Nine States Face Economic Contraction, Most Since 2009 Crisis(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Nine States Face Economic Contraction, Most Since 2009 Crisis
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-02/nine-states-face-economic-contraction-most-since-2009-crisis
107 comments
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.
Pennsylvania is also a huge producer of coal and natural gas. I believe northern New Jersey produces a lot of coal as well.
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.)
(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?
San Francisco certainly don't want any outsiders moving in!
I believe so. The campaign against internal migration is happening in the sense that people in western states that aren't California are pissed at Californians for moving to those states and driving up housing prices.
NIMBYism is pretty much a de facto campaign against internal migration. It's not much of an issue in the fastest growing states, but certain states with hot economies but stagnant or declining populations, like Massachusetts or California, are affected by it.
> Is freedom of movement within the United States explicitly part of the Constitution?
Interesting question. Not explicitly, but the Federal Government reserves the right to regulate "interstate commerce," which is a power granted specifically to prevent hard state borders, among other things.
States/municipalities do have mechanisms to screw with people from other states via tax and transportation manipulation. But, for the most part, I've never heard of any animosity towards local residents from other states, and I live and work in a city whose metro-area spans three states. Immigrants from other regions are different beast though.
Interesting question. Not explicitly, but the Federal Government reserves the right to regulate "interstate commerce," which is a power granted specifically to prevent hard state borders, among other things.
States/municipalities do have mechanisms to screw with people from other states via tax and transportation manipulation. But, for the most part, I've never heard of any animosity towards local residents from other states, and I live and work in a city whose metro-area spans three states. Immigrants from other regions are different beast though.
It is governed by the Privileges and Immunities clause under the authority of the States (not Congress) and has been judicially recognized as a fundamental right tied to that same clause since at least 1823.
It was considered so fundamental during the drafting process that there wasn’t a need to enumerate “freedom of movement” specifically.
It was considered so fundamental during the drafting process that there wasn’t a need to enumerate “freedom of movement” specifically.
Internal migration is much more common within the US than within the EU, and societal norms are much more accepting of intra-US relocation.
Based on the data I can gather from a brief search, it looks like in 2017, 58% of Americans live in the state of their birth [1]. Because many people move states and then move back (for college or a temporary job or something) then it's reasonable to think that perhaps 50% of Americans move states at least once in their lives.
In 2016, 93% of EU residents were living in the nation if their birth; 4% were from outside the EU and 3% from another EU member nation [2]. (In the US, 14.4% of the population are immigrants, and this is ~20% of the total global immigrant population [3].)
Furthermore (and in the absence of any supporting data), I think that the assimilation process is for the most part easier for Americans moving between states, especially those who are at least second generation American. While there are definitely strong cultural differences between US regions, we generally all regard each other as American (although this is surely different for those from American territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam or American Samoa). Relocation may also be quite challenging for minorities, especially those moving to whiter states. But for the typical white American moving states, it is probably easier to relocate than for an Italian moving from Calabria or Napoli to Lombardia.
I've lived in 8 states and I think that some half-hearted jokes about dating cousins or eating possum are about the most trouble I've gotten by hailing from the Ozarks. In my experience there are also larger biases against neighboring states (sports rivals) than far-away states. Freud's narcissism of small difference and all that.
That being said, since at least the Reconstruction era following the Civil War, there has been some local to regional resistance to internal migration. Interestingly, today much of the resistance is put forth by residents of less economically developed regions against those from more well-off places moving in, pricing the locals out, and changing the culture. These changes are a sort of Californication, the gentrification of mountain towns by richer and more liberal whites, rather than poorer immigrants bringing down property values or taking manual labor jobs. While there is little by way of legislation against this, there is talk of some [3].
[1]: https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/03/mobile-stuck-us-geograp...
[2]: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat...
[4]: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-10/go-back-...
Based on the data I can gather from a brief search, it looks like in 2017, 58% of Americans live in the state of their birth [1]. Because many people move states and then move back (for college or a temporary job or something) then it's reasonable to think that perhaps 50% of Americans move states at least once in their lives.
In 2016, 93% of EU residents were living in the nation if their birth; 4% were from outside the EU and 3% from another EU member nation [2]. (In the US, 14.4% of the population are immigrants, and this is ~20% of the total global immigrant population [3].)
