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.
Breitbart probably will just blame the "globalists" and the "liberal elites" for creating "fake news" to show that blue states are better, when everyone knows that actually Mississippi and West Virginia are the real Americans that make this country prosperous.
It may have grown its GDP, but its per capita still sucks reflecting that its a lot of low-income people looking for a cheap place to live, which means they're probably not highly educated. And we can never forget about the retiree population that made their money in these high GDP per capita states and moved to FL. They invested in their future by making their money in places with large economies, higher wages, better schools, and many of them were union workers with union benefits still. The people rushing to FL at a young age are not going to have this lavish retirement that the current retirees have because they're incomes are lower and the economy is not the same.
Haha I brought up the Breitbart part because I feel like a huge chunk of this forum are regular contributors to Breitbart, talking about 'liberals' and 'big government' in the way that they do, but at a certain point, there's no convincing someone about what's real life and what's a meme. If people want to live in a meme-filled nightmare where everything is a lie except what they believe is true, well, have fun.
I think the most important thing for states like Florida, Arizona and Nevada at this point is whether the economic growth is faster than the population growth, because it'll show that its not JUST the increase of population that's spurring the economic growth, but also other factors related to growing an actual economy.
I'll restate what you've said as well, since I had a few posts about this as well, but its worth repeating -GDP and COL have nothing to do with each other. You can't adjust GDP for COL. There are a few service sector jobs that ARE COL dependent (like a haircut in NYC costing more than a haircut on Aberdeen, SD) which obviously contributes to the GDP, but on the macro level it doesn't reflect that at all.
But in the last decade PA has had a larger increase in GDP and an equal increase this past year. I don't see how that means Ill is pulling away. All trends have pointed to PA eventually surpassing Ill in the metrics, it wasn't meant to be shade toward Illinois...
If Philly continues to expand, I could see it. Chicago has been doing better than Philly for a very long time. Philly is playing catch up and PA is not too far behind IL for Philly's comeback to make a difference.
Well are you talking Philly vs Chicago or Illinois vs Penn? Illinois outside Chicago is actually shrinking in GDP, while Chicago is growing by tens of billions per year.
The last few years especially has seen Chicago pulling away from Philadelphia, while it would be the opposite for the rest of Illinois vs the rest of Philadelphia.
But this analysis is of the the entire Chicago MSA, which includes several counties in Indiana and Wisconsin and nearly a million people. Assuming a commensurate GDP to population, the IL portion of Chicagoland is ~$617 Billion and the rest of the rest of Illinois is ~$205 billion GDP, greater than the whole state of neighboring Iowa, and somewhere near the entire state of Kentucky.
I just had this thought the other day - now that weed is becoming legalized in more and more places, I can't think of another city more suited to take advantage of the white market weed trade than SF since its the closest major city to the Emerald Triangle
The only other city I can see taking advantage of it might be Seattle because of BC Bud.
I just had this thought the other day - now that weed is becoming legalized in more and more places, I can't think of another city more suited to take advantage of the white market weed trade than SF since its the closest major city to the Emerald Triangle
The only other city I can see taking advantage of it might be Seattle because of BC Bud.
Especially consider GDP per capita. That's one of the best ways of looking at this. According to Wiki, FL ranks 39th in GDP per capita. Meanwhile, NY ranks 1st. So is your population gain in FL really that great? GA is 29th, NC is 32nd, SC is 46th, TN is 33rd, AZ is 40th. Those are states that everyone is so proud of for gaining so many people and how they're so important and all. Yet the GDP per capita absolutely sucks, meaning a lower living standard in these states experiencing a population boom. Everyone wants to s*** on IL, yet they're still 12th in GDP per capita. Everyone wants to compare TX being better than CA, yet CA is 5th and TX is 20th.
It has a lot to do with the fact that GDP per capita isn't a measure of well-being (may I remind you, California still has the highest poverty and inequality rates in the country). It is criticized widely by people on both sides of the political spectrum for its historic use as a standard for economic health. If it actually was, then domestic migrants would be swarming around California and parts of the Northeast, among others. Unless you are here to argue the superior weather of Texas somehow is attracting people, in which case, we can agree to disagree.
Also, since you seem to argue this in another post by you. Limited economic prospects, whether real or perceived, resulting in the expulsion of middle and lower class households is a bad sign for the economy and the ability to attract large numbers of lower class households, especially if it is in conjunction with middle class and upper class households like with Texas, does not make an economy "weaker" than another.
I’m using California for this example but as someone who works in government, cities and countries generally prefer higher income people than lower income and middle income people moving there because it means a higher tax base
It looks like California for better and worse is losing its poor and lower middle class and replacing them domestically with upper middle class to rich people.
Not saying that this is right because, shoot, someone has to be a fireman, police officer, nurse, garbage man, etc and they can’t all be paid 6 figures, but I don’t think the characterization of California as this secretly economically falling apart place isn’t accurate either.
None of this actually measures what GDP is either, which is the production of goods and services. And for the reasons I stated, it affects us all because of a higher tax base for the government.
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.
