I'm not too surprised by the makeup of this list. West Virginia and Kentucky are resource extraction states that are primarily focused around coal, and Oklahoma is focused around oil & gas. New Jersey and Connecticut have high taxes, and are having a wave of retirees leave and take their spending dollars with them. Vermont has very low population growth and is also facing a demographic issue just like Jersey and Connecticut.
Kentucky's primary resource extraction historically was tobacco more than coal, more traditionally a part of "tobacco road" with the Carolinas than coal country with West Virginia. As tobacco has waned the tobacco companies retrenched to the Carolinas and left Kentucky shifting in the wind. That coal so dominates the national and rural conversation around Kentucky today is a huge sign of whose interests are in play in the discussion and that it has convinced so much of Kentucky itself that that's what is causing the economic problems is a shame, if not a sham.
(IMNSHO, Kentucky should have been in the vanguard of legalizing and growing THC and selling it to other states. That it hasn't and that it isn't, is a huge economic blunder on the part of the state, and I'm feeling it is high time Kentuckians shut up about coal, but what do I know.)
The demographic and internal-migratory questions remind me of the EU and the problems faced by e.g. Greece. I wonder if it will result in a campaign against internal migration. Is freedom of movement within the United States explicitly part of the Constitution?
All states whose major industries that have suffered from recessions in the past year. Agriculture, mining, transportation, utilities, and certain manufacturing areas have been hit by hard over the past few years.
The reason the "economy" is still doing well is because these are a very small percentage of the economy. The entire agriculture industry is literally a rounding error compared to the major sectors. These industries could disappear and the "economy" would still look good by GDP.
Tech is clustered around a few areas in the US, driving tons of population growth and money to those areas causing other areas to depopulate (directly or indirectly). the irony is those places receiving the growth want it the least, at least if you ask their indigenous populations (most CA voters are extremely anti growth, for example).
I think there would be a lot to gain by incentivizing growth to occur in a more balanced way across the US. there's so many second order industries (like construction and countless others) that would benefit massively from this, along with the populations they support as well.
Currently, all that tech wealth just gets dumped into higher and higher real estate prices, not really benefiting anyone much. it could be put to so much more productive use in states/cities that actually want growth.
So much of the tech industry has built incredible remote work tools as a part of their products and services to other industries and yet surprisingly still seems so mindless a centralizing force in its own efforts. Not a single member of GAFAM is missing remote work tech in their portfolios, but all of them still want employees to start primarily and almost exclusively in either Mountain View/Palo Alto or Seattle/Redmond depending. It's almost a sadly hypocritical stance compared to what they are trying to sell their remote tools for, a sign perhaps that they don't really trust those same tools and aren't dogfooding them enough.
Software has almost the largest ability of any industry to be built entirely through remote work, yet seems almost the most afraid to do so, at least based on the attitudes from all the largest employers specific to the industry.
If this is true/accurate, and for the reasons others note, we’re right to be skeptical, what makes it BS in my mind is the effort to suggest that it’s indicative of a systemic issue.
It may well be that is the precursor to a nationwide contract. But looking at the list of states, this also looks like a simple continuation of the ongoing shifting in populations to larger, urban economic cores. The only one that surprised me a little is PA, but that’s because I’m in Ohio, and I forget that the East part of PA has a lot of big economic centers luring people and industry away.
>The only one that surprised me a little is PA, but that’s because I’m in Ohio, and I forget that the East part of PA has a lot of big economic centers luring people and industry away.
Wait? Wouldn't that mean economic growth for PA as a whole? Why would big economic centers luring people and industry to them result in contraction?
Yeah was kind of surprised to see PA and NJ shrinking that hard, too. Like parts of both have had reputations as part of the Rust Belt or "Springsteen Country", but they both have a lot of large metro areas.
> Bloomberg sure is working hard to talk down the economy
It’s a finance publication. Its bread is buttered by people paranoid about missing the next big thing, whether that be an unexpected winner or unexpected pullback.
CNBC - which is not even a great financial & business news media outlet - does a dramatically better job of balancing their bullish versus bearish articles. Bloomberg, the media platform, went noticeably bearish after Michael Bloomberg publicly came out against Trump a few years ago. I've been reading Bloomberg daily for a very long time, it wasn't a subtle turn, it was dramatic and immediate - which perfectly fits with what we've seen since then from Michael Bloomberg's direction to his firm re what they're allowed to do and say. They're following his marching orders.
The only positive thing I can say about that sort of bias and propaganda, is at least it's formally out in the open.
A selective reading of the data can be made to support almost any conclusion, and I think Bloomberg has a rather obvious bias. As TFA says: "A faltering economic outlook in coming months would likely cast a shadow over President Donald Trump’s re-election bid."
And even if there wasn't an election going on, we should consider a source's track record when evaluating their latest predictions. Bloomberg Media is the boy who cried "recession".
