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.
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.
In a nutshell, this is what I was trying to say. I don't fault Cali for its size nor am I hatin. It's size is what it is and it has 2 global cities, plus SD and Sac-town, plus a host of smaller mid-sized metros. Cali makes its size work and is doing so much better than the larger Texas. Did I just say that?LOL!
In a nutshell, this is what I was trying to say. I don't fault Cali for its size nor am I hatin. It's size is what it is and it has 2 global cities, plus SD and Sac-town, plus a host of smaller mid-sized metros. Cali makes its size work and is doing so much better than the larger Texas. Did I just say that?
Haha, it's alright. You don't strike me as a hater (and neither does the person I responded to), but rather just wanted to clarify some misconceptions here.
I think it would surprise most CD posters to know that up until 1940, Texas had a larger population than California.
And the rest is history. Nothing is ever an eventuality. Things ebb, flow, and change over time. Things just happened to work in California's favor because of so many things. Now things are slowly shifting back in Texas' favor.
Size is great, but its one of many factors leading up to power. That's all. For the majority of American history, New York as a state could've chewed and spit us all out, but that changed in 1971 when California took the spot of #1 state in economic output.
1970:
California: $111,985 (in millions)
New York: $112,349 (in millions)
1971:
California: $120,372 (in millions)
New York: $119,145 (in millions)
Not to bring back a finished argument or a point already made, I just wanted to toss my two cents in on state size and stuff about California, even if I'm late lol.
The size of a state obviously doesn't make it what it is in terns of power and position, though it can help. I do think CA does get at least one advantage from it's size, but I'll get to that in a sec. Obviously, size doesn't translate into power. It can be an advantage, in terms of resources or other uses, like it is in different ways for countries like Russia, the US, China, or Brazil. But size doesn't mean much for the power and position of countries like Kazakhstan, Sudan, the DCR, or even Canada. Size can be an advantage, or a hindrance, or a non issue, it's up to someone to make use of it or not. Not that you need it anyway, a huge nation or state could have a large area and be very prosperous just using one small part of it, like Russia in it's west, or Texas with most of it's wealth and population concentrated in one area. I'm getting a little off track lol, so I'll get back to my main point about CA.
If I were to point out one advantage CA does draw from it's size, it'd be in "ranking". Ranking in the sense of bragging really, more petty stuff lol. When you have people arguing about the best states and stuff, you hear things like, "CA has the largest economy and population of any state, lol at those tiny eastern states, CA has so much more than any other, it's the most powerful part of the country". That's the part that annoys some people. Yes CA does have all that stuff, but look at the size of it where it sits. I'm not saying this like, CA gets all it's wealth and power from it's size, but more like, that is where part of the "prestige" and bragging rights do come from.
As a state, CA is number 1, but as an area of the country, it's not so overwhelming in the sense that when you look at a place like the Northeast and it's small states and realize that as a whole, it holds 18 million more people and doubles the GDP, that CA isn't the only solitary powerhouse of the country some people try to make it out to be. What I'm trying to say is that it's like looking at the country without any state borders at all but leaving everything (people, cities) where it lies, then you try taking the relative size of CA and laying it over the Northeast so it fits, and see how much you fit into that same space there, a whole lot more. In another way it's kinda like saying, look what the West Coast holds in the distance from SD to SF, compared to what the East holds from DC or Philly or wherever to Boston. So my point lol.
I'm not trying to take anything away from CA and I always try to give credit when it's due. I'm just saying that when people make comparisons like, well the Northeast vs. CA this way, or CA vs. the South that way or whatever, that's where it comes from sometimes. That idea that, do you know what my region is like compared to CA, yes my state can't directly compete, but do you know what a state the size of CA would equal out to in this part of the country? So that's my long point lol. It's not really about claiming CA got all it's wealth and power from it's size which obviously isn't true, for some people it's just more about finding an equal way to measure areas against each other. Like, CA as a state is clearly the most economically powerful, and most populated in the Union, we get that, but it's not the end all area of the US, and not the only great or powerful region of it, it's not incomparable. It's size is just one of the things that makes it seem that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adavi215
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. China 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.
