Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The GDP of the Netherlands, a tiny country in Europe, is larger than all but the top 4 US states? I would have expected US states to do much, much better than that.
The GDP of the Netherlands, a tiny country in Europe, is larger than all but the top 4 US states? I would have expected US states to do much, much better than that.
I'm confused as to how you can consider the Netherlands to be a "tiny country" when it is the 11th most populous European nation (out of about 50) with 17 million people--making it more populous than all but 4 U.S. states. Looks about right to me.
It's kind of laughable to compare States to countries in USD. Those countries you are comparing your States to don't in large part use your currency. I get paid in Canadian dollars and purchase or sell everything in my country in Canadian dollars. The only time I use USD is well - when I travel to the United States. Therefore, it would be more useful to me to convert my countries GDP from the USD figure above to a CAD dollar figure.
I'm confused as to how you can consider the Netherlands to be a "tiny country" when it is the 11th most populous European nation (out of about 50) with 17 million people--making it more populous than all but 4 U.S. states. Looks about right to me.
The Netherlands is only 17 million people? Wow, it's smaller than I realized.
The GDP of the Netherlands, a tiny country in Europe, is larger than all but the top 4 US states? I would have expected US states to do much, much better than that.
The Netherlands have 17 million people it bigger than state of Massachusetts and Maryland but smaller than West Virginia
I'm confused as to how you can consider the Netherlands to be a "tiny country" when it is the 11th most populous European nation (out of about 50) with 17 million people--making it more populous than all but 4 U.S. states. Looks about right to me.
Well, I'm referring to size obviously. You need a certain amount of space to actually produce things. The Netherlands is much smaller than nearly all US states. Good luck starting a farm or a factory in the Netherlands whereas you can do that much more easily in the US.
Considering way more than half of the Netherlands is actually not working, being either retired or on some sort of welfare program, I'm still surprised all but 4 US states have a lower economical output than the Netherlands.
Well, I'm referring to size obviously. You need a certain amount of space to actually produce things. The Netherlands is much smaller than nearly all US states. Good luck starting a farm or a factory in the Netherlands whereas you can do that much more easily in the US.
Considering way more than half of the Netherlands is actually not working, being either retired or on some sort of welfare program, I'm still surprised all but 4 US states have a lower economical output than the Netherlands.
I'm pretty sure the energy sector in the Netherlands has something to do with that.
Someone on another thread pointed out that GDP is heavily influenced by big cities, particularly the big tech/finance cities. So Massachusetts, which is mostly Boston and its sphere, does really well. States with a lot of poorer towns, smaller cities, rural areas, etc., as well as states with big cities that aren't high on the DP elements (Miami, Phoenix, etc.) tend to rank lower per capita. Washington, which includes Seattle but also a lot of rural logging, agriculture, etc., does well but is lower than Mass until we pass them in a couple years or whatever.
Mass GDP growth Y0Y was 2.6%, Washington's 4.4%. Massachusetts continues to show the highest gains in the Northeast, and one of the highest growth areas in the country. But, there's not doubting Seattle MSA is one of the/maybe the fastest growing economy.
As for your comment, I think that's largely true. Boston MSA is 4.7M, and state pop is 6.8M. Seattle MSA is 3.7M, State pop is 7.4M. That being said, if you take Boston MSA GDP/population vs. Seattle MSA GDP/Population, here are the numbers:
Boston MSA GDP 428,200,000/Boston MSA population 4,732,000 = 90.5
Seattle MSA GDP 339,100,000/Seattle MSA population 3,967,000 = 85.5
So, even though Washington has more rural areas, smaller cities, states, Boston MSA GDP on a p/capita basis is still higher than Seattle's (for now). But I do suspect that your statement is largely true.. Logic would confirm that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
