Which of these states would be the least relevant without its principal MSA? (living, cost)

[Losfrisco]

Which of these states is the most heavily dependent on its major metro?

[SonnyDaze]

I did process of elimination to decide my vote.

Hawaii - would still have beaches and heavy tourism across multiple islands.

Maryland - would still have the DC suburbs, Annapolis, the Eastern Shore.

Indiana - would still have the Chicago 'burbs, South Bend, Fort Wayne, and some notable college towns.

Wisconsin - would still have Madison, Green Bay, the Lake Winnebago cities and a number of other notable small cities.

Oregon - would still have Eugene, Corvallis, Salem, Bend, along with it's coastline and forest areas.

Louisiana - would essentially be Mississippi but with more Cajun culture.

Louisiana would be the worst off in my opinion.

[509]

Originally Posted by SonnyDaze

............
Louisiana - would essentially be Mississippi but with more Cajun culture.

Louisiana would be the worst off in my opinion.

If Louisiana did not have the CITY of New Orleans, not much would change in my opinion.

If Louisiana did not have the PORT of New Orleans and the other ports serving the lower Mississippi River area, it would be a total disaster.

[NJ Brazen_3133]

New York without NYC, same with Mass without Boston.

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by SonnyDaze

I did process of elimination to decide my vote.

Hawaii - would still have beaches and heavy tourism across multiple islands.

Maryland - would still have the DC suburbs, Annapolis, the Eastern Shore.

Indiana - would still have the Chicago 'burbs, South Bend, Fort Wayne, and some notable college towns.

Wisconsin - would still have Madison, Green Bay, the Lake Winnebago cities and a number of other notable small cities.

Oregon - would still have Eugene, Corvallis, Salem, Bend, along with it's coastline and forest areas.

Louisiana - would essentially be Mississippi but with more Cajun culture.

Louisiana would be the worst off in my opinion.

Annapolis is part of the Baltimore MSA

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by SonnyDaze

I did process of elimination to decide my vote.

Hawaii - would still have beaches and heavy tourism across multiple islands.

Maryland - would still have the DC suburbs, Annapolis, the Eastern Shore.

Indiana - would still have the Chicago 'burbs, South Bend, Fort Wayne, and some notable college towns.

Wisconsin - would still have Madison, Green Bay, the Lake Winnebago cities and a number of other notable small cities.

Oregon - would still have Eugene, Corvallis, Salem, Bend, along with it's coastline and forest areas.

Louisiana - would essentially be Mississippi but with more Cajun culture.

Louisiana would be the worst off in my opinion.

Disagree.

Baton Rouge is roughly equivalent in size to Honolulu as a metro area, and is a major port.

Hawaii would be similar to Guam without Honolulu.

Indiana and Wisconsin depending on spillover from cities in other states and college metros.

Maryland also would be reduced to highlighting spillover from outside the state as a feature attraction.

[KodeBlue]

Originally Posted by SonnyDaze

I did process of elimination to decide my vote.

Hawaii - would still have beaches and heavy tourism across multiple islands.

Maryland - would still have the DC suburbs, Annapolis, the Eastern Shore.

Indiana - would still have the Chicago 'burbs, South Bend, Fort Wayne, and some notable college towns.

Wisconsin - would still have Madison, Green Bay, the Lake Winnebago cities and a number of other notable small cities.

Oregon - would still have Eugene, Corvallis, Salem, Bend, along with it's coastline and forest areas.

Louisiana - would essentially be Mississippi but with more Cajun culture.

Louisiana would be the worst off in my opinion.

Maryland would lose Annapolis as it is part of the Baltimore MSA.

[g500]

Hawaii would lose ~70% of its total population (and probably 80-90% of its GDP) if the Honolulu MSA was suddenly deleted (i.e. Oahu became an uninhabited nature preserve). Hawaii currently has a population of 1.455 million, and the Honolulu MSA comprises almost exactly 1 million of that. Oahu is a *very* densely populated island that comprises the majority of the state's population.

Hawaii would still have the small beach settlements on the island of Maui - and all the ultra-elite super billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Oprah living/vacationing there. It seems like sort of a Jackson Hole, WY type situation (very small town with some local yokels, with a handful of ultra rich having large mansions/ranches / sprawling vacation vistas nearby).

