It's not clear to me that people discussing the overall economy should also be charged with discussing the political outcomes of the outcome -- that's the role

It's not clear to me that people discussing the overall economy should also be charged with discussing the political outcomes of the outcome -- that's the role of the politician who chooses to act on the data provided by the economist. That is, it's not the economists job to predict that the demolishment of the rust belt will lead to Trump's election; their job is to predict that the demolishment of the rust belt will bolster the coastal cities, and improve the health of the American economy in general. Also notably, towns come and go based the industries they support -- it has happened in the past, and will happen in the future. It's simply the inevitable outcome of an ever-evolving economy. How to mitigate the impact of that fact is not the really job of the economist. And economists are not expected to live in the towns they discuss.. the local politician is intended to represent the local concerns. If he's failing to do so, or failing to have any impact, the economist can merely say "this is what will probably happen, if you do this and don't do that", and nothing will happen.