- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: GDP of each US state
Posted on 2/23/25 at 11:24 am to Street Hawk
Posted on 2/23/25 at 11:24 am to Street Hawk
This is interesting, but I wonder what the results would be if federal waters began at 9 nautical miles off of the Louisiana coast as they do in Texas and Florida. Whereas they begin 3 nautical miles off of the Louisiana coast line.
0
Posted on 2/23/25 at 11:26 am to Obtuse1
quote:
Pretty hyperbolic for a commercial product that has been around for less than 175 years.
175 years ago most of us still were truck farmers or survivalists, and worked for pennies a day.
Roughly 2/3rds of the population grew or harvested their food.
This post was edited on 2/23/25 at 11:31 am
Posted on 2/23/25 at 11:34 am to funnystuff
quote:
Which is to say, GDP isn’t about which company makes the good… it’s about what goods are produced within the physical border of the state. So if this calculation was done correctly, having Starbucks in Washington, for example, won’t add the entire corporate revenue stream for Starbucks into Washington’s GDP. Only those cups of coffee physically produced inside the state’s borders should count. So if they calculated GDP correctly, I’d still be surprised about Washington in the top 10 list.
My suspicion is it was done correctly considering ND is ranked so high per capita. That wouldn’t be the case otherwise.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 12:04 pm to Keys Open Doors
Yea, I remember something like that too and would need to do some research and see how others would stack up. Thanks
Posted on 2/23/25 at 12:12 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
175 years ago most of us still were truck farmers or survivalists, and worked for pennies a day.
Roughly 2/3rds of the population grew or harvested their food.
Now compare that to the Stone Age.
As I said in my post petroleum has been massively important in the development of our world but if it didn't exist we would have just used alternatives that did exist. For energy we would have likely developed to be more focused on electricity and alcohols.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 12:14 pm to Obtuse1
quote:\
Now compare that to the Stone Age.
Most people were still hunter/gatherers in a survival sense.
The Petroleum economy has boosted our standard of living tremendously.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 12:21 pm to TigerHornII
quote:
Meanwhile here in Texas, there are a hundred ways for a regular baw to get rich if he works at it.
Disagree
Posted on 2/23/25 at 12:24 pm to Street Hawk
I know AR isn't a huge population, but 190B seems light for one of the largest transportation providers, walmart and 60% of the nation's rice production.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 12:25 pm to wutangfinancial
quote:
If it weren’t for oil we’d all be living in the Stone Age still, dipshit
That’s a crock of bullshite. Oil is a relatively new commodity. We lived without it all the way up to the 1860s until Rockefeller monopolized it.
This post was edited on 2/23/25 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 2/23/25 at 12:25 pm to BuckeyeWarrior
Hemp could have just as easily fueled the Industrial Revolution
Posted on 2/23/25 at 12:46 pm to The Torch
quote:
#1 and #3 are broke while #2 strives.
Look at those down votes for pointing out facts. CA/NY vs TX/FL
tOT is the r/whitepeopletwitter of TD apparently.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 12:48 pm to Odysseus32
quote:
Odysseus32
quote:
Just a tip, when conversing with someone it’s not a good idea to start with calling someone something derogatory.
Are you a fricking retard? He was replying to the OP which was the GDP not per capita.
Go back to reddit an jerk it to kiddie porn and plotting assassinations dumb frick.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 1:29 pm to BuckeyeWarrior
quote:
quote:
If it weren’t for oil we’d all be living in the Stone Age still, dipshit
That’s a crock of bullshite. Oil is a relatively new commodity. We lived without it all the way up to the 1860s until Rockefeller monopolized it.
I'd like to know if you truly are that ignorant of industry and technology, or simply brainwashed beyond the ability to recognize facts right in front of you.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 1:32 pm to BuckeyeWarrior
quote:
Philly alone accounts for around 70% of PA’s total GDP
Makes sense.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 2:00 pm to IAmNERD
The rankings posted by the OP include imported goods, which as I noted above artificially inflate CA and NY (most of the US's $3.3T in imports come through LA, Long Beach, and NY) and likely also includes the exports going out of those same ports. To a much lesser extent, the ports of Seattle and Savannah also inflate their states' GDPs, but those two ports are dwarfed by the three above.
If you look at the non-click bait data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis which does NOT include import/export data, you will find Texas and CA virtually tied in GDP per capita 53.7k to 56.9k, a less than 10% difference more than offset by the lower cost of living. LINK - scroll to page VI For the mathematically impaired, this cuts the CA GDP to $2.2T, while Texas is at $1.7T. The proportionality is much different than what the OP posted, or what our buckeye friend and his ilk so desperately want to believe.