Don't be so sure. China may have the largest army in the world, but it's not the most advanced by any means. China's army is still more a national defense force than anything else, and they have little real ability to project power beyond their borders as things are now, leaving it a regional power at best, a great one, but still just that. The UK on the other hand still has the 2nd greatest power projection capabilities in the world, and is still a great power. But that's all a discussion for somewhere else. (It'd be nice to have a military discussion/strategy type board under the general forums lol)
If I were to point out one advantage CA does draw from it's size, it'd be in "ranking". Ranking in the sense of bragging really, more petty stuff lol. When you have people arguing about the best states and stuff, you hear things like, "CA has the largest economy and population of any state, lol at those tiny eastern states, CA has so much more than any other, it's the most powerful part of the country". That's the part that annoys some people. Yes CA does have all that stuff, but look at the size of it where it sits. I'm not saying this like, CA gets all it's wealth and power from it's size, but more like, that is where part of the "prestige" and bragging rights do come from.
Wait, you are basically contradicting yourself here. California gets it's "prestige" and "bragging rights" from its size, but at the same time, it's large enough to have "prestige and bragging rights."
Again, Alaska and Texas are MUCH larger than California, but have less people and economic output (which is the topic of this thread) than California. And its really only been in the last 4 decades where California came far and away from the rest of the United States, to the chagrin of many people here.
Quote:
As a state, CA is number 1, but as an area of the country, it's not so overwhelming in the sense that when you look at a place like the Northeast and it's small states and realize that as a whole, it holds 18 million more people and doubles the GDP, that CA isn't the only solitary powerhouse of the country some people try to make it out to be. What I'm trying to say is that it's like looking at the country without any state borders at all but leaving everything (people, cities) where it lies, then you try taking the relative size of CA and laying it over the Northeast so it fits, and see how much you fit into that same space there, a whole lot more.
Then comes the realization that the reason why states were drawn like that in the Northeast comes from historical factors dating back to British colonialism. If the 13 colonies chose to become one large unitary state, and abolish all the colonial borders, do you really think that the development of the Northeast would have been exactly the same? When the Constitution was written, it was those same small northeastern states (New Jersey and Delaware) that wanted to protect their sovereignty against the larger, more populated states (New York and Virginia).
States, like it or not, make up a HUGE part of the identity of the United States. Neglecting to recognize that fact is...well, just plain silly. The whole POINT of Federalism is to have autonomous units that could basically run their own show without excessive interference from a central authority. If the US were as centralized as say..Russia, you'd have one heavily populated area (European Russia for Russia) and the rest of the country be nearly bereft of people. The whole POINT of having states is so that each state could try different public policy prescriptions for niche problems, and see whichever one works.
California had less than 100,000 people until after 1850 with little to no economic infrastructure here. There was nothing inherent about its rise as an integral American state (remember, before the Gold Rush, OREGON was seen as the more valuable territory for settlement) so everything had to be done from scratch. It's just OUR geographic luck that we were blessed with a year round growing climate, but the rest of it (especially irrigation) was man made. Again, up until 1964, it WASN'T the most populated state (NY was) and it wasn't until 1971 that it became the most economically powerful state.
Quote:
I'm not trying to take anything away from CA and I always try to give credit when it's due. I'm just saying that when people make comparisons like, well the Northeast vs. CA this way, or CA vs. the South that way or whatever, that's where it comes from sometimes. That idea that, do you know what my region is like compared to CA, yes my state can't directly compete, but do you know what a state the size of CA would equal out to in this part of the country? So that's my long point lol. It's not really about claiming CA got all it's wealth and power from it's size which obviously isn't true, for some people it's just more about finding an equal way to measure areas against each other. Like, CA as a state is clearly the most economically powerful, and most populated in the Union, we get that, but it's not the end all area of the US, and not the only great or powerful region of it, it's not incomparable. It's size is just one of the things that makes it seem that way.
No one (or at least me) is trying to say that California is the be-all, end-all. Obviously, if it was, we wouldn't have as many people leaving the state as their are, being replaced by Latin American and Asian immigrants who know second-hand English from watching Borat.
