A targeted recession in 2020?
By most guesses there is a 50% chance of a nationwide recession next year.
However, the chances of a recession in politically important swing states in the Rust Belt is much higher.
Trump is also more exposed politically to a manufacturing downturn than any Democratic rival. Nationally, manufacturing accounted for almost 12% of the jobs in counties that voted for Trump in 2016 vs. less than 7% in those that supported Hillary Clinton, says Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. In battleground states the divergence is starker, with factory jobs accounting for more than 21% of employment in Trump counties. “This is the one thing he was going to deliver. And Democrats are not vulnerable at all because if things go south they are not responsible at all,” Muro says.
Michigan is the most vulnerable state for a recession.
The mining and coal sector had a net loss of 2,000 jobs last month.
Comments
Like when Dorian definitely was gonna hit AL
If the great orange one says no recession we must
all agree and bow to the great orange one and his
fantasies.
https://www.zerohedge.com/
Fed Chair Powell Insists There Won't Be A Recession When All The Evidence Suggests Otherwise
It’s happening again...
EDIT in the meantime I'm waiting on the tRump version of this.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEKUIOURVRw]
53
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
The note about the Permian shale boom is critical.
Having a job that helps destroy the planet is not a positive. That’s why Sanders’ emphasis on jobs in the Green New Deal is so important. People have for so long been trained to treat a “job” as context-free. Look, the Stasi is hiring! Yay, jobs! Look, I got a job blowing up mountains and producing an eternal hellscape. Yay, jobs!
When offered a job with dignity and meaning, I’d think people would jump at the chance.
All anyone in Syracuse is talking about
Is that a developer from Texas wants a big tax break to build what would be the second largest distribution center in the world on what is currently a golf course in the suburbs. The location is half a mile away from a NY Thruway exit...
The developer says they need everything approved by the end of the year and they promise there will be at least 1000 jobs paying $30,000/yr...They won't disclose who the distribution center would be built for, just saying that a lease would be signed when ground is broken, but it almost has to be Amazon. But the idiocracy on Syracuse.com thinks these will be good paying jobs with benefits...
It's never going to happen, the site directly across the road was targeted by Walmart and rejected, likewise a Flying J truck stop was shot down. The Village of Liverpool will sue if it looks like the Town of Clay is going to approve it. The developer just released its own private traffic study that claims only 1300 or so extra cars will be added to rush hour traffic each day and that trucks wouldn't be a problem during the day. Nothing about how many extra trucks will be operating all night long...
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
@tle His green new deal better
His green new deal better not include lots of labor intensive energy jobs. That increases the cost of energy and people can't afford it as it is. Energy is the one area where jobs need to be as few as is absolutely necessary.
@tle The green new deal will
The green new deal will not work if energy becomes so expensive from labor costs that the poor and the middle class can not afford it. It would take huge subsidies from the government to keep the energy costs low enough that poor people could afford the energy because renewables are far more expensive than coal and natural gas.
You want jobs in something other than the energy sector for energy to be affordable. And in my view we need nuclear and we need molten salt reactors which makes nuclear as cheap as coal. And the Chinese took the plans from our molten salt reactor experiment that we did at Oak Ridge in the 60s and 70s and are going to go online in six months.
But I have never heard a word from Sanders about nuclear being part of the green new deal when actually nothing compares to it. Sanders has his heart in the right place but his ideas are stuck somewhere between the 1930s and the 1960's.
For me the sticking point is electric cars.
To replace every car in America with an electric kiddiekar or a super-expensive Tesla in the next decade is a nonstarter. The technology is not there except for go-karts in the cities.
I once drove my 2005 Impala from Oklahoma City to Chicago stopping only for food and gas. You can't do that with an electric car. Yes, we have to get off fossil fuels, but biofuels are the way. Sanders' plan would kill independent service stations and truck stops all over the country. And would the behemoth trucks be electric? Where's the research? How much would it fuel inflation?
I agree about the nukes. I'd like to see a federally funded Manhattan Project to develop safe Thorium reactors like India is working on.
I think the general public will see this as an assault on private cars. Even if they don't, the auto industry will crumble under threat of their products being banned in a few years. Automobiles last much longer than ten years. And don't think Trump wouldn't play that up.
Back in the '70s, I read in a book that oil was used in roughly equal parts three ways, vehicle fuel, building/industrial heating, and plastics. The second should be flat out banned, there are advanced HVAC electrical technologies and solar alternatives. The first can be handled by biofuels like biodiesel and octyl alcohol and as for the third, there is far too much plastic being used. Federal dollars should be available for researching non-fossil feedstocks, alternative materials, and plastic breakdown. Fund it by a tax on plastic. When I was a boy, there was very little plastic in grocery stores. Milk and soda came in glass bottles, meat was wrapped in "butcher paper", boxes were cardboard. Those glass bottles were recycled via deposits. I well remember scouring the neighborhood for discarded bottles. Many people didn't care about the two cent deposit, but if I kid found 13 bottles he had the quarter for movie admission.
Take away the family car? Trump will win in a landslide.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
“Sanders' plan would kill independent service stations”
If you’re talking about independent gas stations, I’d say 1) Those still exist? and 2) Sanders’ plan would aim to kill ALL gas stations. That’s a good thing. If you’re talking about mechanics, your statement is on a par with “But what about the buggy whip makers?”.
Biofuels is NOT the way to go. The way agriculture is done in the U.S. is an environmental and global warming catastrophe. Elsewhere, jungles are being obliterated for monocultures, so also a disaster.
P.S. Ebikes should be encouraged to eat cars when it comes to local transport.
Ebikes
yeah I can really see driving them in -20 weather with -40 wind chill (Chicago Winter 2018-2019, not everybody lives in California)
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Be prepared for the second Trump administartion
You might even lose Illinois.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
On the other hand...
Trump at least tried, whereas Democrats spend all their time dreaming up new trade agreements that trade away American jobs even faster than what's happening now. Globalizers always fail or refuse to recognize the negative impact of their policies on the 99%.
You do know, of course,
that many of those free trade agreements were written by repubs? Remember globalization is fully bipartisan, team sports are only for us peons.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Of course...
but Democrats didn't have to sign them, like Clinton did for NAFTA and GATT and like Obama did for Korea, Columbia and Panama and tried to do with TPP. As you said, it's a bipartisan screwing of the 99%.