He's been doing this since atleast 2016. I wouldn't rule out he having sights on a presidential run since atleast then. He did form an exploratory committee once before and abandoned the run when it showed he didnt have enough support.[1] [2]
Stocks keep climbing and climbing, but Michael
Bloomberg isn't sure why.
"I cannot for the life of me understand why the market
keeps going up," the former New York City mayor
said Tuesday in an interview with CBS News' Anthony
Mason.
"Our economy has some real challenges," he continued.
"The infrastructure's falling apart. We're destroying jobs
with technology. We are keeping the best and the
brightest from around the world from coming to America
to create new jobs and create new businesses.
"All of those things would give you pause to worry
about the future."[3]
[1]
Former New York mayor Bloomberg mulls presidential run on heels of Trump surge
It's comical how Bloomberg wouldn't get into the race until Warren polled higher than Biden for two days. Even a tiny chance that a wealth tax could happen was enough for Bloomberg to commit to the race. Haha.
Edit: As far as I can tell, my comment below was totally incorrect. Parent comment may well be unchanged. I dug up the web archive to confirm because there was uncertainty, and as far as I can tell, it's unchanged. I have a version on my phone that renders a different comment, but since, I can't repro it or verify it now, I need to retract what I wrote below.
My original comment:
OP has edited the comment above without mentioning it, rendering this entire reply thread useless.
Why is every single reply thus far head in the sand, fingers in the ears denialism? This is a report that simply repeats what the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia predicts.
The US economy is cyclical, and it's had a very good boom cycle (which was sweetened by QE, historically low interest rates, AND a trillion dollar deficit, all absolutely incredible during full-employment and full-growth. The US is now at a point where during a downturn it has few tools left to do anything to respond to a slowing of the economy, and where that trillion dollar deficit is going to look really foolish in retrospect)
The whole "fake news!" retort to everything on here has grown incredibly depressing, and profoundly self-defeating. Short of legitimate evidence to the contrary, it should be immediately shouted down
Humans have a natural tendency to discount things that are unpleasant. A site like this one contains a lot of people that have a lot to lose if the economy makes a downturn.
This kind of blind spot was featured prominently in The Big Short, especially the Brownfield Capital plot line (2015 film).
>Humans have a natural tendency to discount things that are unpleasant.
I think it might be more accurate to say we discount things that do not support our world views. If something is unpleasant, but supports our world view, even if that thing is not entirely true we give it a lot of weight. If the unpleasantness does not support our worldview however, well, yeah, even if it is completely true, we tend to dismiss that information.
Honestly, I assume all media outlets have ulterior motives behind each article (ranging from the simple "catering to their specific audience with facts supporting their view" to more nefarious "willfully manipulating the people with falsehoods").
Sure, but mostly I assume that the alterior motives are things like "Make the reader excited to read more here (and make us more money)" or "Don't make the reader feel confused (and possibly go away and stop making us money)." It's unusual that you have situations where a news purveyor has forces acting stronger than the idealism of its employees or the necessities of the markets.
Outlets also don't need ulterior motives to produce biased output. If most of your staff hold a conservative outlook, they'll naturally be more skeptical of non-conservative viewpoints in their reporting etc.
Bloomberg.com's reputation has yet to recover from The Big Hack non-retraction. Until they speak publicly about it, I consider them the same tier as toilet paper.
It's clearly an issue that the news service is grappling with, though you can argue how successfully. Bloomberg has a long-stamding policy of not covering Bloomberg. But how do you make that work when he is a candidate? Their solution: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/25/michael-bloomb...
Yes, eleven years into a ZIRP-induced asset bubble, the ISM collapsing, China deal still unsigned, CAPE ratio at the second highest level ever, increasing tensions with Iran, six months after the yield curve inversion, a repo market on "not QE" life support, a stagnant housing market, massively underfunded pensions in most states, exploding CRE, corporate junk, student, auto, and revolving debt, and a near-term demographic consumption cliff: Anyone reporting data that may perchance suggest that perhaps, maybe, the party might be wrapping up is only doing it for political reasons.
Billionaire presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg is
refusing to buckle under pressure and change the
rules of engagement for his news outlet's political
reporters—who are forbidden from investigating him
or any other Democratic White House hopeful.
Bloomberg News journalists will 'just have to learn
to live with some things,' he told CBS News in an
interview that aired Friday morning.
'They get a paycheck,' the former New York City mayor
lectured, 'but with your paycheck comes some restrictions
and responsibilities.'[1]
[1]
'With your paycheck comes some restrictions': Mike Bloomberg doubles down on censoring his journalists from investigating non-Trump candidates
(Daily Mail is widely considered a poor source, and while they do report some actual news, their analysis of anything is not worth citing. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/)
I'm always leery when media begins to tout a new word. Maybe economic contraction has some history to it and a precise definition, but maybe its being coopted or is void and ready to fill with whatever new line of rhetoric we will soon be assaulted with.
Would be great to have a headlines database to see trending terms and when something is really unprecedented in headlines.
