Massachusetts - 8,639 Residents = So What?

Bostonist doesn't pretend to be a statistician, but we're a little perplexed by the worry being aired over new Census Bureau figures that show the Commonwealth has lost population for two years running. It's not that our feelings aren't hurt - they are, because we definitely love Massachusetts and want people to love it too - it's just that we're not sure what the big deal is.

The Globe points out that Massachusetts has lost two congressional seats in the last 50 years and stands to lose more, which could, in theory, mean the loss of federal spending as our state clout decreases in Washington. But isn't only fair that we get less funding if we have fewer people? (And really, the states with the most clout relative to their populations are the ones with the lowest populations, since they still get two Senators.)

Bostonist also doesn't understand the crowing in the Globe article about the economic impacts. Sure, if there are fewer workers, there will be fewer companies here, but again, why is that problematic? Don't we pretty much want to have only as many jobs as there are people? And if, as the article asserts, high housing costs are the problem, isn't a reduction in population (and a corresponding reduction in demand) a good thing? Seriously, Bostonist can't work up any concern about this, and we would appreciate it if our dear readers, especially those with a deep understanding of economics and demographics, would tell us why we should care about anything other than the fact that we didn't lose as many people as New York.

Photo: When Bostonist took this picture of a boat headed out to sea from Provincetown over the summer, we didn't realize we were witnessing a major demographic trend.