Even that data includes things like return on capital, which artificially inflates the GDP for banking centers (NYC and CA again) because when you bank from LA with Chase, you're creating a financial return that gets counted in where the bank HQ is.
All that to say, it's never as simple as the click bait would have you believe, and the real ignorance of posters here comes out when they rush to hold up CA and NY as some paragons of whatever their philosophy is.
If you look at the non-click bait data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis which does NOT include import/export data, you will find Texas and CA virtually tied in GDP per capita 53.7k to 56.9k, a less than 10% difference more than offset by the lower cost of living. LINK - scroll to page VI For the mathematically impaired, this cuts the CA GDP to $2.2T, while Texas is at $1.7T. The proportionality is much different than what the OP posted, or what our buckeye friend and his ilk so desperately want to believe.
Even that data includes things like return on capital, which artificially inflates the GDP for banking centers (NYC and CA again) because when you bank from LA with Chase, you're creating a financial return that gets counted in where the bank HQ is.
All that to say, it's never as simple as the click bait would have you believe, and the real ignorance of posters here comes out when they rush to hold up CA and NY as some paragons of whatever their philosophy is.
This post was edited on 2/23/25 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 2/23/25 at 2:44 pm to Odysseus32
quote:
37 is not bad.
There's an obvious disconnect when we are consistently the poorest or second poorest state in the nation.
I wonder what could possibly be going on
Honest answer?
North Louisiana.
Until new industries can be found that thrive there, they will continue to struggle.
quote:
Parish. Value (Dollars) Rank within US(of 3141 parishes)
United States78,538 N/A
Louisiana. 60,023. 48 of 52
Ascension Parish. 92,266. 228
West Baton Rouge Parish. 87,320. 304
Plaquemines Parish. 82,874. 416
St. Charles Parish. 82,172. 441
St. Tammany Parish. 79,277. 533
Livingston Parish. 78,617. 555
West Feliciana Parish. 74,277. 746
East Feliciana Parish. 72,899. 822
Cameron Parish. 72,500. 862
Calcasieu Parish. 67,849. 1,212
Lafayette Parish. 67,660. 1,234
St. John the Baptist Parish. 67,418. 1,253
Vs
Avoyelles Parish. 39,439. 3,060
Lincoln Parish. 38,035. 3,075
Webster Parish. 37,396. 3,080
Concordia Parish. 37,349. 3,083
Madison Parish. 37,267. 3,085
Morehouse Parish. 36,981. 3,090
Tensas Parish. 36,074. 3,103
Bienville Parish. 34,992. 3,111
Claiborne Parish. 31,784. 3,127
East Carroll Parish. 28,321. 3,138
Household income in ascension is over 3x that of east carroll.
There are a few in the middle that actually have huge income disparities. My parish has one of the highest rates of people below the poverty line in the US, while simultaneously having a much higher than average household income. You're either making 100k or habitually unemployed.
This post was edited on 2/23/25 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 2/23/25 at 3:22 pm to TigerHornII
quote:
I'd like to know if you truly are that ignorant of industry and technology, or simply brainwashed beyond the ability to recognize facts right in front of you.
I’ll tell you the facts: oil is a non-renewable resource that undisputedly has negative effects on the environment. It releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane into the environment. It pollutes the environment.
Hydrogen energy is the way to go. Much better for the environment and much more efficient.
Posted on 2/23/25 at 3:36 pm to Keys Open Doors
quote:
There was one viral thread on Twitter maybe a year ago that showed the UK would have been 49th in the US.
Mississippi with the lowest GDP per capita in the country has a higher GDP per capita than 22 out of the 28 EU nations
Posted on 2/23/25 at 9:46 pm to UltimaParadox
quote:
You mean lawyers
You mean bought and paid for crooks and whores
This post was edited on 2/23/25 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 2/23/25 at 10:33 pm to funnystuff
quote:
Which is to say, GDP isn’t about which company makes the good… it’s about what goods are produced within the physical border of the state. So if this calculation was done correctly, having Starbucks in Washington, for example, won’t add the entire corporate revenue stream for Starbucks into Washington’s GDP. Only those cups of coffee physically produced inside the state’s borders should count. So if they calculated GDP correctly, I’d still be surprised about Washington in the top 10 list. But maybe Boeing and Microsoft have a bunch of manufacturing plants there? That’s what you would need from these companies to tick up the state’s GDP, actual production of goods and services inside the state’s physical borders. Not just the location of their headquarters.
Boeing has two large manufacturing facilities in the state: one in Everett (737 max, 767, 777) and one in Renton (737 max, P-8 Poseidon). PACCAR (also HQed in Washington) has its Kenworth plant in Renton. Washington has a huge agricultural economy as well, and high value forestry too.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News