As usual, Will leaves out a few things.

Similar to yesterday's strong correlation between higher state government spending and fewer people wanting to live there,

It's kind of odd that a self-proclaimed fan of capitalism would make such a comment.

Do fewer people want to live there? Or is it a function of them not being able to afford living there?

Basic economics tells us that as a commodity, say, real estate, becomes more desirable and popular in a consumers' eyes--the price goes up. Similarly, if the demand for such a commodity isn't so hot, the price goes down. If one compares comparable real estate in CA or MA with those in TN or MS--you can see where people really want to live.

So, running up a big tab to pay for all kinds of goodies isn't the way to attract a flourishing population.

Depends on your definition of flourishing. Much internal migration is predicated on the aging of the US population. As we, as a society, grow older and retire--places that offer a low cost of living become more attractive Retirees, having raised their children, aren't interested in schools anymore or jobs. That's why these states that Will is quick to applaud also have very low wages and aren't investing in technology.