All of the other states have *something* to fall back on. Hawaii would only have Kahului, and I doubt anyone in the USA has ever even heard of it. Maui, yes. The town of Kahului located on Maui, most definitely not. Yes, Hawaii would sill have global tourism (most tourists who visit Hawaii are there to see stuff other than the city of Honolulu, such as beaches/volcanos/mountains/snorkeling/etc, I imagine anyway), but in terms of having any large cities, no, it would not. Heck, I am not sure I would call anything outside of Honolulu a city since they all seem like closely-knit towns. Not a dig on Hawaii, I just think the rural and native cultures there would dominate the state without the hustle and bustle of Honolulu's city life. There are pretty strong sentiments in Hawaii about protecting its native lands and cultures, and I doubt the state leaders would allow another big city to crop up - no matter how much money was thrown their way. There are large, vocal protests from various local groups that do not want any more development to occur on the islands. At least one, and possibly a few, of the Hawaiian islands tourists cannot even visit. Without Honolulu, I could see Hawaii reverting back to a much more natural/nature-oriented state. Maybe like a Costa Rica type of situation.

MD would have the DC 'burbs and so the state would probably become much more aligned with the lower Southern states, rather than the Northeast Corridor. Might be more like Virginia, but on steroids, since there would be no Richmond or VA Beach to balance it out. The state would definitely change dramatically. Bethesda, Rockville, or Bowie would become the new state hub, then? Montgomery and PG Counties are both pretty well-off overall.

Louisiana would have Baton Rouge which has a large port.

WI, IN, OR would have some small to midsize cities to anchor their states (Madison/Green Bay/Eau Claire/La Crosse/Wausau [sorry but I don't include Racine or Kenosha here, because I am still baffled how they are excluded from the MKE MSA], the Chicago spillover/Fort Wayne/South Bend/Elkhart/Evansville/Lafayette/Bloomington, and then Eugene/Salem/Medford/Bend/Corvallis)

Sorry, too tired to type a whole deep analysis.

Ranked in order (most propped-up to least propped-up):

1. Hawaii (losing Honolulu means losing 70% of the entire state's population, the remaining portion would be the least populous US state, smaller than Vermont or Wyoming even)

2. Probably Oregon honestly. Eastern Oregon, especially SE Oregon, is absolutely a no man's land akin to the deserts of Nevada. Idk why but wow. It looks like dry rolling scrubland out there.

3. Louisiana (still has BR, which has a large port)

4. Indiana (sort of in the middle of the pack - Fort Wayne or South Bend would have to step up and take the reins, since Gary has been long gone and left behind)

5. Wisconsin (Madison is a strong engine and would be the new central state hub, undoubtedly)

6. Maryland (losing Baltimore would absolutley radically change the state, but it still has tremendous assets sitting just a stone's throw from the nation's capital)

[TheTimidBlueBars]

Oregon without the Portland area would feel pretty empty. It'd be like a (partially) wet Idaho: just mountains, deserts, forests, a lot of second homes and retirees, a good amount of farmland, and a few small to mid-size cities. Eugene and Salem are so different so it's weird to imagine them kind of fusing (or developing sprawl in between them) to become kind of a Boise equivalent --- combined state capital and cultural/economic center --- but I guess that's what would happen.

[Soonhun]

In terms of population, definitely Hawaii. My Contiguous-Centric mind, however, think of Hawaii more as a tourist destination with beaches and tropical weather and not as an economic center. Without Honolulu, it still has that. Still, if I could, I would change my vote to Hawaii.

That aside, I voted for Oregon. I am surprised people are voting for Louisiana over Oregon. Cultural wise, Portland and New Orleans are probably the tourism centers of both. Imagine bringing up Corvallis, Oregon, population in the five figures, while ignore Baton Rouge, larger than anything that would be left in Oregon, Lafayette, larger than Salem, and Shreveport, larger than Eugene. As for the port, Lousiana could gradually let the river take its natural course and build a new New Orleans.

Originally Posted by SonnyDaze

I did process of elimination to decide my vote.

Hawaii - would still have beaches and heavy tourism across multiple islands.

Maryland - would still have the DC suburbs, Annapolis, the Eastern Shore.

Indiana - would still have the Chicago 'burbs, South Bend, Fort Wayne, and some notable college towns.

Wisconsin - would still have Madison, Green Bay, the Lake Winnebago cities and a number of other notable small cities.

Oregon - would still have Eugene, Corvallis, Salem, Bend, along with it's coastline and forest areas.

Louisiana - would essentially be Mississippi but with more Cajun culture.

Louisiana would be the worst off in my opinion.

Also, Lousiana also has a coastline and forests, so????

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

Indiana and Wisconsin depending on spillover from cities in other states and college metros.

Maryland also would be reduced to highlighting spillover from outside the state as a feature attraction.

That hasn't been too bad for New Jersey or basically half of New England.