HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2017, 5:59 PM
Capsule F Capsule F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 16th and green
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
Did the gap between IL and PA grow? I thought they were neck and neck for a while. I'm surprised by how close FL are IL are given the differences in population. Ohio is surprising as well.
If these numbers can be believed the gap did grow. IL added approx 120 billion to PA adding 90 billion YOY. However, I think these numbers are way too high when compared to 2016 to be accurate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2017, 6:42 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverInfill View Post
I thought the idea of GDP rank vs. Population rank was interesting so I made the following table. The 2016 population ranks came from Wikipedia and are the Census Bureau's July 1, 2016 estimates. States with the same over/under number are ordered alphabetically. I also corrected the Vermont/Rhode Island issue JManc noted above in the OP's GDP column.

Fascinating, thanks for putting together what most of us are probably trying to figure out in our heads. It's actually pretty amazing how few states are punching significantly above or below their population rank. DC is an anomaly; but otherwise all but 14 states are are between +2 and -2.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2017, 7:39 PM
RC14's Avatar
RC14 RC14 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
I guess it has nothing to do with our diversified, strong economy?

If GDP should follow population rank, wouldn't DC be more towards the bottom?
California still punches above their weight.
They rank 8th in GDP per capita. Well above the national average.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...GDP_per_capita
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2017, 9:12 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsule F View Post
If these numbers can be believed the gap did grow. IL added approx 120 billion to PA adding 90 billion YOY. However, I think these numbers are way too high when compared to 2016 to be accurate.
You may be comparing real gdp figures from 2015 to current dollar gdp in 2016. The OP posted 2016 current dollar GDP.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2017, 8:08 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBane View Post
Fascinating, thanks for putting together what most of us are probably trying to figure out in our heads. It's actually pretty amazing how few states are punching significantly above or below their population rank. DC is an anomaly; but otherwise all but 14 states are are between +2 and -2.
This isn't as useful as GDP per capita though. A ranking like this will tend to smooth out differences at the top or bottom of either ranking, where GDP per capita will show the true differences (California punches far above its weight in GDP, for example, where this list just shows it as #1)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2017, 8:15 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by mousquet View Post
It is laughable. Their GDP's almost as high as that of my entire (egalitarian) country, while our population's almost twice as big.

Make no mistake. We've been better off with the porn industry relocated to Hollywood anyway.
So you mean "French Postcards" just show the Eiffel Tower these days?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2017, 8:19 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC14 View Post
California still punches above their weight.
They rank 8th in GDP per capita. Well above the national average.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...GDP_per_capita
I'd love to know the GDP per capita of just the CA counties within 75 miles of the ocean and from Sonoma (call that the northern limit of the Bay Area) to the Mexican Border. In other words, cut out the rural parts of the state--the northern third and the Central Valley and deserts--and see what only the urbanized parts do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2017, 8:19 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,347
Washington state isn't used to ranking below our population, so the -1 is interesting. But it's Massachusetts who stayed a little ahead of our GDP, so that probably isn't surprising.
__________________
Populace is a noun. Populous is an adjective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2017, 10:59 PM
urbanadvocate urbanadvocate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I'd love to know the GDP per capita of just the CA counties within 75 miles of the ocean and from Sonoma (call that the northern limit of the Bay Area) to the Mexican Border. In other words, cut out the rural parts of the state--the northern third and the Central Valley and deserts--and see what only the urbanized parts do.
I didn't realize the Central Valley had no urbanized areas

Maybe your question is meant what would it be if you only looked at the 3 largest metro areas? (LA, Bay Area and SD--though I still find it hard to exclude Sac out of that).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 5:19 PM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,095
Only the US, China, Japan, Germany and UK outrank California if it were a nation. California was expected to outpace the UK by this year but we'll have to wait to see if it did. At one point in the past during CA's dotcom boom era, it had reached #4 in the global ranks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 5:44 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanadvocate View Post
I didn't realize the Central Valley had no urbanized areas

Maybe your question is meant what would it be if you only looked at the 3 largest metro areas? (LA, Bay Area and SD--though I still find it hard to exclude Sac out of that).
It has 3, essentially: Sacramento, Fresno and Bakersfield. But 2 of those are still centered in largely agricultural counties the effect of which would skew county data. Actually, the Sacramento area and the Bay Area are gradually growing together into a megalopolis. So fine, add that one in to the coastal counties. I'm just interested in the CA per capita GDP and productivity exclusive of the rural and agricultural areas which are a very large part of the state. The Mojave Desert alone is a lot of land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 6:25 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverInfill View Post
I thought the idea of GDP rank vs. Population rank was interesting so I made the following table. The 2016 population ranks came from Wikipedia and are the Census Bureau's July 1, 2016 estimates. States with the same over/under number are ordered alphabetically. I also corrected the Vermont/Rhode Island issue JManc noted above in the OP's GDP column.
Very interesting, I was surprised at how small the gap was between IL and FL given the 8+million pop difference.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 7:23 PM
urbanadvocate urbanadvocate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
It has 3, essentially: Sacramento, Fresno and Bakersfield. But 2 of those are still centered in largely agricultural counties the effect of which would skew county data. Actually, the Sacramento area and the Bay Area are gradually growing together into a megalopolis. So fine, add that one in to the coastal counties. I'm just interested in the CA per capita GDP and productivity exclusive of the rural and agricultural areas which are a very large part of the state. The Mojave Desert alone is a lot of land.
Yea good point. I would be curious how much of the economy in CA is actually agriculture. Someone once told me 50% of all fruits, veggies and nuts grown in the US is grown in CA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2017, 4:00 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
Abiogenesis
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 21,566
Good to see NJ up there. The state really punches above its weight.

New Jersey $585,726,000,000

But we also are sandwiched between Philly and NY so that really helps.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:54 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.