Furthermore (and in the absence of any supporting data), I think that the assimilation process is for the most part easier for Americans moving between states, especially those who are at least second generation American. While there are definitely strong cultural differences between US regions, we generally all regard each other as American (although this is surely different for those from American territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam or American Samoa). Relocation may also be quite challenging for minorities, especially those moving to whiter states. But for the typical white American moving states, it is probably easier to relocate than for an Italian moving from Calabria or Napoli to Lombardia.
I've lived in 8 states and I think that some half-hearted jokes about dating cousins or eating possum are about the most trouble I've gotten by hailing from the Ozarks. In my experience there are also larger biases against neighboring states (sports rivals) than far-away states. Freud's narcissism of small difference and all that.
That being said, since at least the Reconstruction era following the Civil War, there has been some local to regional resistance to internal migration. Interestingly, today much of the resistance is put forth by residents of less economically developed regions against those from more well-off places moving in, pricing the locals out, and changing the culture. These changes are a sort of Californication, the gentrification of mountain towns by richer and more liberal whites, rather than poorer immigrants bringing down property values or taking manual labor jobs. While there is little by way of legislation against this, there is talk of some [3].
[1]: https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/03/mobile-stuck-us-geograp...
[2]: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat...
[4]: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-10/go-back-...
People willing to relocate for work benefits employers, though this tends isolate individuals from their extended families (which may seem like a plus, until you, say, have kids but no grandparents to shuttle them around; or unwell elders without anyone left to care for them).
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...
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]
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
[deleted]
I would consider population loss and unfunded pension, retiree healthcare, and infrastructure debt to be a “systemic” issue.
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...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bloomberg+recession+2019&t=ffab&at...
> 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.
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.
The only positive thing I can say about that sort of bias and propaganda, is at least it's formally out in the open.
I am wondering has this always been the case of CNBC? Or the balance view is something recent?
I have only been reading / watching CNBC financial for the past few years and I was surprised at their balanced view. Since CNBC is constantly bashed ( may be based on politics or whatever reason Obama used to joke about ) I completely dismissed them for a very long time.
Somewhere along the line Bloomberg turns into more like a Buzzfeed like platform for Financial news.
I have only been reading / watching CNBC financial for the past few years and I was surprised at their balanced view. Since CNBC is constantly bashed ( may be based on politics or whatever reason Obama used to joke about ) I completely dismissed them for a very long time.
Somewhere along the line Bloomberg turns into more like a Buzzfeed like platform for Financial news.
> it wasn't a subtle turn, it was dramatic and immediate
I've been reading Bloomberg news since it was on my terminal. I never noticed this.
There has always a steady chatter of red flags and growth sectors. That's its job. During the recession, it was about the recession. After the recession, it was about threats to "green shoots." At each business-cycle record, it was about what could tank the economy next.
(I've actually thought that Bloomberg's coverage has been bullish over the past year. While the FT was calling out a looming recession, Bloomberg focussed on American equities outperforming.)
I've been reading Bloomberg news since it was on my terminal. I never noticed this.
There has always a steady chatter of red flags and growth sectors. That's its job. During the recession, it was about the recession. After the recession, it was about threats to "green shoots." At each business-cycle record, it was about what could tank the economy next.
(I've actually thought that Bloomberg's coverage has been bullish over the past year. While the FT was calling out a looming recession, Bloomberg focussed on American equities outperforming.)
There is no reason to value a "balance of bullish versus bearish articles." If the prevailing sentiment is one or the other, then those would be viewpoints most represented.
But the numbers are produced by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, according to the article.
A lot of economic forecasts are produced each day. Bloomberg chose to highlight these.
Choose to highlight? This article isn't even in the homepage. In fact I couldn't even see it in the Economics section. Are you sure it isn't your confirmation bias?
Bloomberg cover everything about market and economy. They churn out news round the clock.
Bloomberg cover everything about market and economy. They churn out news round the clock.
Of course it's not on the homepage now. It's from 4 days ago.
It’s not on the front page of their website.
Bloomberg is a financial news source geared at US finance professionals anything the fed says is a story for them.
Bloomberg is a financial news source geared at US finance professionals anything the fed says is a story for them.
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.
As long as the data backs it up I don’t see a problem with it being reported on.
