REAL PER CAPITA STATE GDP
BEA just published the state real GDP data for 2011. Since I have not done it in a while I thought it would be interesting to create the state real GDP per capita data for 2011. There has not been much difference since the last time I did this exercise several years ago. The last time I did it Massachusetts
was 126% of the national average and Mississippi was 63% of the national average. The long run trend of the poorest state tending to catch up with the wealthiest states has continued in force. Now, Massachusetts real per capita GDP is only 187% of that in Mississippi vs the 200% it was several years ago.. But I can still point out that the Republican and/or right wingers continue to try to convince us that that we would all be better off if we were more like Mississippi and less like Massachusetts. Go figure.
REAL PER CAPITA GDP( 2011)
Uh oh. Those last 25 states look weighted largely in the red to me. This is more of that darn reality having a liberal bias isn’t it?
Another question that occured to me – I wonder how well this ranking correlates to state personal tax burdens…. I see some high tax states at the top of the list and not so many towards the bottom. Probably just one of those coincidence thingies.
The corollary here is if you look at net cashflows to/from the federal government. The irony is that the right wing looks at Europe and wrings its hands but it’s plan is to minimize the federal fiscal union (pushing all possible spending back to the states and private sector) in the name of maintaining the currency union. But that is taking us towards today’s Europe not away… and the bottom of the list are the PIGS. Mississippi and South Carolina are Greece and Spain; Massachusetts and New York are Germany. (And California is probably France… big economy but can’t get it’s fiscal house in order due to politics.)
The table would be much more informative if it excluded the 5 or 10 states with the least population (or at least highlighted them). In the case of Alaska (47), Wyoming (50), and Delaware (45) it’s easier to have a high per capital GDP with few people. Alternatively, Montana (44) is both poor and small.
The table would be much more informative if it excluded the 5 or 10 states with the least population (or at least highlighted them). In the case of Alaska (47), Wyoming (50), and Delaware (45) it’s easier to have a high per capital GDP with few people. Alternatively, Montana (44) is both poor and small.
The table would be much more informative if it excluded the 5 or 10 states with the least population (or at least highlighted them). In the case of Alaska (47), Wyoming (50), and Delaware (45) it’s easier to have a high per capital GDP with few people. Alternatively, Montana (44) is both poor and small.
The table would be much more informative if it excluded the 5 or 10 states with the least population (or at least highlighted them). In the case of Alaska (47), Wyoming (50), and Delaware (45) it’s easier to have a high per capital GDP with few people. Alternatively, Montana (44) is both poor and small.
The table would be much more informative if it excluded the 5 or 10 states with the least population (or at least highlighted them). In the case of Alaska (47), Wyoming (50), and Delaware (45) it’s easier to have a high per capital GDP with few people. Alternatively, Montana (44) is both poor and small.
The table would be much more informative if it excluded the 5 or 10 states with the least population (or at least highlighted them). In the case of Alaska (47), Wyoming (50), and Delaware (45) it’s easier to have a high per capital GDP with few people. Alternatively, Montana (44) is both poor and small.
The table would be much more informative if it excluded the 5 or 10 states with the least population (or at least highlighted them). In the case of Alaska (47), Wyoming (50), and Delaware (45) it’s easier to have a high per capital GDP with few people. Alternatively, Montana (44) is both poor and small.
What BillP said.
There is lots of data needed to analyze this properly.
And I’m tired of lots of people (not Spencer) using North Dakota as a template for economic development. The population of ND is about the same as teh metro Toledo area.
Interesting how Michigan and Ohio are headed for the basement, probably began just after the passage of NAFTA.