1. The idea that we will have difficulty filling “jobs” assumes that all of the people who have “jobs” are employees. This is mistaken and ignores the fact that a significant number of the people who work in VT are sole proprietors and/or partners. These figures are reported separately and are rarely combined with “jobs” figures. Rather than bemoaning the supposed difficulty of filling “jobs”, we should acknowledge that many in-migrants bring their jobs with them. Indeed, VT is near the top in the number of new jobs per new residents.
2. VT’s comparatively strong dependence on small establishments (1 – 9 workers) is an advantage because many of the founders / owners come here for the quality of life. That means they’re less likely to leave to find cheap labor like the large establishments that tend to leave the country and eliminate huge numbers of jobs.
3. As you noted, the articles failed to provide more than cursory context. It is common for such pieces to focus almost exclusively on VT instead of putting our experience in perspective. That allows naysayers to claim VT is bad (“anti-business”) and other states are better, although no evidence is presented to substantiate that.
4. Concerns over population growth and economic development have been fueled by Mssrs. Woolf & Heaps for several years. But their findings are somewhat suspect and not without a purpose. To fix the (misdiagnosed) problem, they argue for lower taxes in order to attract more businesses. This is advocacy rather than objective analysis. [We are all advocates to some extent but mainstream media tend to present such information as undisputed fact.]

For example, there really is no shortage of bodies. There are thousands of Vermonters who are not technically in the labor force but who are able & willing to work. Some would move into the work force if wages were higher. It’s econ 101 and is called the market clearing rate. If you pay them, they will come. One needs only to look at wages for skilled occupations in NYC & Boston to understand (part of the reason) why so many younger people leave (although many come back once they’ve established careers).

Moreover, Woolf & Heaps routinely cite population figures that ignore those from 65 – 70. In fact, a growing percentage of that age cohort works (a third of men and a quarter of women). [Note: The reasons some of them work suggests a failure of our social safety net but that's another story.] This is important because that’s an age cohort that is growing, not shrinking.

The fact that the stories failed to offer other views is bad journalism and a disservice to readers. I agree that staff cuts have made the task more difficult but the default setting for such stories is and has been to call Art & Dick and call it a day. Some reporters have sought “balance” and sometimes call me or others with different views but not all the time.

What you’ve described is just one example of a larger problem. Is it any wonder so many people hold views that mirror those espoused by Jim Douglas (echoing the Chamber, Woolf & Heaps, the Tax Foundation, etc.)? Almost everything they hear or read is narrowly framed and not countered with other information. It makes it very difficult to have serious discussions about policy when so much time is spent disabusing people of the misleading “facts” they’ve come to accept as received wisdom.

Finally, your comments about limits to growth are important. It’s not only the “bigger is better” mantra but the “business as usual” aspect. That is, most economic development practitioners look to find a way for VT to fit into the larger picture even though the system leaves us terribly vulnerable. We could “grow” just as easily by figuring out how to be less dependent and (re)gain some control over our future. That means maximizing the value of the resources we have, including people. I wonder how many gubernatorial candidates will support approach.