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".
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".
That’s a fair point. I forgot Bloomberg had entered the race to be honest. That could cause a lot of Bias.
However I do think the economy isn’t well, if it was I doubt the fed would have restarted QE.
However I do think the economy isn’t well, if it was I doubt the fed would have restarted QE.
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]
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...
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]
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...
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.
It certainly feels that way. Honestly though I'm not sure if his goal is for a moderate nominee that joining the race is the way to do it. Seems much more likely to me he'll peel some support away from Biden rather than actually decreasing support for Warren/Bernie/et al.
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.
My original comment: OP has edited the comment above without mentioning it, rendering this entire reply thread useless.
No. This is not true. The comment is exactly the same.
Why are you doing this?
Why are you doing this?
Why is this being downvoted?
It is a interesting contribution and gives valuable insight into the article that has been posted.
It is a interesting contribution and gives valuable insight into the article that has been posted.
HN tends to take a dim view of political discussions in my experience.
There have been a number of indicators of a slowing economy for quite some time now. There was at least one run towards bonds in recent months. The Fed has been famously weighing its rate decisions sighting troubling economic outlooks. The yield curve inverted. GDP figures are trending downward. This is all just off the top of my head.
There have been a number of indicators of a slowing economy for quite some time now. There was at least one run towards bonds in recent months. The Fed has been famously weighing its rate decisions sighting troubling economic outlooks. The yield curve inverted. GDP figures are trending downward. This is all just off the top of my head.
> Why is this being downvoted?
So was the other comment by the same user. They're being downvoted because they're critical of a Democratic presidential candidate.
So was the other comment by the same user. They're being downvoted because they're critical of a Democratic presidential candidate.
At least in my case, I downvoted it because it cited Daily Mail as a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail and https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ have more, but basically, it’s a tabloid. Their assessment of the decision is incomplete, probably because reporting is not how they differentiate.
Here’s a few other entities' explanations of Bloomberg’s decision: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782732936/bloomberg-news-says..., https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/473542-bloomberg-report..., https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/michael_bloomberg_news_p...
Here’s a few other entities' explanations of Bloomberg’s decision: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782732936/bloomberg-news-says..., https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/473542-bloomberg-report..., https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/michael_bloomberg_news_p...
Of the four sources posted, only the Mail did the work of getting quotes from Bloomberg reporters. That alone gives it more credibility on this story. The other sources have to editorialize, because they don’t contain original reporting. (NPR features some hot takes from uninvolved parties, which is what reporters do when they can’t get a direct quote.) The Daily Mail has the best reporting on this story.
> The Daily Mail has the best reporting on this story.
I respectfully disagree, but I think anyone who reads the stories can decide for themselves.
I agree that it's interesting that Daily Mail texted reporters (or as they wrote, "DailyMail.com's anecdotal sampling of Bloomberg reporters' opinions shows scattershot unease but no willingness to contest the company policy"). I think the 2 opinions I linked to are far more thorough, though. Daily Mail's piece is what they could put out in an hour or two, and the novelty of texting a few reporters doesn't replace thinking about the underlying problems.
I respectfully disagree, but I think anyone who reads the stories can decide for themselves.
I agree that it's interesting that Daily Mail texted reporters (or as they wrote, "DailyMail.com's anecdotal sampling of Bloomberg reporters' opinions shows scattershot unease but no willingness to contest the company policy"). I think the 2 opinions I linked to are far more thorough, though. Daily Mail's piece is what they could put out in an hour or two, and the novelty of texting a few reporters doesn't replace thinking about the underlying problems.
Reporting is facts, quickly. Editorial is issues, thoughtfully.
Further down in the article was both a quote from a Bloomberg reporter and a statement from Bloomberg Business News. They got the scoop, as they say.
Further down in the article was both a quote from a Bloomberg reporter and a statement from Bloomberg Business News. They got the scoop, as they say.
>only the Mail did the work of getting quotes from Bloomberg reporters. That alone gives it more credibility on this story.
Which in no way indicates it has more credibility. Just that it reportedly spent more resources on this story.
Which in no way indicates it has more credibility. Just that it reportedly spent more resources on this story.
Did you downvote the wrong comment? It was a different comment by the same author, with the same unique format, that cited the Daily Mail.
