Nine States Face Economic Contraction, Most Since 2009 Crisis

[jeffmk]

    1. West Virginia
    2. Pennsylvania
    3. Delaware
    4. Montana
    5. Oklahoma
    6. Vermont
    7. New Jersey
    8. Kentucky
    9. Connecticut

[jdhn]

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.

[mywittyname]

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.

https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=51&step=51&isur...

[thorwasdfasdf]

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.

[thathndude]

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.

[bilbo0s]

>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?

[lotsofpulp]

I would consider population loss and unfunded pension, retiree healthcare, and infrastructure debt to be a “systemic” issue.

[blaser-waffle]

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.

[leereeves]

Bloomberg sure is working hard to talk down the economy. Throughout 2019 they were talking about recession.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bloomberg+recession+2019&t=ffab&at...

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[kccqzy]

But the numbers are produced by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, according to the article.

[georgeplusplus]

Are you insinuating that Bloomberg is being nefarious by doing so?

As long as the data backs it up I don’t see a problem with it being reported on.

[wozniacki]

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

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...

[endorphone]

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

[metalliqaz]

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).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias#Decision-makin...

[barrygwn]

Now that Michael Bloomberg is running for president, I can't help but question if there is an ulterior motive behind each article at Bloomberg.com

[rjtavares]

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").

[Andrex]

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.

[Angostura]

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...

[daxorid]

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.

[wozniacki]

   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

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7765273/Mike-Bloomb...

[jxramos]

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.

[pjc50]

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.

[endorphone]

"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.