2017’s Best & Worst State Economies - WalletHub (Seattle: employment, school)

[CrazyDonkey]

In order to determine which states are pulling the most weight, WalletHub’s analysts compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia across 27 key indicators of economic performance and strength. Our data set ranges from GDP growth to startup activity to share of jobs in high-tech industries.

Top 10:
1. Washington
2. California
3. Utah
4. Massachusetts
5. District of Columbia
6. Colorado
7. Oregon
8. New Hampshire
9. Maryland
10. Delaware

Bottom 10:
42. North Dakota
43. Wyoming
44. Kentucky
45. Maine
46. Alaska
47. Oklahoma
48. Arkansas
49. Mississippi
50. Louisiana
51. West Virginia

For full list, see: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-wit...onomies/21697/

It shouldn't pass notice that 9 of 10 in the first list are blue states (or district), while 10 of 10 in the second list are red states.

[American Expat]

[quote=CrazyDonkey;48484125]Top 10:
1. Washington
2. California
3. Utah
4. Massachusetts
5. District of Columbia
6. Colorado
7. Oregon
8. New Hampshire
9. Maryland
10. Delaware

Bottom 10:
42. North Dakota
43. Wyoming
44. Kentucky
45. Maine
46. Alaska
47. Oklahoma
48. Arkansas
49. Mississippi
50. Louisiana
51. West Virginia

For full list, see: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-wit...onomies/21697/

It shouldn't pass notice that 9 of 10 in the first list are blue states (or district), while 10 of 10 in the second list are red states.[/quote]

Maine is not a red state. Also, if you include cost of living in the calculation, you would get completely different results.


Just took a look at the BLS,gov and North Dakota unemployment rate is 2.7% and California's is 4.8%. So just to say you can change the factors of consideration and get completely different results.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Top 10:
1. Washington
2. California
3. Utah
4. Massachusetts
5. District of Columbia
6. Colorado
7. Oregon
8. New Hampshire
9. Maryland
10. Delaware

Bottom 10:
42. North Dakota
43. Wyoming
44. Kentucky
45. Maine
46. Alaska
47. Oklahoma
48. Arkansas
49. Mississippi
50. Louisiana
51. West Virginia

For full list, see: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-wit...onomies/21697/

It shouldn't pass notice that 9 of 10 in the first list are blue states (or district), while 10 of 10 in the second list are red states.

So, your whole point of posting this in the Washington forum was not to brag about Washington, but rather to make another cliched political jab?

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

........It shouldn't pass notice that 9 of 10 in the first list are blue states.......

Oregon isn't a blue state. Oregon is a red state with two cities which are controlled by progressives (that's the nice way to say socialist without hurting their feelings) who have moved here from out of state. And I might add, those big cities are badly managed and overrun with homeless, high taxes, and crappy school systems.

But I don't know why Oregon gets rated high for economic strength. The state is very badly run and not really prospering. I guess the other states are not doing well at all if they compare poorly to Oregon.

It seems to me that a lot of Washington is Red, just out-voted by Seattle. As a friend in Pasco says, "Whatever Seattle wants, Pasco gets"

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by PS90

So, your whole point of posting this in the Washington forum was not to brag about Washington, but rather to make another cliched political jab?

I just said it shouldn't pass notice, but nothing further. Are you saying it should? Red states generally lagging blue states economically is not a cliche, but a fact. The reasons, I agree, are open to debate.

That Utah, one of the reddest of red states, is #3 for "economic performance and strength" is an intriguing outlier. What is Utah doing that most other red states aren't?

Part of the reason could be that the Mormon Church provides a level of social and welfare spending (for its members) that in blue states would be provided through government agencies, and paid for through taxes (rather than tithes). Note that Idaho, #11 on the list, has the largest percentage of Mormons (a little over 25%) outside the state of Utah (about 70%). One possibility is that states that are generous in helping their citizens in need, however the means, are more prosperous than those who aren't - they are much more likely to spend aid received, boosting the economy, than would be the case if it were retained as uncollected taxes.

Both are also "western" states that benefit from economic proximity with Washington, California, Colorado, and Oregon (#1, #2, #6, and #7 on the "top" list), especially with California, which if it were a country, would have the 6th largest economy in the world. Utah's national parks (paid for by the federal government) are a major draw for tourists from other western states.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

Oregon isn't a blue state. Oregon is a red state with two cities which are controlled by progressives (that's the nice way to say socialist without hurting their feelings) who have moved here from out of state. And I might add, those big cities are badly managed and overrun with homeless, high taxes, and crappy school systems.

But I don't know why Oregon gets rated high for economic strength. The state is very badly run and not really prospering. I guess the other states are not doing well at all if they compare poorly to Oregon.

It seems to me that a lot of Washington is Red, just out-voted by Seattle. As a friend in Pasco says, "Whatever Seattle wants, Pasco gets"

It's because of their "badly managed" cities that they rank highly. Those cities are the economic engines that fuel the entire state.

Seattle also funds Washington, BTW.

[StealthRabbit]

GDP growth to startup activity to share of jobs in high-tech industries

yup... 'vapor statistics'

they should do a survey on 'Living wage jobs / middle income employment per capita, from when WA and OR had real jobs (i.e. tangible value creation for regional economy and infrastructure.

ID is missing, that is where WA and OR wealth creators are heading at a rate of over 200 businesses moving / month.

Few businesses with tangible assets and a skilled workforce can afford to stay in WA or OR.

As if any one with a business brain would consider high wealth / high wage / low unemployment WY, AK, ND in the BOTTOM 10

Of course they just might have taken the data during the waning days of our last administration who was hxll bent on disabling the energy and Ag structure of the ex-USA.

[James Bond 007]

Originally Posted by StealthRabbit

Few businesses with tangible assets and a skilled workforce can afford to stay in WA or OR.

Tell that to Amazon, Boeing, Intel, Weyerhaeuser, etc.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

Tell that to Amazon, Boeing, Intel, Weyerhaeuser, etc.

Note their current skilled workforce and capital assets located in WA vs, 40 yrs ago (yes, feel free to consider the $1977 value vs, 2017). And yes, I would EXPECT those large corporate giants to be able to afford the very small presence (in comparison to how they supported WA payrolls in 1980's, and expected to grow with WA BEFORE they outsourced and sent divisions elsewhere in USA and the world).

Paying qrtly's to WADOR may change your POV (in case you are NOT an owner / employer / job creator in a Capital Equipment intensive WA Business. )

If you are just an 'employee' of a WA company, that would certainly explain your knowledge / experience.

[Transmition]

Do the 'employees' have "real" jobs or just the business owners? You talk down office jobs so much, or at least jobs in businesses that don't have a physical thing, it's hard to keep straight.