What Europeans don't know about Americans could fill a southbound moving truck

Is the South really the worst place to live? According to an agency based in Paris -- that's France, not Texas -- the answer is yes.

That agency is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD is sometimes called the world's club of industrialized nations, and you may have seen me refer to it from time to time. That's because, when one looks for a group of countries at least somewhat comparable to the U.S., the OECD is about as good as it gets.

The policy recommendations from OECD staff, however, are another matter. The OECD advocates for, among other things , tax-harmonization laws -- which would have the effect of making it easier for more governments to charge ever-higher taxes to support ever-larger welfare states. They are emblematic of the bien pensants in Europe and on the left side of the political spectrum here in America, those who do not even question the merits of a large, centralized government.

All of which probably explains why the aforementioned OECD rankings of our 50 states, plus D.C., drew so much attention. As the Washington Post's Roberto A. Ferdman summarized in a piece about the recent rankings , which used a scale of zero to 90:

That piece portrayed the South as so bad that another Post blog published a piece by a Charlotte-based author titled, "Is the South really as bad as a report says it is?". But there's a very straightforward way to demonstrate that our Parisian evaluators are off-base.

The Census Bureau not only reports annual population estimates for each state. It also attempts to explain where each state's population growth -- or loss -- comes from. There are natural causes (births vs. deaths) but there's also migration, both domestic and international.

Looking at the most recent data , covering 2010 to 2013, we can see whether Americans are choosing to move to the higher-ranked states and/or away from the lower-ranked states. And the answer is:

No way, no how, no matter which way you slice it.

• Seven of the 10 highest-ranked states lost population; seven of the 10 lowest-ranked states gained population.
• The top one-third of states (including D.C.) gained a total of 137,430 people during those three-plus* years. The bottom one-third gained 615,884 people. (Yes, that means the middle third lost the sum of those two totals.)
• The average OECD score for the 25 states (including D.C.) that gained population was 61. The average score for the 26 states that lost population was 64.3.
• Depending on how one defines "the South" -- I'll use the Census Bureau's definitions here -- five of the top seven states for population gain are located in our region. Those five states alone received two-thirds of the nation's internal migrants. Kentucky, Maryland and Mississippi were the only Southern states to lose population during those three years.

In fact, just look at each of the four census regions compare:

• The highest-ranked region was the Northeast, with an average score of 68.4. All nine states in that region lost population, for a total net migration of minus-624,511.
• The next highest-ranked region was the Midwest, with an average score of 65.9. Ten of its 12 states lost population, for a total net migration of minus-522,773.
• Next was the West, at an average score of 64.6. Nine of its 13 states gained population, for a total net migration of 139,781.
• And last, but not least in the eyes of Americans from elsewhere, was the South, with an average score of just 55.9. Yet, 14 of its 17 states gained population, for a total net migration of 1,031,967.
• Even if you take away the two largest gainers, Texas and Florida, the South gained more than twice as many people as the runner-up West region.

Maybe, just maybe, nos amis at the OECD don't really know what Americans are looking for when it comes to the good life.