Shocking but didn’t seem right

Saw this pair of graphs, credited to NYTimes.

Industry was dominant everywhere in 1990, now healthcare is dominant everywhere. First response was Yup, that’s exactly what happened.

Then I stood back and compared with what I know from tech history and experience.

On the 1990 end, industry was never dominant in most states. It was superstrong in the rust belt; elsewhere agriculture, retail, oil and construction were in the mix. At the peak in the 50s, only 30% of all workers were in industry. Electronics started moving to Japan in 1960, textiles moved next, then appliances. By 1990 half of the peak was gone.

On the 2024 end, what happened to retail? Healthcare is big but it couldn’t be the main employer in nearly all states.

This histogram at Visual Capitalist seems to capture reality better. In 1998 retail was biggest in most places. In 2024 the picture is more varied. Retail, fast food, logistics (Amazon), and healthcare look about equal. Industry is only dominant in Michigan.

I don’t have the source article for those maps. Maybe it was looking at the single largest employer? Even so, one hospital can’t be the single largest everywhere.

Whether big or biggest, healthcare is far more important now than before Romneycare. I saw it coming in 2013.

= = = = = START REPRINT:

The pool will not be enlarged, and all costs will go up. This was inevitable because Romneycare was NOT INTENDED to be affordable. It was SOLELY INTENDED to give a total monopoly to insurance companies that already have a near-total monopoly.

As fucking always, both “sides” are arguing on the basis of a shared lie. The D team is arguing FOR RomneyCare “because it’s socialism”, and the R team is arguing AGAINST RomneyCare “because it’s socialism.” It’s the fucking opposite of socialism. In 1913 terms, it’s a government guarantee of perpetual monopoly power for a Trust or Cartel.

= = = = = END REPRINT.