Connect with us

Americas

During Covid-19’s First Year, Americans Poured Out of Some States, and Into Others

Published

on

During 2020 — the opening year of Covid-19 (or coronavirus-19) — United Van Lines helped around 80,000 American families move from one state to another, and here is the list showing how many were moving into each state, and how many were leaving each state, as ranked according to the percentage who were moving in there:

79,387 Total Shipments (1 January 2020 to 21 December 2020)

Inbound Shipments, Outbound Shipments, Inbound %

1. Idaho: 758 in, 323 out, 70% inbound (30% outbound)

2. South Carolina: 2054 in, 1154 out, 64% inbound 

3. Oregon: 1389 in, 833 out, 63% 

4. South Dakota: 213 in, 129 out, 62%

5. Arizona: 2852 in, 1781 out, 62%

6. North Carolina: 4039 in, 2669 out, 60%

7. Tennessee: 2202 in, 1465 out, 60%

8. Alabama: 1190 in, 802 out, 60%

9. Florida: 7335 in, 4981 out, 60%

10. Arkansas: 543 in, 385 out, 59%

11. Wyoming: 193, in, 140 out, 58%

12. West Virginia: 185 in, 135 out, 58%

13. Delaware: 304 in, 222 out, 58%

14. Maine: 445 in, 354 out, 56%

15. Rhode Island: 331 in, 265 out, 56%

16. District of Columbia: 487 in, 390 out, 56%

17. Utah: 878 in, 720 out, 55%

18. Washington: 4162 in, 3475 out, 54%

19. Texas: 7098 in, 6045 out, 54%

20. New Mexico: 757 in, 659 out, 53%

21. Kentucky: 955 in, 866 out, 52%

22. Nevada: 1025 in, 932 out, 52%

23. Iowa: 518 in, 476 out, 52%

24. New Hampshire: 311 in, 289 out, 52%

25. Montana: 530 in, 505 out, 51%

26. Georgia: 2995 in, 2876 out, 51%

27. Colorado: 2923 in, 2879 out, 50%

28. Wisconsin: 1092 in, 1093 out, 50%

29. Michigan: 1404 in, 1413 out, 50%

30. Oklahoma: 659 in, 678 out, 49%

31. Minnesota: 1106 in, 1159 out, 49%

32. Missouri: 1368 in, 1438 out, 49%

33. Nebraska: 487 in, 516 out, 49%

34. Mississippi: 499 in, 538 out, 48%

35. Louisiana: 811 in, 902 out, 47%

36. Virginia: 3536 in, 4008 out, 47%

37. Indiana: 854 in, 968 out, 47%

38. Pennsylvania: 2072 in, 2362 out, 47%

39. Maryland: 1333 in, 1632 out, 45%

40. Ohio: 1923 in, 2453 out, 44%

41. Massachusetts: 1455 in, 1900 out, 43%

42. North Dakota: 176 in, 230 out, 43%

43. Kansas: 773 in, 1092 out, 41%

44. California: 6888 in, 9776 out, 41%

45. Connecticut: 682 in,1867 out, 37%

46. Illinois: 1942 in, 3840 out, 34%

47. New York: 1960 in, 3953 out, 33%

48. New Jersey: 1074in, 2451 out, 30%

Vermont was eliminated from the overall results because there were so few shipments too-or-from Vermont. And, when I also asked the company about the absence of Alaska and of Hawaii, they told me that there’s “No Hawaii or Alaska as they are not considered domestic moves because of they way household goods are shipped.” Consequently, only 48 states, plus DC, were included in their report.

Two factors are generally used in order to rate how safe a locale is against a resident’s becoming struck by the Covid-19 disease — the disease-rate per million inhabitants, and the death-rate per million inhabitants — however, since the two ranking systems tend to produce remarkably similar rankings (with the death-rates merely being a lagging indicator, months behind the disease-rates), we shall use here be using only the disease-rates.

