U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-03-2013, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
2,850 posts, read 5,961,311 times
Reputation: 1733

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sadgirl80 View Post
FYI no. 1 and no.3 are solid red states.
In other words of the two Red States that compete with the top blue states economically one is larger than the State of Texas with a population equal to that of the city of Fort Worth, Texas. The other is the least populated and second least densely populated State in the Union with a size approaching that of Texas.

Any State with as much land as they have and as small a population should have high per capita GDP provided the States have any decent natural resources at all.

But the truth remains with the exception of those two most of the top states in the Union are states that conservatives have for years love to blast for being liberal tax and spend examples.

I'm as pro business as the next guy but States like New York and Connecticut are good examples of how it (contrary to the belief of many conservatives today) takes more than low taxes, cheap labor and low cost of business to be successful. It requires good infrastructure, education, skilled workers,etc.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-03-2013, 10:53 AM
 
649 posts, read 1,100,176 times
Reputation: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
The average Parisian or Londoner dresses better than the average Manhattanite. Much better. I though we had squashed this in a different thread already.
Parisian and Italians yes. UK no way. They dress frumpy. I'm not sure if I'm influenced by their body size, British women are mostly homely. I'd say the Italians are the most 'metrosexual'.

Americans are casual, and some of us take it to the extremes and enter the realm of sloppy. Americans are the inventor of jeans after all, and after that, we seem to love to live in hoodies, from college and into our 30s, both men and women. There's nothing more classic American than jeans, a white shirt, classic T shirt and the hoodie (not necessarily worn together).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2013, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
29,995 posts, read 29,944,984 times
Reputation: 13061
Quote:
Originally Posted by sadgirl80 View Post
Parisian and Italians yes. UK no way. They dress frumpy. I'm not sure if I'm influenced by their body size, British women are mostly homely. I'd say the Italians are the most 'metrosexual'.
I said Londoners. Not British. London might as well be a different universe from the rest of the UK.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2013, 10:59 AM
 
649 posts, read 1,100,176 times
Reputation: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I said Londoners. Not British. London might as well be a different universe from the rest of the UK.
Yes I had in mind London when I said that. I haven't been outside of London in the UK. They are no way on par in vanity with the Italians and Parisians. But they did invent Mod. I'm talking about the masses in the city and the average style level. Every city has pockets of niche groups who are style-conscious.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2013, 11:05 AM
 
649 posts, read 1,100,176 times
Reputation: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galounger View Post
In other words of the two Red States that compete with the top blue states economically one is larger than the State of Texas with a population equal to that of the city of Fort Worth, Texas. The other is the least populated and second least densely populated State in the Union with a size approaching that of Texas.

Any State with as much land as they have and as small a population should have high per capita GDP provided the States have any decent natural resources at all.

But the truth remains with the exception of those two most of the top states in the Union are states that conservatives have for years love to blast for being liberal tax and spend examples.

I'm as pro business as the next guy but States like New York and Connecticut are good examples of how it (contrary to the belief of many conservatives today) takes more than low taxes, cheap labor and low cost of business to be successful. It requires good infrastructure, education, skilled workers,etc.
Definitely. Let's just say I wouldn't send my children to a public school in some of the red states. That isn't what I meant at all.

There's a difference between the spending and administration of a typical blue state: MN, NY, IL...and what goes on at all levels in a socialist country. I think I've said a few times and I have to say it again? USA is a capitalist country. And it's difficult for anyone to dispute that if it were any other way, it wouldn't have achieved what it has all it has from the start. For a country of such wealth and the size of its economy, I feel the US is actually quite prudent in its spending (save for foreign policy). The public infrastructure of the country is excellent but ageing.

While the Northern states are richer than the Southern states because of the civil war, it bears deliberation why the Southern pro-business states are the ones luring both investments, jobs and domestic migrants from the North.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2013, 11:07 AM
 
2,896 posts, read 4,593,524 times
Reputation: 3615
Quote:
Originally Posted by sadgirl80 View Post
The professor explained in detail in his paper - the GDP per capita of the international countries are PPP figures, meaning cost of living is adjusted against USA.
To me, it seems lazy and agenda-driven to use PPP numbers for European countries but then use raw numbers for individual US states. The cost of living in CT, NY, MA, NJ and CA is much higher than the US average, what would PPP-adjusted GDP look like for those states?

