3 ms·
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 indicativ
by thathndude 7y ago
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.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lotsofpulp 7y agoI would consider population loss and unfunded pension, retiree healthcare, and infrastructure debt to be a “systemic” issue.
- bilbo0s 7y ago>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?
- blaser-waffle 7y agoYeah 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.