3 ms·
Vermont is 32nd in per capita GDP. Poorest would be Mississippi, dead last. California is indeed a massive economy and we're ranked 10th in per capita GDP. htt
by CalChris 10y ago
Vermont is 32nd in per capita GDP. Poorest would be Mississippi, dead last. California is indeed a massive economy and we're ranked 10th in per capita GDP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per...
One point about our size. When CA does something at the state level a lot of other states follow along. Minnesota can't dictate to manufacturers but CA can.
- r00fus 10y agoThat's GDP per capita. CA is the largest state in terms of overall GDP. Overall population/economy size matters, not just per-capita.
- CalChris 10y agoPer capita GDP matters more in determining whether Vermont or California can better afford this. In fact, CA can better afford this than Vermont. By comparison, Mississippi cannot afford this. They're basically supported by states like California; their economy is trivial and they're propped up by defense spending.
- r00fus 10y agoWhy? Disagree with your reasoning, it's not about per-capita, it's about absolute numbers in the risk pool and ability for a large actor like CA to better negotiate prices down. Why do you think Apple gets better prices than, e.g. Logitech for component parts? Because they order massively more, up-front, and with strict timetables for delivery.
- CalChris 10y agoCosts are still per capita. We will only be able to negotiate so much and we'd be negotiating with providers rather the insurance companies. To be very clear, I think CA can afford this and I think we should do it.