(Update: I'm no longer sure whether this is correct. More on this, for the three other people who care: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21969051)
No, OP subsequently edited the comment without saying so. This whole reply thread is now useless.
No, OP subsequently edited the comment without saying so. This whole reply thread is now useless.
I'm sorry to say but you seem to be a petulant person or someone with an axe to grind, here. I haven't seen anyone try to vociferously beat down a fully citation-ed comment with legitimate sources as if it were salvaged from some hearsay somewhere.
Some would mistake you for someone who works for the aforementioned billionaire's campaign, the way you seem to want to launder his image, here.
Some would mistake you for someone who works for the aforementioned billionaire's campaign, the way you seem to want to launder his image, here.
There's no point to continuing this here, but I'd like to restore your faith that there's someone online who doesn't have an axe to grind :-) I don't, nor do I have a strong opinion about the next president (well, other than that I'd like it to not be Trump).
If you're up for email, I just added an obfuscated version of my email address to my profile. Say hi and maybe we can get back to a good place.
If you're up for email, I just added an obfuscated version of my email address to my profile. Say hi and maybe we can get back to a good place.
Eh, nothing changed for me. People probably just got lost in the hierarchy on mobile or something.
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
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).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias#Decision-makin...
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...
>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.
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.
I think what you say is true, but I was referring intentionally to unpleasant things in general. It goes beyond worldviews. There are plenty of things that don't really have to be filtered through a worldview to be bad, like losing your house to a flood, or having your entire retirement wiped out, or being under-insured when you get cancer. Even professional analysts tend to lowball the risk on doomsday events.
[deleted]
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
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.
You say this, but we see partisanship and ideology placed before profits all the time, almost every time. How many major newspapers are worth basically zero; how many broadcast news have seen their viewership fall into the toilet; how many internet newsies have lost their jobs - all because they do nothing but grind axes all day and do their best to covertly manipulate their audiences?
Mostly I see broadcast news programs trying to survive by flattering the ideological preconceptions of their target audience while viewership falls for other reasons. There's a greater diversity of entertainment available which sucked for cable news. And Craigslist in particular decimated the income of most newspapers. Also changes in the media landscape open up the possibility of competition in a way that didn't exist when ABC, NBC, and CBS had their comfy oligarchy. And these days, as far as I can tell, the salaries of the reporters I respect seem to be payed for by the ad impressions viral clickbate put out by the same journalistic outfits except for the weekly I'm paying $225 a year for.
s/alterior/ulterior
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.
Healthy skepticism is a feature of conservatism.
That explains Fox news so clearly.
Then how does the converse explain the other media outlets?
Logically, that doesn't follow. Here, let me explain the joke: You claim that conservatives have healthy skepticism and yet my observation is that the conservative television news outlet continuously streams nonsense and yet seems to be doing quite well. These circumstances are a retort to your assertion.
Conversely, what? Nobody asserted that liberals possessed a healthy skepticism or that liberal news outlets don't also continuously stream nonsense.
If you'd like me to make some assertions, I'd happily do so, but if you're looking for a partisan viewpoint to attempt to deconstruct, you'll not find one here.
Conversely, what? Nobody asserted that liberals possessed a healthy skepticism or that liberal news outlets don't also continuously stream nonsense.
If you'd like me to make some assertions, I'd happily do so, but if you're looking for a partisan viewpoint to attempt to deconstruct, you'll not find one here.
A good start would be to ban wholesale both Bloomberg and Washington Post articles from HN. Nothing from those publications should be trusted.
I can think of better places to start, but that's not the point, is it?
The point is that you should be aware of individual biases, and should diversify your media consumption.
The point is that you should be aware of individual biases, and should diversify your media consumption.
Apperantly not. According to this thread and hacker news in general you shouldn't diversify your media consumption. Unless what is meant by that is different sources with broadly the same agenda.
Personally, I find this boring. Perhaps you agree.
Personally, I find this boring. Perhaps you agree.
Even in the most extreme possible case where the WaPo is an outlet for Jeff Bezos' personal opinions, is it really the case that Jeff Bezos couldn't have anything interesting to tell us? One billionaire-owned newspaper isn't that bad on its own, because the other newspapers can still report on the owner of the one. What's really scary is when the billionaire owners go golfing together, which would be a failure of the system that banning a couple publications couldn't help us with.