Below is presented each of these states’ rank in the lowness of the percentage of its population who have become diagnosed as being sick from Covid-19 (and each given state’s rate of that sickness, to-date, per million inhabitants); so, the lower the numbers are here, the safer its residents have been against this epidemic (and you can see that the disease-rates vary enormously from one state to another):

1. Idaho: #43 (80,190)

2. South Carolina: #24 (63,719)

3. Oregon: #4 (28,085)

4. South Dakota: #50 (114,254)

5. Arizona: #36 (77,963)

6. North Carolina: #13 (54,862)

7. Tennessee: #48 (90,443)

8. Alabama: #34 (77,418)

9. Florida: #26 (64,817)

10. Arkansas: #40 (79,160)

11. Wyoming: #39 (78,736)

12. West Virginia: #10 (51,983)

13. Delaware: #19 (62,746)

14. Maine: #3 (19,763)

15. Rhode Island: #46 (88,593)

16. District of Columbia: #7 (42,743)

17. Utah: #47 (90,129)

18. Washington: #5 (34,129)

19. Texas: #23 (63,364)

20. New Mexico: #28 (70,256)

21. Kentucky: #21 (62,860)

22. Nevada: #33 (76,443)

23. Iowa: #49 (91,061)

24. New Hampshire: #6 (34,807)

25. Montana: #37 (78,012)

26. Georgia: #27 (66,509)

27. Colorado: #17 (59,637)

28. Wisconsin: #44 (84,388)

29. Michigan: #12 (54,736)

30. Oklahoma: #35 (77,905)

31. Minnesota: #31 (75,406)

32. Missouri: #30 (70,428)

33. Nebraska: #45 (87,668)

34. Mississippi: #32 (75,750)

35. Louisiana: #29 (70,265)

36. Virginia: #8 (43,572)

37. Indiana: #41 (79,184)

38. Pennsylvania: #11 (53,103)

39. Maryland: #9 (47,928)

40. Ohio: #22 (62,879)

41. Massachusetts: #16 (56,956)

42. North Dakota: #51 (122,686)

43. Kansas: #42 (80,088)

44. California: #20 (62,835)

45. Connecticut: #14 (55,246)

46. Illinois: #38 (78,262)

47. New York: #15 (55,522)

48. New Jersey: #18 (62,023)

Vermont was #1 (12,882)

Hawaii was #2 (15,657)

Alaska was #25 (64,256)

So: If a state’s effectiveness at protecting its occupants from this epidemic is increasing that state’s attractiveness as a place to live, then one would expect to find that, for example, the top ten scorers in the first list, by inbound percentage, would have lower infection-rates per million, and the bottom ten would have higher infection-rates per million; but the reverse is true: the top ten on inbound percentage have Covid-19 disease-rates of 74,094 per million, whereas the bottom ten have Covid-19 disease-rates of 68,442 per million. Furthermore, the top-scoring state on its having the lowest Covid-19 disease-rate, which is Vermont, has virtually nobody moving into the state, and virtually nobody leaving the state. However, that state, though it was not ranked inbound-versus-outbound, actually should have been ranked; and the United Van Lines press release, on January 4th, which was headlined “United Van Lines’ National Migration Study Reveals Where And Why Americans Moved In 2020”, noted, only in passing, in a footnote, that, “*Although Vermont experienced the highest percentage of inbound moves overall, United Van Lines moved fewer than 250 families in and out of the state. The inbound and outbound rankings in the 2020 study only reflect states with 250 moves or more.” (They meant that in Vermont, the total of both inbound and outbound was below 250, and that, among those few, Vermont’s inbound ratio was even higher than #1 Idaho’s 70%, so that fewer than 75 of those families were moving out of the state.) So: actually, the #1 state as regards protecting its inhabitants from Covid-19 happens to be, also, the state that has actually the highest inbound/outbound ratio, even higher than does Idaho. Apparently, Vermont is an exception to the general rule that Americans are finding the riskier states to be more attractive to move to. This might indicate that if only Americans had been informed, for example, that South Dakota has the second-highest Covid-19 disease-rate in the country (exceeded only by North Dakota — which has the entire world’s highest Covid-19 disease rate), then South Dakota would not be the state that has the nation’s fourth-highest inbound/outbound ratio (actually, the 5th-highest, if Vermont had been included).

Consequently, though Americans don’t generally seem to be attracted to states that have performed well on this, but — to the contrary — appear, on balance, to be attracted to states that have performed poorly on it (they’re generally leaving the safer states, in order to relocate into the more dangerous states), Vermont is a remarkable exception, but one that only few Americans even know about.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Flames of Globalization in the Temple of Democracy

Published

on

Authors: Alex Viryasov and Hunter Cawood

On the eve of Orthodox Christmas, an angry mob stormed the “temple of democracy” on Capitol Hill. It’s hard to imagine that such a feat could be deemed possible. The American Parliament resembles an impregnable fortress, girdled by a litany of security checks and metal detectors at every conceivable point of entry. And yet, supporters of Donald Trump somehow found a way.

In the liberal media, there has been an effort to portray them as internal terrorists. President-elect Joe Biden called his fellow citizens who did not vote for him “a raging mob.” The current president, addressing his supporters, calls to avoid violence: “We love you. You are special. I can feel your pain. Go home.”

