Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-11-2017, 06:43 PM
 
2,924 posts, read 1,575,287 times
Reputation: 2498

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post

The chart says it all. Look at all of the red states lagging far, far behind California in economic output. Blue California must be something right. And all that whining about California not being "business friendly"? It can't be that unfriendly if business is generating almost $2.5 Tril a year in revenue.

The problem with red states is the low tax, small government mentality causes them to limit themselves. You can't attract high tech cutting edge business if your state government doesn't invest in top universities and good infrastructure. High tech is not coming to your state if your leaders are anti-science. If red states are smart they would become blue and be more like California. Economic success will follow.
Also, I might add that all the businesses engaging in economic terrorism against state RFRAs and bathroom bills can go KMA as far as I'm concerned. I actually applaud Mississippi for being able to successfully give them the finger. I've had it with their push for Common Core, Amnesty, H1Bs, and for all this "climate change" legislation too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-11-2017, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,175 posts, read 22,153,599 times
Reputation: 23792
CAlifornia's leadership has much less to do with its politics than other factors.

California has the largest population in the nation, and is the 4th largest in size. it has 2 of the best natural ports on the Pacific, a huge industrial base that is deep and varied, a climate that allows it to be one of the most productive agricultural states in the nation, a diverse population that allows it to easily compete with the rest of the world, an excellent state education system that provides it all with fully prepared young people who can go right to work, and many other factors.

Other states just don't have all of that. Most have only a fraction of those advantages.

And one big advantage that will help hold California's leadership for a long time to come is the state is still growing. That alone puts it ahead of many other states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 06:58 PM
 
30,855 posts, read 36,750,505 times
Reputation: 34384
The chart posted in the OP is stupid. Of course the state with the largest population is going to have the largest GDP.

Per capita GDP adjusted for cost of living is a much, much better measure of how good the economy/standard of living is in any particular state. By that measure, California falls into the bottom 25 states, below states that many Californians like to thumb their noses at, such as Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama:

https://www.fool.com/investing/gener...-to-spend.aspx
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 07:10 PM
 
10,275 posts, read 10,238,910 times
Reputation: 10644
The counties that supported Clinton have 75% of the U.S. economic output.

Basically educated, productive folks hate Trump and ignorant moochers love Trump.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 07:12 PM
 
10,275 posts, read 10,238,910 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
T
Per capita GDP adjusted for cost of living is a much, much better measure of how good the economy/standard of living is in any particular state.
"Cost of living" means "desirability". Relative cost of housing indicates relative demand. So, no, that makes zero sense. Detroit isn't richer than Manhattan or Beverly Hills because housing costs basically nothing in Detroit.

CA is one of the richest places on earth, and one of the richest states in the U.S.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
29,775 posts, read 18,638,771 times
Reputation: 25768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post

The chart says it all. Look at all of the red states lagging far, far behind California in economic output. Blue California must be something right. And all that whining about California not being "business friendly"? It can't be that unfriendly if business is generating almost $2.5 Tril a year in revenue.

The problem with red states is the low tax, small government mentality causes them to limit themselves. You can't attract high tech cutting edge business if your state government doesn't invest in top universities and good infrastructure. High tech is not coming to your state if your leaders are anti-science. If red states are smart they would become blue and be more like California. Economic success will follow.

North Dakotans have 50% more disposable income after factoring cost and Kansas 20% more than Californians disposable income after factoring cost of living.
https://www.fool.com/investing/gener...-to-spend.aspx

North Dakota unemployment rate - 2.4%

California unemployment rate - 5.1%

Kansas unemployment rate - 3.8%

California has the best climate and conditions for agriculture and great universities were establsihed when Republicans ran the state...they are still benefitting from that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 07:23 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,567,090 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post

The chart says it all. Look at all of the red states lagging far, far behind California in economic output. Blue California must be something right. And all that whining about California not being "business friendly"? It can't be that unfriendly if business is generating almost $2.5 Tril a year in revenue.

The problem with red states is the low tax, small government mentality causes them to limit themselves. You can't attract high tech cutting edge business if your state government doesn't invest in top universities and good infrastructure. High tech is not coming to your state if your leaders are anti-science. If red states are smart they would become blue and be more like California. Economic success will follow.
You've basically published a list of the states, from largest to smallest. Sure, California has a large GDP because it's, by far, the state with the largest population.

You need to look at GDP per capita to get a better measurement of productivity.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 07:30 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,718 posts, read 9,311,341 times
Reputation: 15453
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
The chart posted in the OP is stupid. Of course the state with the largest population is going to have the largest GDP.

Per capita GDP adjusted for cost of living is a much, much better measure of how good the economy/standard of living is in any particular state. By that measure, California falls into the bottom 25 states, below states that many Californians like to thumb their noses at, such as Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama:

https://www.fool.com/investing/gener...-to-spend.aspx
That isn't per capita GDP, that's per capita disposable income. GDP is aggregate output of an economy. Disposable income is the amount of money left over after taxes, and has to do with wages, taxes and cost of living. Not the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 07:32 PM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,900,877 times
Reputation: 7458
California can thank Trump for its prosperity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2017, 07:33 PM
 
5,528 posts, read 3,199,435 times
Reputation: 7752
Gross state product not normalized for population and cost of living is a hilariously worthless statistic.

Gross state product per capita is a more useful statistic although median disposable income per household is even better. As the article in the second post of the thread shows, California is actually a below average state for GSP per capita.

At least OP had it right to post this thread in the POLITICS forum and not the ECONOMICS forum, since OP's more interested in rhetoric than accuracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top