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.
I guess what I am ultimately trying to show is that even though California is often one of the most influential states, is that its power comes from its size. period. But anyways... this thread is not about influence or state size at all. This whole argument was based on the hypothetical combination of PA-NJ-NY as an integrated state, compared to California. Ultimately, we've found some pretty interesting things. I was quite unaware of how much power the San Fran/Sacramento region had until it was pointed out. Thanks for clarifying.
That's why Australia is going to be the world's next superpower. Thank you! I never thought I'd meet someone who thought the same way It's large size is going to make it extremely powerful. Oh, and Alaska is a burgeoning economic power because of its large size.
You know, most of the Northeast had a 200 year head start on us in terms of development. The Spanish BARELY cared about this place since it was so far north and pretty inaccessible from Mexico (something about the deserts and mountains keeping development out, but hey, what do I know), and was really only connected to the rest of the world via one lonely highway (El Camino Real). California's mass settlement only really started in 1850, which by then the Northeast had more than 10 million people. Give credit where credit is due. California started with nothing and ended up as the most populated state in the Union, most of which grew in the last 60 years.
Why do people on CD assume everything is always an eventuality? I don't understand this mentality. Why can't people just accept things are the way they are because of everything that happened before it. You can't change the fact that the Northeast isn't one state, because if you did, things might have happened differently and NOT to your favor.
Just accept it. The Northeast is not one state. And before someone says "LOL, BUT SAN FRANCISCO IS 400 MILES AWAY FROM YOU! HOW CAN THEY AFFECT YOUR LIFE LIKE SOMEONE IN NJ AFFECTS NY" Well reality is, we vote in the same state for the same statewide positions, and pay taxes to the same state government. Taxes from someone in Redding or someone in Palm Springs both goes to the same place (Sacramento) and is redistributed REGARDLESS of where it came from. For example, when I went to college, I was able to get in-state tuition at Berkeley BECAUSE Berkeley is in the same state as Los Angeles. My college education was subsidized by money that could've came from San Diego, or from someone in Alturas, but it still originated in California. If I were living in NJ, how much more money would I have to pay if I wanted to go to SUNY Binghamton? New Jersey tax dollars, for the most part, stay in New Jersey and don't subsidize people in New York on a state level. On the federal level, that's a much different story, but the average NJ resident and average CA resident pay into the same federal pot and is distributed to different federal projects around the US, without taking into regard which state each individual dollar came from (even though NJ gets screwed more than CA in terms of how much the feds take and give back)
There's a reason why the federal system exists, and we aren't a unitary country. Everything is the way it is because it was designed that way. Nothing ever just "happens" because of one or two things.
Last edited by Lifeshadower; 11-24-2010 at 09:27 PM..
^While I do understand your point, CA size is something that has to be taken into account. Size is not the only thing that matters, especially given that Texas is larger than Cali, but to some extent land still equals power. Btw, I knew Alaska was the most important state. Just ask Sarah Palin.
^While I do understand your point, CA size is something that has to be taken into account. Size is not the only thing that matters, especially given that Texas is larger than Cali, but to some extent land still equals power. Btw, I knew Alaska was the most important state. Just ask Sarah Palin.
But how much does it REALLY determine? After all, they are just lines on the map and land, at the end of the day. Something has to be done within those borders in order for it to become prosperous. It's not as if the borders of California were drawn, and all of a sudden people thought "wow, this is going to be the most powerful state" soon after. It took time and effort for it to happen, and it was only in the last 40 years this was realized.
Small states, if anything, have a disproportionate amount of power politically. Just look at the Senate. The vote for a senator from Wyoming, Rhode Island, or Delaware is worth exactly the same as the vote for a senator from California, Texas, New York, etc etc. This was all done by design (thank New Jersey and Connecticut for that one) because the smaller states didn't want to be gobbled up by the larger populated states (at that time, NY and VA) in terms of power.
I just hate reading "well, X should be X because of its size" No, that's not the only thing that matters. I actually like Federalism a lot as the most efficient way to organize government (if anything, I'd like more decentralization, but states are fine) because there is an implicit competition between the 50 states to outdo each other AND have different public policy prescriptions to see which ones work and which one don't. Taking away the importance of the "state" wouldn't make the United States the country it is nowadays.
But how much does it REALLY determine? After all, they are just lines on the map and land, at the end of the day. Something has to be done within those borders in order for it to become prosperous. It's not as if the borders of California were drawn, and all of a sudden people thought "wow, this is going to be the most powerful state" soon after. It took time and effort for it to happen, and it was only in the last 40 years this was realized.
Small states, if anything, have a disproportionate amount of power politically. Just look at the Senate. The vote for a senator from Wyoming, Rhode Island, or Delaware is worth exactly the same as the vote for a senator from California, Texas, New York, etc etc. This was all done by design (thank New Jersey and Connecticut for that one) because the smaller states didn't want to be gobbled up by the larger populated states (at that time, NY and VA) in terms of power.
I just hate reading "well, X should be X because of its size" No, that's not the only thing that matters. I actually like Federalism a lot as the most efficient way to organize government (if anything, I'd like more decentralization, but states are fine) because there is an implicit competition between the 50 states to outdo each other AND have different public policy prescriptions to see which ones work and which one don't. Taking away the importance of the "state" wouldn't make the United States the country it is nowadays.
In short, land=more people=more tax revenue. This is why larger states have higher GDPs. Now of course, this is not the whole story, but in short this is why size matters. Take the size of the USA, China, Russia compared to Spain, Switzerland, and Luxembourg.