Hasn't this been the case for some time? The number of people who actually matter in the news industry is only a few thousand, and their social graph looks like they're all married to each other's cousins (which is only half a joke).
Could you expand on that for those who dont follow the news industry closely.
> and Washington Post
Is Jeff Bezos running for Political office too?
You just moved the line from running for Presidential party nomination, skipped over mayor of major city, and jumped right to billionaires.
Add on; If all of a sudden you can't be wealthy and own (part of?) a media company, it really hurts the quality of journalism; you'd be left with small town or independent blogs; more susceptible to fake news -- and, more concerning, fear of publishing.
Is Jeff Bezos running for Political office too?
You just moved the line from running for Presidential party nomination, skipped over mayor of major city, and jumped right to billionaires.
Add on; If all of a sudden you can't be wealthy and own (part of?) a media company, it really hurts the quality of journalism; you'd be left with small town or independent blogs; more susceptible to fake news -- and, more concerning, fear of publishing.
On the contrary, the media consolidation that has left papers in the hands of a few individuals has been tremendously bad for journalism. The only safe types are either diverse private ownership (more than two owners) or blind trusts. Yes, this rules out a lot of existing news outlets.
Virtually all the UK papers are now narrowly owned by individual billionaires whose agendas are very visible in the paper.
Virtually all the UK papers are now narrowly owned by individual billionaires whose agendas are very visible in the paper.
Blind trusts are a political fiction.
Why would we treat Bezos any differently? At his level of rare air, making/breaking regulations is just as important to profit as playing in the market. He has a whole lot more on the line politically than any politician.
I believe this is the Fed Philadelphia source
https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/re...
https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/re...
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]
'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...
Here are other, much more nuanced analyses of this decision:
* 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/)
* 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/)
The URL on Daily Mail that you cite has "factcheck" in the domain name and calls itself "The Most Comprehensive Media Bias Resource". It has no about page and is exactly the sort of URL that I'd expect to get emailed from my impressionable 78-year-old mother.
Fair point. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia... is probably a better summary of how Daily Mail is perceived.
Wikipedia prohibits its use as a source, explaining: "volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.’"
They cited "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication."
Wikipedia prohibits its use as a source, explaining: "volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.’"
They cited "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication."
The Guardian article you link is simply reporting on the Wikipedia vote from a couple of years ago. Wikipedia keeps a unreliable sources list, and a perusal of it will show you that it's not an impressive exercise in fairness. In fact, Wikipedia's fairness standards are somewhat notorious.
As a minor funny/sad side point to all this, Peter Hitchens over at the Mail on Sunday -- owned by the Daily Mail, but with a separate editorial team -- has complained frequently about his Wikipedia page being defaced by this very policy. Apparently some enterprising editors thought that it was their duty to remove all Hitchens quotes from the article because his articles had appeared in the Mail on Sunday, and was therefore an "unreliable source" despite being a quote of what the man said. What a shitshow!
My own guess, as a sometimes Daily Mail reader from the States, is that the "unreliable" thing is simply a talking point somehow related to UK politics. The Daily Mail has a severe sensationalist bias, but their reporting is often quite good, and they have more than their fair share of scoops.
As a minor funny/sad side point to all this, Peter Hitchens over at the Mail on Sunday -- owned by the Daily Mail, but with a separate editorial team -- has complained frequently about his Wikipedia page being defaced by this very policy. Apparently some enterprising editors thought that it was their duty to remove all Hitchens quotes from the article because his articles had appeared in the Mail on Sunday, and was therefore an "unreliable source" despite being a quote of what the man said. What a shitshow!
My own guess, as a sometimes Daily Mail reader from the States, is that the "unreliable" thing is simply a talking point somehow related to UK politics. The Daily Mail has a severe sensationalist bias, but their reporting is often quite good, and they have more than their fair share of scoops.
alamaslah(1)
Interesting that Bloomberg is missing from his own billionaire index list: https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/
On Forbes he is listed to be worth ~$56B.
I think this topic is worth its own HN submission by itself.
On Forbes he is listed to be worth ~$56B.
I think this topic is worth its own HN submission by itself.
Very odd...
Well, that can’t possibly have any chilling effects.
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.
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.
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.
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.