas does agriculture. It is ranked 7th among states’ agriculture revenue. About 17% of the Kansas labor force is directly employed by agriculture, 8 times greater than the US average. Kansas grows a lot of grains and cattle. It accounts 11% of the cattle/calves produced, 14% of the wheat and 43% of the sorghum grown in the US. [In case you don’t know, grain sorghum is used in the production of alcoholic beverages and biofuels, as well as animal feed.]

The Sunflower State’s population and its per capita GDP show fairly robust growth. Kansas’ median age is ranked in the youngest quartile of states. The racial/ethnic composition of Kansas residents is similar to Pennsylvania’s but the Hispanic and black splits are reversed, with nearly twice as many Hispanics as black denizens. Kansas adults have the 16th highest rate of tertiary education attainment in the US.

Finally, I now dispel the widely-held notion that Kansas is as flat as a billiard table. Nope; Kansas topography displays attractive rolling hills and shallow valleys. It’s true that the high point of Kansas, Mt. Sunflower, is a mere 4,039 feet at its summit, and but 679 ft. above the state’s lowest point. Nevertheless according to the National Geographic, Kansas isn’t that close to being the flattest state. That honor goes to Florida. In fact, Kansas is the 7th flattest state in the US. As long as I’m talking topography, and looking more upward to the sky, which state is the least flat in the contiguous 48 states? See this footnote for the surprising answer.^[1]

Mississippi.  Mississippi has defined the Deep South for generations. Its $107 billion GDP and 3 million person population have grown moderately. It has the second-highest fertility rate of any state I examined here. The population’s racial/ethnic composition is distinct from the 5 other states; white people represent 57% of the state’s population, black residents more than 37%, Hispanics just 3%. The Magnolia State’s average temperature is the 6th warmest of any state.

Mississippi’s number one industry is agriculture. The top crops are cotton, soybeans and rice. About 30% of its labor force works in ag, which is the same proportion of farm workers the entire US had in 1910.

Its economic circumstances are quite different than the other states; median household income is ranked 50th and last in the US; its poverty rate is over 60% higher than the national average. The percent of Mississippi adults with a BA is ranked 48th. This state’s demographic and economic destiny seems to be a struggle with the changing realities of the 21st century.

Pennsylvania.  The Keystone State has the 6th largest population, 12.8 million people. Its residents produce almost $678 billion of goods and services – the 6th largest state GDP in the nation – comparable to that of Switzerland. I grew up in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, the largest in the state. It never felt like Switzerland to me, although the Swiss average temperature (42.5F) is but 6 degrees cooler than Pennsylvania’s. The state’s median household income ranks in the second quartile of states.

Pennsylvania’s slow-growing population skews older and whiter, having relatively few millennials and Gen Xers and an abundance of boomers and silent generation. Pennsylvania residents’ racial/ethnic composition is somewhat more balanced than Maine’s, and whites account for over three-quarters of its population. Its median age of 40.7 years is the 6th oldest in the nation; its fertility rate is marginally higher than Maine’s and still below the replacement rate. Pennsylvania’s poverty rate – 13.2% - is very close to the national rate.  College graduates represent virtually the same percentage of adults as in Maine, and comparable to the national rate.

Pennsylvania’s demographic destiny is a bit brighter than Maine’s, however it too needs to find a demographic source of growth to make its future sustainably more positive.

Maine.  As its nickname - the Pine Tree State - implies, Maine is wooded with lots of Pines and other trees, covering about 90% of the state, the most of any state. Maine is thus a seriously forested and mostly rural state. Maine’s economic output and population are small and growing sluggishly. It has one major urban area, Portland (population 204,000). Maine’s relatively small population – 1.33 million, ranked 42nd – is overwhelmingly white (93.6%), with very small numbers of Hispanic and black residents. It has the fewest young millennials and the most ever more mature baby boomers of any state. It also has the largest (proportional) number of 65+ year olds in the nation. At 1.66 children per woman, Maine is in the fertility rate basement; its population growth is a torpid 0.1%. Maine’s indigenous population does not even produce enough high-school graduates to fill the classrooms at the University of Maine. Maine’s median household income ranks in the third quartile of states. Its per capita GDP growth is weak, ranked 42nd of all the states.

Although unsurprising given its northern setting, Maine has the 48th lowest average temperature, 41.0F. Brrrr. Besides its scenic forests and lakes, it boasts 228 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline and enjoys a well-deserved reputation as a vacationland destination. Although the American dawn’s early light first shines on Maine as the country’s eastern-most state, if demographics is destiny, Maine’s prospects appear unsunny. Unless it can attract a growing number of younger residents, Maine’s demographic and economic prospects are likely to be dimming.

So there you have it; 6 diverse, far-flung states that illustrate the underlying strengths and challenges that the US faces demographically, socially and economically. No single policy can promote security and achievement for these 6 (or our entire 50) states’ futures. But realizing that our states’ individually-distinct characteristics can serve to strengthen our future accomplishments will be an important, necessary and initial step for success.

---

[1] The least flat state is West Virginia, whose nickname is the Mountain State and its flagship public university's athletic teams are called the Mountaineers.