In short, land=more people=more tax revenue. This is why larger states have higher GDPs. Now of course, this is not the whole story, but in short this is why size matters. Take the size of the USA, China, Russia compared to Spain, Switzerland, and Luxembourg.
However, its also not the only thing that matters clearly since there are way too many examples where size (population or geographic) isn't the only factor in determining power. Australia is a physically large country, but no one is saying that it's going to be a world superpower. Having more land, or more people, by itself, doesn't mean you'll be rich and powerful either. There are other things that have to go on first in order to become rich and powerful. It isn't just "inherent" in the land itself. There isn't something chemically going on in the soil (as if all soil was created equal) to give everyone an equal playing field proportionate to how much of that soil you have.
Look at the comparison between China and Great Britain for the past 500 years. China has always been larger and always had more people than Great Britain, but yet Great Britain had been more powerful than China up until 40 years ago (equalized since both got the bomb) and only overtook Britain's GDP 15-20 years ago. Spain, in the 1500s, was the nation that managed to have an empire spanning the entire globe DESPITE being a small nation with not a whole lot going on economically. So size ISN'T the only thing that matters because physical size can change all the time, and so can population numbers.
When California's borders were drawn in 1848, there were less than 100,000 people living within California's borders. It's not like California inherited a large population or an economic base when America first took it. Planners in Sacramento had to figure out WAYS to make this place profitable and have as much sway as it does today.
All I'm trying to say is "give credit where credit is due". That's all. Things are the way they are because if they weren't, then things would be different. Accept reality for what it is.
However, its also not the only thing that matters clearly since there are way too many examples where size (population or geographic) isn't the only factor in determining power. Australia is a physically large country, but no one is saying that it's going to be a world superpower. Having more land, or more people, by itself, doesn't mean you'll be rich and powerful either. There are other things that have to go on first in order to become rich and powerful. It isn't just "inherent" in the land itself. There isn't something chemically going on in the soil (as if all soil was created equal) to give everyone an equal playing field proportionate to how much of that soil you have.
Look at the comparison between China and Great Britain for the past 500 years. China has always been larger and always had more people than Great Britain, but yet Great Britain had been more powerful than China up until 40 years ago (equalized since both got the bomb) and only overtook Britain's GDP 15-20 years ago. Spain, in the 1500s, was the nation that managed to have an empire spanning the entire globe DESPITE being a small nation with not a whole lot going on economically. So size ISN'T the only thing that matters because physical size can change all the time, and so can population numbers.
When California's borders were drawn in 1848, there were less than 100,000 people living within California's borders. It's not like California inherited a large population or an economic base when America first took it. Planners in Sacramento had to figure out WAYS to make this place profitable and have as much sway as it does today.
All I'm trying to say is "give credit where credit is due". That's all. Things are the way they are because if they weren't, then things would be different. Accept reality for what it is.
Dude, I feel you and understand what you're saying. But Cali's size is something that must be factored in. I'm not sure what the distance is from SF to LA, but I know it's pretty long. Compared to 150 miles from the northend of NJ to the southern end. I agree in giving credit where credit is due, but Cali's land area is part of its credit.
And on a side note. Chinca would kill Great Britain in a war due to how many more people it could muster up in an army. But, that is a different story.
Location: South of Buffalo, but north of Pittsburgh.
27 posts, read 40,429 times
Reputation: 45
Lifeshadower, if you finish reading my post you'll notice that I admit that my point is moot. All of it was purely hypothetical and for that matter irrelevant to the thread. California's land area and population, however, are the reason for its political and economic power. It's obvious that California has worked hard, and has been very successful at, making all of this happen-I might add.
Lifeshadower, if you finish reading my post you'll notice that I admit that my point is moot. All of it was purely hypothetical and for that matter irrelevant to the thread. California's land area and population, however, are the reason for its political and economic power.
This is no different from the US as a whole. We benefit from immense resources derived from our land and the fact that we have attracted the pick and flower of the world to our shores, from Europe to Asia to Latin America to Africa to the Isles of the sea.
Our physical size is a integral part of our beautiful national story.
In the sense, California is a microcosm of the republic she's a part of.
Dude, I feel you and understand what you're saying. But Cali's size is something that must be factored in. I'm not sure what the distance is from SF to LA, but I know it's pretty long. Compared to 150 miles from the northend of NJ to the southern end. I agree in giving credit where credit is due, but Cali's land area is part of its credit.
And on a side note. Chinca would kill Great Britain in a war due to how many more people it could muster up in an army. But, that is a different story.
Nowadays, no one would attack China. But I digress (and for a different topic).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrn2011
Lifeshadower, if you finish reading my post you'll notice that I admit that my point is moot. All of it was purely hypothetical and for that matter irrelevant to the thread. California's land area and population, however, are the reason for its political and economic power. Not that California hasn't worked hard to make all of this happen. Successfully- I might add.
Point taken. It's not merely a hangup on you, but its been a common theme in City-Data that its become quite irksome to read. All I wanted to say is that land area alone doesn't determine how powerful (economically or politically) an area will be. In fact, its because of economic and political things that California became populated to begin with (again, when the US took this region, there weren't millions of people and an economic base it could rely on)
Sorry for using you as a pinata. I just wanted to illustrate something.
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.
It's large size is going to make it extremely powerful. Oh, and Alaska is a burgeoning economic power because of its large size.
Just ask Sarah Palin.