A hint at the probable answer: MS and WV move way up, NY and CA move way down, therefore NY and CA look like they're (almost) "the same" as MS or WV... if a ranking shows the economic output of MS is equivalent to NY, how can it be taken seriously for anything?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2013, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
29,995 posts, read 29,944,984 times
Reputation: 13061
Quote:
Originally Posted by sadgirl80 View Post
Yes I had in mind London when I said that. I haven't been outside of London in the UK. They are no way on par in vanity with the Italians and Parisians. But they did invent Mod. I'm talking about the masses in the city and the average style level. Every city has pockets of niche groups who are style-conscious.
I don't think Londoners dress frumpy at all. They are rather snazzy. And they even hit the pubs during lunch. Compared to the average worker drone in Midtown Manhattan, they are quite stylish. There's a bit more style in London in general, imo.

Besides, did you see how gangster David Beckham looked when the we played England in the World Cup three years ago? Even the English coach was quite dapper.

http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-pho...ifa-mutZNh.jpg

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/sports/...0d8d526d4b.jpg

As someone who's pretty big into fashion (and NYC fashion specifically), I'd say they've got us beat. The average bloke there is just better put together.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2013, 11:13 AM
 
9,965 posts, read 16,075,346 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by sadgirl80 View Post
My original point was not about politics. My original point is that European countries are poor.

I remarked additionally that it is funny that they are poor but are endorsers of heavy welfare through laziness-inducing social policies in an era that is much more competitive than ever before (read: China).
If you want to consider European nations to be poor based solely on GDP per capita and then bring China into the discussion--go look up the GDP per capita of China and see how "rich" they are.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2013, 11:17 AM
 
5,919 posts, read 6,936,363 times
Reputation: 4715
Quote:
Originally Posted by sadgirl80 View Post
GDP per Capita: U.S. States vs. Europe, Japan and Canada, 2010

Rank GDP per Capita, 2010
District of Columbia $168,327
Luxembourg $81,383
1 Alaska $70,814
2 Delaware $69,880
3 Wyoming $68,162
4 Connecticut $66,022
5 New York $59,596
6 Massachusetts $58,339
7 New Jersey $55,715
8 Virginia $53,113
9 Colorado $52,205
Norway $52,013
Cherry picking much?

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And let us compare the population:

Norway: 5 mill
Alaska: 0.73 mill
Delaware: 0.92 mill
Wyoming: 0.58 mill
Oslo, Norway: 0.6 mill - GDP as of 2010: 633,485 NOK / $104,191 (Source: SSB)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2013, 11:19 AM
 
649 posts, read 1,100,176 times
Reputation: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by peninsular View Post
Here is a look at the numbers.

More at the Bureau of Labor Statistics here International Comparisons of GDP per Capita,GDP per Hour, and Related Measures, 1960–2009
Thanks for reinforcing my point. European socialist countries work very few hours and in fact annually, work very few days. We all know that. The wealth of a country is measured by GDP (PPP) PER PERSON. So if these ostensibly very productive Irish and Norwegian citizens were so hardworking as Americans and Singaporeans in the chart, they'd no doubt be the top 2 richest countries in the world by a huge margin. But they are not.

1) My post is about wealth, Europhilia of ignorant Americans and they are poor (in relation to the United States) and GDP per capita PPP (production output) is a measure of wealth, please refer to the Forbes link I provided additionally.

2) Your productivity thing only shows Ireland and Norway occupying a higher position than the US but still below many US states. Norway already fared quite well in GDP (PPP) in the professor's article which has the GDP of individual US states actually. And you do know that that's why Norway doesn't want to join the trading bloc?

Last edited by sadgirl80; 09-03-2013 at 11:40 AM..
Rate this post positively 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 > World Forums > World
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, 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