Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-23-2009, 01:34 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
1,305 posts, read 3,488,928 times
Reputation: 1190

Advertisements

You can't argue with the numbers, with population and GSP, California is tops. But, and I want you all to consider this before dismissing this out of hand, I still think Texas holds more economic and political sway. First, let's look at the economics:

California's Gross Domestic State Product is $1,846,757,000,000 and its population is 36,756,666. That represents a gross product of $50,243 per person in the state. Texas' Gross Domestic State Product is $1,223,511,000,000 and its population is 24,326,974. This represents a gross product of $50,294 per person in Texas. Texas' Gross Individual Product is roughly $50 higher annually than in California. If you analyze that in light of the lower cost of living in Texas (a COL calculator is below - Los Angeles is 34% higher than Dallas), then you'll see that Texans are substantially wealthier than our Californian counterparts.

As far as politics go, need I remind everyone here that Texas' major cities are largely driven by energy companies? When certain energy companies dislike the policies of certain politicians of any state, they manage to punish that politician. Does everyone remember the story of Gray Davis of (yipes!) California and the rolling blackouts that led to his demise (ushering in the era of the governator)? Texas corporations essentially run the politics around the world. Our corporations dictate policy everywhere from Brunei to Moscow to Iraq to Nigeria to Washington. World leaders don't even sneeze without a go ahead issued from a Houston board room. You may not like it, but it is what it is.

Now... all that said, the culture we export to the rest of the world these days is almost exclusively coming out of New York and California. Politics and warmongering alone haven't propelled the US to our dominant global position. The goodwill we have earned has come from the tv shows and albums we send to all four corners of the globe. The hearts and minds aren't won in Texas boardrooms.

BEA : Gross Domestic Product by State
Texas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
Prudential Texas Realty - Cost of Living Comparison
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2009, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,653 posts, read 67,482,823 times
Reputation: 21229
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasTheKid View Post
You can't argue with the numbers, with population and GSP, California is tops. But, and I want you all to consider this before dismissing this out of hand, I still think Texas holds more economic and political sway.
Your sway in politics ended Jan 21, 2009. THANK GOD.

Your rise in GDP is purely due to energy profits and much of that doesnt really trickle down to normal people.

Look at Per Capita Income, that's more telling of individual wealth.

California $41,805(ranked 8th)
Texas $37,083(ranked 23rd)

Texas' 10 richest counties by per capita income, 2007
Loving, TX $99,593
Midland, TX $52,974
Hemphill, TX $50,319
Sherman, TX $50,114
Harris, TX $49,634
Collin, TX $48,044
Dallas, TX $45,131
Kendall, TX $44,325
Montgomery, TX $42,704

California's 10 richest counties by per capita income, 2007
Marin, CA $91,483
San Mateo, CA $71,753
San Francisco, CA $71,342
Santa Clara, CA $60,107
Contra Costa, CA $55,580
Napa, CA $51,218
Orange, CA $50,463
Alameda, CA $48,679
Santa Cruz, CA $48,337
Santa Barbara,CA $47,302
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2009, 03:14 PM
 
5,969 posts, read 9,556,580 times
Reputation: 1614
New Jersey of course!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2009, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
1,305 posts, read 3,488,928 times
Reputation: 1190
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Your sway in politics ended Jan 21, 2009. THANK GOD.

Your rise in GDP is purely due to energy profits and much of that doesnt really trickle down to normal people.

Look at Per Capita Income, that's more telling of individual wealth.

California $41,805(ranked 8th)
Texas $37,083(ranked 23rd)

Texas' 10 richest counties by per capita income, 2007
Loving, TX $99,593
Midland, TX $52,974
Hemphill, TX $50,319
Sherman, TX $50,114
Harris, TX $49,634
Collin, TX $48,044
Dallas, TX $45,131
Kendall, TX $44,325
Montgomery, TX $42,704

California's 10 richest counties by per capita income, 2007
Marin, CA $91,483
San Mateo, CA $71,753
San Francisco, CA $71,342
Santa Clara, CA $60,107
Contra Costa, CA $55,580
Napa, CA $51,218
Orange, CA $50,463
Alameda, CA $48,679
Santa Cruz, CA $48,337
Santa Barbara,CA $47,302
Yeah, but with that 34% COL discrepency, Texans actually make $49,691 to Californians' $41,805. And, you're nuts if you think energy isn't important any longer just because the marionette was driven out of Washington. Energy drives everything, and until we find a financially sound free source of energy, that's the way it'll remain (or unless we all go back to living in huts and traveling on horseback). You can fight it if you want, but it won't change anything. You can deny if you'd like, but it won't change anything.

Also... heh... Loving, TX should probably be removed from that list above. There are only around 60 total people in that county, and that high income level is directly related to the oil and wind energy subsidies the landowners take in every year. That number is pretty skewed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2009, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,653 posts, read 67,482,823 times
Reputation: 21229
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasTheKid View Post
Yeah, but with that 34% COL discrepency,
I guess its a good thing that our income isnt lower cause then we'd have a real problem.

Quote:
Texans actually make $49,691 to Californians' $41,805.
Yes, Texans can stretch their paycheck further than we can.

Quote:
And, you're nuts if you think energy isn't important any longer just because the marionette was driven out of Washington.
Energy is important, but isnt everything and the oil bust of the 1980s was proof of that. Do you recall how Texas' economy tanked back then? It was really horrible. When other parts of the country boomed economically, TX was in a state of economic emergency because all of its eggs were in one basket.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2009, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
1,305 posts, read 3,488,928 times
Reputation: 1190
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
I guess its a good thing that our income isnt lower cause then we'd have a real problem.