That said, what will we see when we look into the faces of these protesters? A blend of anger and outrage. But what is behind that indignation? Perhaps it’s pain and frustration. These are the people who elected Trump president in 2016. He promised to save their jobs, to stand up for them in the face of multinational corporations. He appealed to their patriotism, promised to make America great again. Arguably, Donald Trump has challenged the giant we call globalization.

Today, the United States is experiencing a crisis like no other. American society hasn’t been this deeply divided since the Vietnam War. The class struggle has only escalated. America’s heartland with its legions of blue-collar workers is now rebelling against the power of corporate and financial elites. While Wall Street bankers or Silicon Valley programmers fly from New York to London on private jets, an Alabama farmer is filling up his old red pickup truck with his last Abraham Lincoln.

The New York banker has no empathy for the poor residing in the southern states, nothing in common with the coal miners of West Virginia. He invests in the economies of China and India, while his savings sit quietly in Swiss banks. In spirit, he is closer not to his compatriots, but to fellow brokers and bankers from London and Brussels. This profiteer is no longer an American. He is a representative of the global elite.

In the 2020 elections, the globalists took revenge. And yet, more than 70 million Americans still voted for Trump. That represents half of the voting population and more votes than any other Republican has ever received. A staggering majority of them believe that they have been deceived and that Democrats have allegedly rigged this election.

Democrats, meanwhile, are launching another impeachment procedure against the 45th president based on a belief that it has been Donald Trump himself who has provoked this spiral of violence. Indeed, there is merit to this. The protesters proceeded from the White House to storm Congress, after Trump urged them on with his words, “We will never give up, we will never concede.”

As a result, blood was shed in the temple of American democracy. The last time the Capital was captured happened in 1814 when British troops breached it. However, this latest episode, unlike the last, cannot be called a foreign invasion. This time Washington was stormed by protestors waving American flags.

Nonetheless, it is not an exaggeration to say that the poor and downtrodden laborers of America’s Rust Belt currently feel like foreigners in their own country. The United States is not unique in this sense. The poor and downtrodden represent a significant part of the electorate in nearly every country that has been affected by globalization. As a result, a wave of populism is sweeping democratic countries. Politicians around the world are appealing to a sense of national identity. Is it possible to understand the frustrated feelings of people who have failed to integrate into the new global economic order? Absolutely. It’s not too dissimilar from the grief felt by a seamstress who was left without work upon the invention of the sewing machine.

Is it worth trying to resist globalization as did the Luddites of the 19th century, who fought tooth and nail to reverse the inevitability of the industrial revolution? The jury is still out.

The world is becoming more complex and stratified. Economic and political interdependence between countries is growing each and every day. In this sense, globalization is progress and progress is but an irreversible process.

Yet, like the inhumane capitalism of the 19th century so vividly described in Dickens’ novels, globalization carries many hidden threats. We must recognize and address these threats. The emphasis should be on the person, his dignity, needs, and requirements. Global elites in the pursuit of power and superprofits will continue to drive forward the process of globalization. Our task is not to stop or slow them down, but to correct global megatrends so that the flywheel of time does not grind ordinary people to the ground or simply throw nation-states to the sidelines of history.

Continue Reading

Americas

Deliberate efforts were made to give a tough time to President Joe Biden

Published

on

Image credit: Todd Jacobucci/ flickr

President Trump-Administration is over-engaged in creating mess for in-coming President Joe Biden. The recent deliberate efforts are made to give a tough time are:  naming Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism, designating Yemen’s Houthi rebels as a foreign terrorist organization, Terming Iran as a new home to al-Qaida, and lifting restrictions on contacts between American officials and representatives from Taiwan.

The consequence may turn into dire situations, like a return to cold war era tension. Efforts were made to resume Cuba-US relations to normal for decades and were expected to sustain a peaceful co-existence. Any setback to relations with Cuba may destabilize the whole region. Pompeo’s redesignation of Cuba as a sponsor of state terror will possibly have the least material impact, but it signifies a personal loss to Biden and a momentous political win for Trumpism. In doing so, Trump is hitting the final nail in the coffin of Barack Obama’s efforts to normalize relations with Cuba.

Yemen issue was a creation of Arab spring sponsored by the CIA, and after realizing the wrongdoings, the US was trying to cool down the tension between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, but with the recent move to name Yemen’s Houthi rebels as a foreign terrorist organization, may open new hostilities and bloodshed. It has been designated by UNICEF as the “largest humanitarian crisis in the world, with more than 24 million people — some 80 percent of the population — in need of humanitarian assistance, including more than 12 million children.” Such statements may halt humanitarian assistance and may result in a big disaster.