However, in this life, states and countries weren't created equal by design (just like how cities aren't created equal, which is why NYC wins every single poll there is in this forum). That's the reality of the situation here. The fact of the matter is that California is a state, and the Northeast is not, and that was done by design. In the 1780s, no one ever expected that a state physically larger than New York would ever exist. In 1850, no one ever expected that the recently taken, sparsely populated area that would become California would be one day the most populated and economically powerful state in the Union. It's not fair that the United States is as large as it is, comparing it singularly to any one European nation (save Russia, of course), but people still compare "US vs. France" or "US vs. Britain" without the need of using the rest of Europe.
That's where I'm saying "give credit where credit is due." For a place that didn't have very much until 1850, California has done a good job building itself up from the bottom up. Like everyone else has said, California USED its large size to its advantage (Northern California water being used to fuel SoCal cities and Central Valley agriculture; Southern California providing a huge chunk of tax dollars and funding for projects throughout the state), leveraging all the resources it has from the Oregon to Mexican border to develop the state as a whole, instead of devoting all resources to one area and forgetting about the rest of the state. I feel like it's kind of a cop-out saying that California only got to its position because of its size, as if it was inevitable.
Land, by itself without doing anything to it, is pretty useless. Something has to be DONE with it in order to profit off it.
Wow, sometimes I wish Texas would be limited to just the size of the Texas Triangle, just to prove that our immense size isn't the only reason we have such a big economy or population.
Limit us to 60,000 sq miles, comparable to the state of Georgia, and we'd have 14 million people.
Austin MSA-80,077 Bln.
College Station MSA-6,464 Bln.
DFW MSA- 379,863 Bln.
Houston MSA-403,202 Bln.
Kileen-Temple MSA-14,522 Bln.
San Antonio MSA- 80,896 Bln.
Waco MSA- 7,943
AND we'd still have an economy that would no doubt be a trillion, and if not in the next 5 years would reach that milestone, but based off 2008 numbers, would have 972,967 Bln.
And that's with a population rank of 4( not 2), and an area rank of 24, (not 2), and our economic size would just drop down to 3, but no doubt regain the no.2 ranking in no more than 25 years.
If TX was even 3/4 developed, then yes, you'd have a point, when saying that TX's power is because of our size, but no, its just a fraction of our population and size that supplies TX its wealth and economic base. However, its ever inch and corner of the state that makes Texas, Texas, and I wouldn't want it any other way.
Texas is an economic beast and even if was cut down to the size of Georgia; It be the 4th largest state and have the 3rd highest GDP. Whenever it comes to Texas; people are always looking at size (Houston and it's land size for example).
Texas and California deserves their props considereing the East Coast got like a 100 year head start lol
Last edited by blkgiraffe; 11-25-2010 at 06:54 AM..
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Eh everyone bear with me, just got home half an hour back from a Thanksgiving bash and am a bit impaired right now. So i'm trying my best to make a point, but we'll see how it goes.
By the way everyone Happy Thanksgiving! (Officially)
Quote:
Originally Posted by adavi215
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.
Yeah but look at the Wealth & Power controlled by some fairly small countries (by land area).
Economic Output by Countries (2010): 01. United States of America: $14.4 Trillion 02. Japan: $4.88 Trillion 03. China: $4.38 Trillion 04. Germany: $3.6 Trillion
05. France: $2.84 Trillion
06. United Kingdom: $2.6 Trillion
07. Italy: $2.29 08. Russia: $1.6 Trillion 09. Spain: $1.59 Trillion 10. Brazil: $1.57 Trillion
Countries with Larger Land Boundaries: Red
Countries with Smaller Land Boundaries: Blue
Larger Land Area Countries in Top 10: 4
Smaller Land Area Countries in Top 10: 6
Honestly, size doesn't matter. Look at how large New York (State) is by land area (Compared to Northeastern pears) but the vast majority of the states population is concentrated in 330 square miles (New York City). So compared to Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the fact remains that New York (State) has a larger land boundary. But is that why it is larger? No. The majority of that states population is concentrated in less than 1,000 square miles around its premier city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by missRoxyhart
Don't be so sure. China may have the largest army in the world, but it's not the most advanced by any means. China's army is still more a national defense force than anything else, and they have little real ability to project power beyond their borders as things are now, leaving it a regional power at best, a great one, but still just that. The UK on the other hand still has the 2nd greatest power projection capabilities in the world, and is still a great power. But that's all a discussion for somewhere else. (It'd be nice to have a military discussion/strategy type board under the general forums lol)
That holds absolutely zero weight at all. Nuclear capabilities of a country are hardcore war heads pipe dreams. There has not been a nuclear war (although has some close- Cold War, the stand still between USSR & USA) and there never will be.