Yes, Texans can stretch their paycheck further than we can.


Energy is important, but isnt everything and the oil bust of the 1980s was proof of that. Do you recall how Texas' economy tanked back then? It was really horrible. When other parts of the country boomed economically, TX was in a state of economic emergency because all of its eggs were in one basket.
I remember those times. I remember seeing whole cardboard box mini-cities beneath freeway overpasses. It wasn't a pretty time. And, I'd argue that's a big reason why Texas has become so important politically. The 80s bust and the 70s embargo didn't only affect Texas. It affected the rest of the US and the entirety of the planet. Our current political morass can be seen in every action taken since those times as attempts to gain more control over the supply-side of that particular commodity. The reason we're in Iraq... well... it's more complicated than saying it's just a war for oil, but it still can be boiled down to the basic fact we're trying to establish a stable foothold in an increasingly unstable region, a region that has a ton of what actually makes the world go 'round.

By the way, I presented Texas as a point of argument. California was winning this informal poll a little too handily, and I just wanted a bit more conversation. Equally valid arguments can be made for New York State or any other number of states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2009, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,982 posts, read 35,197,088 times
Reputation: 7428
Even if Cali has the bigger GDP, it still isn't ten times more important. You have to look at what drives the states economy. California NEEDS TX (Oil) and TX NEEDS CA (Technology and ports).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2009, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Hernando County, FL
8,489 posts, read 20,634,479 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
There are 57 counties with 11 million people outside New York City. A considerable amount of farmland, especially dairy and wine. The largest wilderness east of the Mississippi, The Adirondack Preserve, is alone larger than Vermont or New Hampshire. Lots of history with battlefields, mansions, forts and historic villages. New York State which has a number of toursit areas, is a major drawer of international tourists, especially from Canada, which has a tourist deficit with New York.
New York has one of the lowest amount wilderness areas in the country.
Only Ohio has less.

Wilderness Statistics Reports
Wilderness Acreage By State (States with most acreage listed first)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

State Acres Percent of Total Wilderness Acres
Alaska 57,425,569 52%
California 14,986,424 14%
Arizona 4,528,913 4%
Idaho 4,522,779 4%
Washington 4,423,676 4%
Colorado 3,707,254 3%
Montana 3,443,038 3%
Nevada 3,370,343 3%
Wyoming 3,111,232 3%
Oregon 2,473,207 2%
New Mexico 1,651,056 2%
Florida 1,422,247 1%
Utah 1,156,952 1%
Minnesota 816,268 1%
Georgia 486,530 Less than 1%
Michigan 261,651 Less than 1%
Virginia 216,319 Less than 1%
Hawaii 155,509 Less than 1%
Arkansas 153,655 Less than 1%
New Hampshire 137,432 Less than 1%
West Virginia 118,500 Less than 1%
North Carolina 111,419 Less than 1%
Vermont 101,073 Less than 1%
Texas 85,333 Less than 1%
South Dakota 77,570 Less than 1%
Wisconsin 75,823 Less than 1%
Missouri 71,153 Less than 1%
Tennessee 66,349 Less than 1%
South Carolina 60,681 Less than 1%
Alabama 41,367 Less than 1%
North Dakota 39,652 Less than 1%
Illinois 32,782 Less than 1%
Oklahoma 23,113 Less than 1%
Maine 19,392 Less than 1%
Kentucky 18,097 Less than 1%
Louisiana 17,025 Less than 1%
Indiana 12,945 Less than 1%
Nebraska 12,429 Less than 1%
New Jersey 10,341 Less than 1%
Mississippi 10,126 Less than 1%
Puerto Rico 10,000 Less than 1%
Pennsylvania 9,031 Less than 1%
Massachusetts 3,244 Less than 1%
New York 1,363 Less than 1%
Ohio 77 Less than 1%

Wilderness.net - Reports Summarizing Wilderness Data

Here is another link to what wilderness is.

Wilderness.net - Common Misconceptions About Wilderness
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2009, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Hernando County, FL
8,489 posts, read 20,634,479 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycricanpapi View Post
LOL you are so ignorant, people do not say i'm going to manhattan. they say I'm going to NY. The bronx, has the largest metropolitan zoon in the whole US. Also the Bronx has the Yankees. Queens has the Mets. Also haven't you realize that New York has 2 teams for every type of sports, NBA, MLB, NFL etc...? That demonstrates that NY is where is at, NY is unique, and this is why your hating on NY
I didn't know the Bronx had the largest one of these.

ZOON  /ˈzoʊɒn/ Show Spelled [zoh-on] Show IPA
–noun, plural zo⋅a  /ˈzoʊə/ Show Spelled [zoh-uh] Show IPA . Biology Rare.
1.any of the individuals of a compound organism.
2.any individual, or the individuals collectively, produced from a single egg.
3. zooid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2009, 04:54 PM
 
Location: West Michigan
12,083 posts, read 38,843,182 times
Reputation: 17006
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladarron View Post
Only choose one state that you think is most important!!
The State that offers a good standard of living, good cost of living, great schools for my 4 kids, a decent wage, and steady supply of jobs that I and my DW are trained to do. That is the most important state personally, and Michigan fills that bill for my family better than any other State can right now. If you mean Nationally, then there are several that are top tier, but all are important/contribute in some way to the Nation.

There are others that think they have more importance/influence than they really do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top