What is the most important state in the US??? (compared, places, population)

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by TheCity

My top three states in order for importance are NYC, California, Texas.

You've really summed it up right there, intentionally or not. Your top 3 list includes two states, California and Texas. Order them either way you like, and we are all pretty much in agreement -- those are the top 2 states.

NYC is definitely the shining star of the northeast, and in the top 2 cities in America. The northeast is a region, though -- a region where the states don't even matter. NYC could be in New Jersey or Connecticut if you moved a tiny border segment a mere few miles. In an aerial view above NYC, most Americans couldn't even tell you what part was in what state, or even name all the states they are looking at. Throw in DC as part of the region... and it becomes clear: none of the northeastern states are really important. The cities may be, and the region is, but it's not really like the rest of America in that sense. Maybe if they merged them together

So I'm thinking CA #1, TX #2, FL #3. Besides the overall population sizes, they are all home to multiple *distinct* major metros, most of the fortune 500 HQs, they have large amounts of coast line with major ports, they share large borders with other nations (or have them a short boat hop away). They are regionally influential, often overwhelming their neighboring states with their culture and excess population (esp. CA and TX).

[LINative]

Sheesh, how does it matter the way a state organizes itself? That determines how important it is? Some of you on the last two pages are grasping at straws to prove your point.

Quite simply, New York City is PART OF NEW YORK STATE. It does not matter what your personal feelings toward Upstate NY are, because this thread is about state vs. state. Its not my state vs. only part of another state.

[blkgiraffe]

Why are people using California's population for its importance??? Populaton has little to do with importance. I still say the whole California is far ahead of the other states is overblown. Texas economy is just as diverse as California.

[polo89]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

Why are people using California's population for its importance??? Populaton has little to do with importance. I still say the whole California is far ahead of the other states is overblown. Texas economy is just as diverse as California.

In terms of GDP, CA is far and ahead. CA produces ALOT for the US. I don't think people understand the magnitude.

[lmkcin]

Does the state of New York benefit from that fact it has New York City? I mean it's not called New Jersey City or Connecticut City. No, New York City (techincally the City of New York (State)). If anyone told me New York City wasn't in New York State, I think I would have the right to slap 'em. That would just be stupid of them.

I would respond by saying people who wish to see Texas tops are grasping for straws. New York City regardless of it's location in the state is large enough and significant enough to trump 10 of Texas' cities (do the math). It's own economy is about that of Texas.

California is massive. Population, 35-40 million. That's a full 10-15 million more than Texas. It's economy, has been stated, is $600 billion larger. Texas would have to absorb an Illinois or a Florida to catch up.

Besides, we're a nation of regions. More often than not states, are too big to be comprehensive. I'll use Texas an an example. From El Paso to Houston is just under 700 miles. But from Boston to DC is under 430 miles. But Boston and DC I'm positive are more interconnected and reliant on economy and commerce than EP and Hous.

So realistically, we should argue:
1: Boswash (contains 20% of national population and an economy $3 trillion all in an area 1/2 that of Cali)
2:California
3:Texas

[Lifeshadower]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

Why are people using California's population for its importance??? Populaton has little to do with importance. I still say the whole California is far ahead of the other states is overblown. Texas economy is just as diverse as California.

Then why don't you prove it with numbers, facts, and figures?

BEA : Gross Domestic Product by State
Step 2: Gross Domestic Product By State
Step 3: Choose TX or CA
Step 4: All Industries
Step 5: 2008

California
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dollars%29.svg
18% Education, Health, and Other Services
17% Real Estate, Rental, and Leasing
16% Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
12% Government
10% Manufacturing
9% Professional and Technical Services
6% Information
6% Finance and Insurance
4% Construction
2% Agriculture and Mining

Texas
19% Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
14% Education, Health, and Other Services
13% Manufacturing
12% Agriculture and Mining
11% Government
8% Real Estate, Rental, and Leasing
8% Professional and Technical Services
6% Construction
5% Finance
4% Information


While both states are technically economically diverse, Texas still relies a bit more on blue collar industries than California does (Agriculture/Mining, Manufacturing, and Construction).