Yes, the precise definition is that the GDP growth figures have gone negative. Two quarters of negative growth is the usual definition of a "recession".
This happens every decade or thereabouts, and there is a large body of work in economics about the "business cycle", why it happens and what if anything can be done about it.
"Economic contraction" is an economic word with many, many decades of broad use behind it. Your own personal ignorance to it doesn't turn it into some media scheme that you have outed.
Definitely personal ignorance to the trends and history around it. I've vaguely heard of it before, but can't recall a time I've actually seen it in a headline. It's definitely not unprecedented though (https://news.google.com/search?q=%22economic%20contraction%2...).
I thought the more interesting bit was the ability to scan headlines. I'm not claiming to have outed any media scheme, but that's a pretty catchy phrase you've come up with.
Readit News
(IMNSHO, Kentucky should have been in the vanguard of legalizing and growing THC and selling it to other states. That it hasn't and that it isn't, is a huge economic blunder on the part of the state, and I'm feeling it is high time Kentuckians shut up about coal, but what do I know.)
The reason the "economy" is still doing well is because these are a very small percentage of the economy. The entire agriculture industry is literally a rounding error compared to the major sectors. These industries could disappear and the "economy" would still look good by GDP.
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=51&step=51&isur...
Deleted Comment
I think there would be a lot to gain by incentivizing growth to occur in a more balanced way across the US. there's so many second order industries (like construction and countless others) that would benefit massively from this, along with the populations they support as well.
Currently, all that tech wealth just gets dumped into higher and higher real estate prices, not really benefiting anyone much. it could be put to so much more productive use in states/cities that actually want growth.
Software has almost the largest ability of any industry to be built entirely through remote work, yet seems almost the most afraid to do so, at least based on the attitudes from all the largest employers specific to the industry.
It may well be that is the precursor to a nationwide contract. But looking at the list of states, this also looks like a simple continuation of the ongoing shifting in populations to larger, urban economic cores. The only one that surprised me a little is PA, but that’s because I’m in Ohio, and I forget that the East part of PA has a lot of big economic centers luring people and industry away.
Wait? Wouldn't that mean economic growth for PA as a whole? Why would big economic centers luring people and industry to them result in contraction?
Deleted Comment
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bloomberg+recession+2019&t=ffab&at...
It’s a finance publication. Its bread is buttered by people paranoid about missing the next big thing, whether that be an unexpected winner or unexpected pullback.
The only positive thing I can say about that sort of bias and propaganda, is at least it's formally out in the open.
As long as the data backs it up I don’t see a problem with it being reported on.
And even if there wasn't an election going on, we should consider a source's track record when evaluating their latest predictions. Bloomberg Media is the boy who cried "recession".
Former New York mayor Bloomberg mulls presidential run on heels of Trump surge
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/23/michael-bloo...
[2]
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg Will Not Run for President
https://time.com/4250295/michael-bloomberg-president-trump-c...
[3]
BLOOMBERG: 'I cannot for the life of me understand why the market keeps going up'
https://www.businessinsider.com/stock-market-news-michael-bl...
My original comment: OP has edited the comment above without mentioning it, rendering this entire reply thread useless.
It is a interesting contribution and gives valuable insight into the article that has been posted.
The US economy is cyclical, and it's had a very good boom cycle (which was sweetened by QE, historically low interest rates, AND a trillion dollar deficit, all absolutely incredible during full-employment and full-growth. The US is now at a point where during a downturn it has few tools left to do anything to respond to a slowing of the economy, and where that trillion dollar deficit is going to look really foolish in retrospect)
The whole "fake news!" retort to everything on here has grown incredibly depressing, and profoundly self-defeating. Short of legitimate evidence to the contrary, it should be immediately shouted down
This kind of blind spot was featured prominently in The Big Short, especially the Brownfield Capital plot line (2015 film).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias#Decision-makin...
I think it might be more accurate to say we discount things that do not support our world views. If something is unpleasant, but supports our world view, even if that thing is not entirely true we give it a lot of weight. If the unpleasantness does not support our worldview however, well, yeah, even if it is completely true, we tend to dismiss that information.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
'With your paycheck comes some restrictions': Mike Bloomberg doubles down on censoring his journalists from investigating non-Trump candidates
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7765273/Mike-Bloomb...
* Factual summary: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782732936/bloomberg-news-says...
* Opinionated: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/473542-bloomberg-report..., https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/michael_bloomberg_news_p...
(Daily Mail is widely considered a poor source, and while they do report some actual news, their analysis of anything is not worth citing. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/)
Would be great to have a headlines database to see trending terms and when something is really unprecedented in headlines.
This happens every decade or thereabouts, and there is a large body of work in economics about the "business cycle", why it happens and what if anything can be done about it.
I thought the more interesting bit was the ability to scan headlines. I'm not claiming to have outed any media scheme, but that's a pretty catchy phrase you've come up with.