The history of rivalries with Iran goes back to 1953 when the UK and the US jointly overthrew the legitimate government of Prime Minister Mossadeq. But the real tension heightened in 2018 When President Trump withdrew from JCPOA. But the recent allegation that Iran as a new home of al-Qaida may take a new turn and give a tough time to Joe Biden–Administration. Although there is no evidence, however, Secretary of State Pompeo made such an allegation out of his personal grudge against Iran. It can complicate the situation further deteriorate and even may engulf the whole middle-east.

Lifting constraints on contacts between American officials and representatives from Taiwan, is open violation of “One-China Policy.” Since Washington established formal diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1979, it has resisted having official diplomatic associations with Taipei in order to avoid a confrontation with the PR China, which still comprehends the island — home to around 24 million people — as part of China. Chinese are very sensitive to the Taiwan issue and struggling for peaceful unification. However, China posses the capabilities to take over by force, yet, have not done so far. Secretary of State Mr. Pompeo’s statement may be aiming to instigate China and forcing toward military re-unification. It might leave a challenging concern for Joe Biden-Administration.

Raffaello Pantucci, a senior fellow at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said, “The Trump administration is locking in place a series of conflicts that change the starting point for Biden walking into the office on the world stage.”

Even Mr. Pompeo had a plan to travel to Europe to create further hurdles for in-coming administration, but fortunately, some of the European countries refused to entertain him, and desperately he has to cancel his trip at the eleventh hours.

It is just like a losing army, which destroys all ammunition, weapons, bridges, infrastructures, etc., before surrendering. Although President Trump’s days in office are numbered, his administration is over-engaged in destruction and creating hurdles for the next administration. He is deliberately creating hurdles and difficulties for President-Elect Joe Biden.

President Joe Biden has many challenges to face like Pandemic, unrest in the society, a falling economy, losing reputation, etc. Some of them might be natural, but few are specially created!

Continue Reading

Americas

Latin America and the challenges for true political and economic independence

Published

on

Latin America – and its core countries, namely Brazil, Argentina and Mexico – has become a region of high global strategic value due to its vast territory, abundant resources, great economic development, unique geographical position and active role in global and regional governance.

Factors such as history, geography and reality, combined with the complexity of the region’s internal political logics, have once again made Latin America a place where major powers pay attention to and play key games.

Latin America’s cooperation with ‘external’ powers has become ever closer, leading to unfounded suspicions and malicious provocations among the countries of the region concerned.

What bothers ‘democrats’ and ‘liberals’ is the presence in the area of countries without a colonialist and exploitative past.

Historically, Latin America and the Caribbean were the coveted location of various Western forces. Since the Latin American countries’ independence – and even today – large countries inside and outside the region have competed in this area.

The complexity and uncertainty of the current global political and economic situation in Latin America lie behind the competition between the major powers in geopolitics and international relations.

Latin America’s vast lands and resources are linked to global food security, the supply of agricultural and livestock products, and energy security. It is an important ‘product supplier’ that cannot be neglected.

Latin America has a huge surface of over 20 million square kilometres, covering four sub-regions of North America (Mexico), the Caribbean, Central America and South America, with 33 independent countries and some regions that are not yet independent, as they are tied to the burden of the old liberal-colonialist world.

Latin America is blessed with favourable natural conditions. For example, it has become a well-known ‘granary’ and ‘meat provider’ because of its fertile arable land and abundant pastures. It is an important area  for the production of further agricultural and livestock products. At the same time, other countries in the region have huge reserves of natural resources such as oil and gas, iron ore, copper and forests, and have become important global suppliers of strategic materials.

Secondly, the Latin American region has a relatively high level of economic development and has brought together a number of important emerging economies – a significant global market that cannot be ignored.

The Latin American region plays an important role in global economy. Brazil and Mexico are not only the two largest economies in Latin America, but also the top 15 in global economy.

At the same time, recent calculations on 183 countries (regions) with complete data from the World Bank and related studies show that the group consisting of Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, etc., has entered the ranking of the “30 emerging markets” (E30) worldwide. According to World Bank statistics, Latin America’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2018 was about 5.78 trillion dollars and the per capita GDP exceeded 9,000 dollars. With the exception of a few, most countries in Latin America are middle-income and some have entered the high-income ranking.

Therefore, Latin America has become a large consumer market that cannot be ignored due to its relatively high level of economic development, high per capita income and a population of over 640 million people.

