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.
Google.
Apple.
HP.
Facebook.
Salesforce.
Disneyland.
Hollywood.
Of course the San Fran financial sector.
Huge multinational enterprises earning billions without actually producing anything on the backs of peasants globally. I can see why liberals rejoice.
California has many positives and is my home state but a little honesty is in order. We are poorer than Mississippi in many measures and if you don't have a few bucks it's serfdom.
The GDP (gross domestic product) of a state or country may indicate how important their economy is compared to others, but it doesn't prove prosperity. A better indicator is GDP per capita.
The GDP (gross domestic product) of a state or country may indicate how important their economy is compared to others, but it doesn't prove prosperity. A better indicator is GDP per capita.
I'm a middle to the right of the road individual. And I really don't understand why California is prospering. Especially with all the left's imposed taxes and regulations. I just don't get it. Though I must admit I have to give credit where credit is due.
Congratulations California!!!
Sure having fun with how to mislead with statistics.
For overall well being the Human Development Index would be an appropriate stat. That would indicate CA is 12th or so. Not as good as the eastern states but up there.
High school education level is low. Just about the same as TX. In both cases though that pretty much reflects that both states have high immigrant populations. However CA is much higher with respect to bachelor's degrees.
CA is also in pretty good shape on debt levels and even pension liabilities. It is in no danger of crashing. It also is well off the top state for taxes so it has further response capability if needed. Minor tweaks to Prop 13 could produce very large revenue to the local government. Likely neccessary anyway as the present situation is going to distort the housing market to an unacceptable level.
It's pretty funny reading these posts from people asserting that without Colorado River water that California's agricultural economy would collapse. You really think that they use Colorado River water in the great Central Valley where most of the agriculture is produced? It only contributes to the Imperial Valley and to San Diego to a lesser extent. Everywhere else it is our own water.
Even though California does have the largest agricultural output in the nation it also only represents about 2% of the state's economic output. So even if water shortages continue to affect that part of the state's economy we will just shift that 80% of water used for agriculture to other parts contributing much more for the state.
Texas is the 12th largest economy in the world (ahead of South Korea and Australia), and it only has two thirds the population of California.
So what the OP is really seeing is a whole lot of not very well off people in CA on avg. Which may make for a more volumetric economy but not a prosperous one per capita.
GDP per capita. California is 10th and Texas is 11th in the U.S. (in a state by state comparison). Based on 2014 data. So no, Texas is not ahead of California.
You don't know what you're talking about. Utah is one of the most conservative states in the country, and leads the nation in almost every metric. The Mormons are one of the most-successful groups in the United States, and they are all a bunch of preppers, and other right-wing radicals.
You are making a lot of assumptions about things you don't know anything about.
First thing, there is no such thing as a red state or a blue state. In the supposed red state of Texas, almost 44% of the people voted for Barack Obama. In Georgia it was about 47%. Arizona 45%.
Something like 96% of black people voted for Obama in 2008. And the states with the most black people, are in the south. Almost every major city in the country voted for Obama. It is the countryside which mainly votes Republican. And that applies to California, and every other supposed "blue-state". The major farming areas in California, all vote Republican. Upstate New York is Republican. Rural Minnesota is Republican.
Furthermore, you are looking at the wrong statistics.
Material well-being just means "How rich people are". A more-appropriate statistic would be "subjective well-being", or "happiness". Material well-being is not only a useless statistic, but a focus on it tends to be counterproductive.
Things like life-expectancy, poverty rate, and obesity rate, are significantly affected by things like "ethnic-composition". Basically, black people and Mexicans tend to have higher rates than white people, regardless of what state they live in. If black people were better-off in California than in Georgia, there wouldn't be any black people in Georgia.
As for education-rate, what you are really talking about is "formal-schooling" through an accredited institution.
Liberals have a tendency to focus on this number in an attempt to disparage right-wingers as ignorant, stupid, etc. But lets understand, education is not intelligence. Education is not knowledge. The vast-majority of things you know about this world, didn't come from a school. They came from your own experiences, your friends and family, or your occupation, or from reading books, articles, websites, etc.
Learn to think for yourself. Learn what actually matters. Don't parrot BS liberal talking points.
You are making some good points, Redshadowz. I agree that "material well being" is not what actually matters, as I consider myself a pretty spiritual person.
However I do think that I am onto something. Let us focus on one of the metrics I pointed out and that is life expectancy. I think everybody can agree that a longer life expectancy is a good thing. So here is a state by state list:
Let's only look at life expectancy of white folks, as you correctly pointed out that there are vast differences between races.
States with white life expectancy of over 80 years are: Minnesota, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii, New Jersey, Colorado, Wisconson, DC, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota. Out of those 13 states, 3 are "conservative" and 10 are "liberal".
States with white life expectancy of under 78 years are: Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana and Nevada. That is also 13 states. 12 of those are "conservative" and 1 is "liberal".
That very strongly suggests a corellation between the pravailing sociolo-economic system of beliefs and life expectancy. I am not saying with certainty that there is any cause and effect here but only sharing the official numbers. The conclusion is up to you.
Last edited by candalf; 06-19-2016 at 12:16 PM..
Reason: fact re-check
Huge improvement yes, but there are 9 states who have a higher GDP per capita.
And your point is what?
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.
Huge improvement yes, but there are 9 states who have a higher GDP per capita.