1 Nuke = 1 city gone.
Scenario:
- They get one of your cities with 1 of their nukes
- You get 1 of their cities with 1 of your nukes
What did you just accomplish? Absolutely nothing besides wiping out civilizations of the innocent from the planets surface. You lost a city (which is an extreme casualty) and they lost a city (vice versa). And you can keep doing that all day, until nothing is left.
That is why nuclear wars are non-existent. Just because you have the "capability" to do something does not mean you ever will come close to do it.
China is by far and away the stronger country than the United Kingdom now, in nearly majority of the aspects. Larger economy (this is what matters to our capitalistic world), larger population, larger expansion rate, secured UN-SC seat (so is UK though), larger army (one on one and its done), and the most important trade relations in the world now (along with the USA).
The UK and all its former glory is just going to have to take a back seat to everything. Next year Hong Kong will surpass London as the worlds financial center. Shanghai is to follow soon enough after that, and that is a given.
The UK has a great Navy, but honestly, calling any state that is a Top 5 threat to the world "regional" is absolutely wrong especially given China is also the largest purchaser for Nucear Technology & Machinery for Defense related reasons, and also one of the largest suppliers in the world. And even then, brute force and power is not the main threat in this world, manpower and physical strength are nothing compared to wealth, expansion, economic prominence because that controls the global market rate. And China is very much in control right now compared to any country (Besides the USA and maybe Japan).
The Worlds Largest Financial Centers:
1. London 772, -3
2. New York City 770, -5
3. Hong Kong 760, +21
4. Singapore 728, -5
5. Tokyo 697, +5
6. Shangai 693, +25
7. Chicago 678, 0
In almost every aspect China (as a country) wins over the United Kingdom (as a country) in terms of power and influence especially in the modern day. UK might have one or two things above China right now, but that's it, just one or two things.
Eh, I'm still trying to figure out how to put this in a condensed way:
- Basically, China is quite a bit more powerful than the UK, and that too in many regards and aspects.
- Needless to say the UK is still quite powerful, but China has rightfully surpassed it, anyone denying that, is living in the 1960's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by missRoxyhart
If I were to point out one advantage CA does draw from it's size, it'd be in "ranking". Ranking in the sense of bragging really, more petty stuff lol. When you have people arguing about the best states and stuff, you hear things like, "CA has the largest economy and population of any state, lol at those tiny eastern states, CA has so much more than any other, it's the most powerful part of the country". That's the part that annoys some people.
I agree, some of the things to read on these boards are overwhelmingly annoying.
I've spent the last two days that I've logged on here advocating for Omaha & Saint Louis, I have absolutely zero sentimentalities to either of them, no family there, no reason to like them, no reason to defend them. Why did I do it? It's nice to freakin talk about some place that I don't live in for a change, and to get the positives out for other places.
Nice to once in a while give credit where its due, and neither of those cities are in my state, or even my region.
Anyways to take this topic sort of back to topic. Using the 2008 Numbers for this by the way.