I don't know what you're trying to prove.

Originally Posted by lmkcin

.

So realistically, we should argue:
1: Boswash (contains 20% of national population and an economy $3 trillion all in an area 1/2 that of Cali)
2:California
3:Texas

//www.city-data.com/forum/city-...-new-york.html
BosWash isn't in an area half the size of California. The Mid-Atlantic States themselves are already 124,296 square miles. If you add the New England States, that's an additional 71,991 square miles (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England) for a grand total of 196,287 square miles, or nearly 17% bigger than California's 163,696 square miles (most of which is desert and high mountain anyways).

If you want to just keep it restricted to the most urbanized portion, that's fine but we can do the same for California since most of the economic output is concentrated around San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Bay Area anyways for a grand total of 30,000 square miles and 88.3% of California's output (source: //www.city-data.com/forum/gener...does-your.html). See how that works?

That's why its better to keep to the original comparison. There are already plenty of Mid-Atlantic/Northeast vs. California threads.

[Spade]

I don't know why it's so hard for people to give credit where credit is due. We start to find reasons to not look at how successful places are. We are talking about states. One city or a group of cities from different states in a region are irrelevant.

The answer is California. The next is Texas or New York. It does not really matter. But give credit where credit is due.

[lmkcin]

Originally Posted by Lifeshadower

//www.city-data.com/forum/city-...-new-york.html
BosWash isn't in an area half the size of California. The Mid-Atlantic States themselves are already 124,296 square miles. If you add the New England States, that's an additional 71,991 square miles (source: New England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) for a grand total of 196,287 square miles, or nearly 17% bigger than California's 163,696 square miles (most of which is desert and high mountain anyways).

If you want to just keep it restricted to the most urbanized portion, that's fine but we can do the same for California since most of the economic output is concentrated around San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Bay Area anyways for a grand total of 30,000 square miles and 88.3% of California's output (source: //www.city-data.com/forum/gener...does-your.html). See how that works?

That's why its better to keep to the original comparison. There are already plenty of Mid-Atlantic/Northeast vs. California threads.

Well last time I checked western PA wasn't in the Boswash, neither was Maine, Vermont, most of NH, all of upperstate New York (Albany to Buffalo to Plattsburgh) or southern- midstate Virgiria, shaving at least 130,000 sq miles off your total if not more.

So I suggest you look up the actual defintion of the BoshWash corridor before telling me I'm wrong.

Like I said now for the 5th time, the only answer I will give is California. A distant second state is New York possibly Texas. New Jersey and Connecticut benefit from being next to New York, not New York benefits from them. Which is why New York is so substantially important.

[Lifeshadower]

Originally Posted by lmkcin

Well last time I checked western PA wasn't in the Boswash, neither was Maine, Vermont, most of NH, all of upperstate New York (Albany to Buffalo to Plattsburgh) or southern- midstate Virgiria, shaving at least 130,000 sq miles off your total if not more.

So I suggest you look up the actual defintion of the BoshWash corridor before telling me I'm wrong.

I know what you're talking about, but you're the one who put it out there to begin with. You can't limit your comparison to BosWash is only the urbanized corridor, and diminish California because of the size factor when its pretty clear that most of California's economy lies along small areas around the coast (which is at most, 30,000 square miles).

The Bay Area itself is only 8,700 square miles, at most 2000 square miles of it is urbanized, while the LA area is around 40,000 square miles, at most which only 6000 square miles is urbanized. (source: List of United States urban areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

You can't have it both ways. I don't understand why you need to be so hostile about it.

Anyways, all of this is irrelevant, since this is about states as wholes. Start a new thread if you want to make another BosWash vs. California thread.

[Spade]

^^ Exactly. This thing about the BosWash corridor does not matter because it's different cities spread out through different states. We are talking about states here only.