Indeed, as Latin American region with a high degree of economic freedom and trade openness, it has been closely connected with the economies of other regions in the world through various bilateral and multilateral agreements, initiatives and free trade mechanisms.

Thirdly, Latin America’s unique geographical position has a significant impact on global trade, shipping and climate change.

Latin America is situated between two oceans. Some countries border on the Pacific, or the Atlantic, or are even bathed by both oceans. This special position gives the Latin American region the geographical advantage of achieving ‘transpacific cooperation’ with the Asian region or building a link of ‘transatlantic cooperation’ with the European region. Thanks to the Panama Canal, it is the fundamental hub for global trade.

Besides its strategic relevance for food security and clean energy production, the Amazon rainforest, known as the ‘lungs of the earth’, has a surface of over six million square kilometres, accounting for about 50% of the global rainforest. 20% of the global forest area and the vast resources covering 9 countries in Latin America have become one of the most important factors influencing global climate change.

Finally, as an active player in the international and regional political and economic arena, Latin America is a new decisive force that cannot be neglected in the field of global and regional governance.

Firstly, as members of organisations such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the major Latin American countries are both participants in and creators of international rules.

Moreover, these countries should be considered from further aspects and viewpoints of multilateralism.

The major Latin American countries, particularly regional powers, such as Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, are members of the G20. Brazil belongs to both BRICS and BASIC.Mexico, Chile and Peru are within the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Mexico, Peru and Chile are members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), while Mexico and Chile are members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

They are playing an irreplaceable role in responding to the economic crisis and promoting the reform of global governance mechanisms; in promoting the conclusion of important agreements on global climate change; in advancing economic cooperation between the various regions; in leading ‘South-South cooperation’ between developing countries and in holding a dialogue on the main current issues (opposition to unilateralism, protectionism, protection of multilateralism, etc.).

It must also be said that Latin American countries are naturally also active in regional organisations and institutions – such as the Organisation of American States, the Inter-American Development Bank, etc. – so that they can participate directly and try to oppose U.S. hegemonism.

Within the Latin American region, these countries first initiated a process of cooperation and integration and later established various sub-regional organisations -such as Mercosur (Mercado Común del Sur-Mercado Comum do Sul) and Alianza del Pacífico (Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Peru) – to cooperate with other regions of the world and shake off the unfortunate definition of “America’s backyard”.

Located in the Western Hemisphere, where the well-known superpower is present, Latin American countries have long been deeply influenced by the United States in politics, economics, society and culture.

In 1823, the United States supported the Monroe Doctrine and drove the European countries out of Latin America with the slogan ‘America for the Americans’, thus becoming the masters of the Western Hemisphere.

The Monroe Doctrine also became a pretext for the United States to interfere in the internal affairs and diplomacy of Latin American countries.

In 2013, 190 years after the aforementioned declaration, the United States publicly declared that the Monroe Doctrine era was over and emphasised the relationship on an equal footing and the shared responsibility between the United States and Latin America.

Nevertheless, the current Latin American politics shows once again that the end of the so-called ‘Monroe Doctrine’ era is nothing more than a common myth.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Americas1 hour ago

Flames of Globalization in the Temple of Democracy

Authors: Alex Viryasov and Hunter Cawood On the eve of Orthodox Christmas, an angry mob stormed the “temple of democracy”...

Economy3 hours ago

Public Council Sets New Tasks to Support Russia-Africa Relations

In this interview with Armen Khachatryan, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Programme Director at the Roscongress Foundation, and now a...

Americas5 hours ago

Deliberate efforts were made to give a tough time to President Joe Biden

President Trump-Administration is over-engaged in creating mess for in-coming President Joe Biden. The recent deliberate efforts are made to give...

East Asia7 hours ago

The Problem of Uncontrolled Nationalism: The Case of Japan before the WWII

Authors: Chan Kung and Yu(Tony) Pan* Throughout the modern history of the world, Japan is undoubtedly an interesting country: it...

Americas9 hours ago

Latin America and the challenges for true political and economic independence

Latin America – and its core countries, namely Brazil, Argentina and Mexico – has become a region of high global...

Africa Today13 hours ago

Mali transition presents opportunity to break ‘vicious circle of political crises’

The current political transition period in Mali offers an opportunity to “break out of the vicious circle of political crises...

South Asia15 hours ago

India: Metamorphosis from disinformation to stark lies

When European Disinfo Lab exposed India’s disinformation network, India apologized. But, the portents are that India continued spreading disinformation, nay...

Trending