The Northeast:
New York: $1.14 Trillion
Pennsylvania: $553 Billion
New Jersey: $475 Billion
Vermont: $25 Billion
Maryland: $273 Billion
Virginia: $397 Billion
Rhode Island: $47 Billion
Massachusetts: $364 Billion
New Hampshire: $60 Billion
Maine: $49 Billion
Connecticut: $216 Billion
West Virginia: $61 Billion
District of Columbia: $97 Billion Total:$3.757 Trillion
Things are what they are. Enough with the lame excuses, enough with the belittling, and enough with the trash like inferiority complex some people have on here. I wont mention any names, but seriously, all I ever see on City-Data is bashing bashing and more bashing, along with excuses, excuses, and more excuses. And to top it all off more whining than any other website I have been on. (Not talking about you, just in general)
The Northeast is small geographically, yet people love to brag about its urbanity, it being compressed is normally everyones biggest bragging rights on this board and now people are complaining about it? Seriously people just stop while you're ahead. Bragging & whining are siblings for many posters on this forum.
The South is physically larger? Yes, but its also the region that mostly developed rapidly after the invention of Air Condition. Before that is was far far smaller and it would be almost uninhabitable in certain areas without Air Condition. And that fact is absolutely true, it can be looked up, and it can be researched and it can be easily proven.
The West is physically larger than the Northeast? Yes, but its also the most uninhabitable with the rough terrain, yes the Rockies & Sierras are by far and away more steep than Appalachian Mountains anyone who graduated from Elementary School should know that much. That is also true, it can be looked up, and proven easily as well.
I don't know what the Midwest has had going against it but I'm sure it has something.
Seriously people, enough with the excuses. Either keep it real or just stop while you're ahead. (Not directed to anyone in particular but the general public of City-Data)
I believe this is the most economic indicator of all because it measures the annual growth rate of the total gross product of the states. We see contractions all around in every single region as this specific report covers the very depths of the recession. I suspect we will return to normal growth in the coming 1-2 years.
Released Nov 18, 2010
Annual Gross Product Growth Rate, 2008-2009
Oklahoma +6.6%
Wyoming +5.4%
North Dakota +3.9%
Alaska +3.5%
Louisiana +2.5%
South Dakota +2.2%
Washington DC +0.8%
West Virginia +0.7%
Arkansas +0.6%
Nebraska +0.3%
Virginia +0.2%
Maryland 0.0%
Montana 0.0%
Iowa -0.2%
Vermont -0.7%
Washington -0.7%
Colorado -0.9%
Mississippi -0.9%
Utah -0.9%
Pennsylvania -1.0%
Kansas -1.1%
New Hampshire -1.2%
Maine -1.3%
Hawaii -1.5%
Texas -1.5%
Massachusetts -1.6%
Delaware -1.8%
Kentucky -1.8%
Rhode Island -1.8% US NATIONAL AVERAGE -2.1%
Alabama -2.1%
Wisconsin -2.1%
California -2.2%
Missouri -2.2%
New Mexico -2.2%
Minnesota -2.3%
New Jersey -2.4%
Oregon -2.4%
South Carolina -2.5%
Ohio -2.7%
Connecticut -3.1%
Georgia -3.1%
Idaho -3.1%
Tennessee -3.1%
North Carolina -3.2%
Florida -3.4%
Illinois -3.4%
Indiana -3.6%
Arizona -3.9%
New York -4.3%
Michigan -5.2%
Nevada -6.4%
Comparatively? in the Boswash corrider - maybe 15 miles between Balt and philly and about the same in CT toward RI - not 100's of miles - agree on Chi-Pitts but all I am saying is the triangle while extremly impressive is not as cohesive nor running away from a few other region
I agree on the premise but it is not as though it is one cohesive place - basically Houston, Dallas and Austin/SA remain seperate islands and will for a while
I don't think you understand. The only metro area that is really isolated is Houston, but even then, Houston is apart of two megaregions (the Texas Triangle and the Gulf Coast; the only metro area in America that is apart of two. Dallas-Fort Worth, Waco, Killeen-Temple, Austin, and San Antonio all make up the I-35 corridor and the amount of rural land between these areas get smaller every year.
Cali was close to hitting 2 Trillion! We'll definitely surpass that in the next 2 years.
Impossible ! The state is in very bad shape.The recession certainly continued in 2010.
I think California won't hit 2 trillion before 2015 minimum !
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.
Did I just say that?LOL!
Nothing is ever an eventuality. Things ebb, flow, and change over time. Things just happened to work in California's favor because of so many things. Now things are slowly shifting back in Texas' favor. 
