3 ms·

Wow, this is striking: "In 2016, Hillary Clinton won only 472 counties, but they represented fully 64% of GDP. Donald Trump’s 2,584 counties accounted for only

Wow, this is striking: "In 2016, Hillary Clinton won only 472 counties, but they represented fully 64% of GDP. Donald Trump’s 2,584 counties accounted for only 36%."

dahdum 9y ago
I wonder if a good portion of that is due to the continued collapse in manufacturing, mining, timber, and other areas that are now predominantly imports.
- ebikelaw 9y ago
  I don't really see how it could be that, since manufacturing in the USA is more valuable today than it has ever been, has a higher output than any other country but one, and more than some other continents, and makes up 1/3rd of GDP.
  - dahdum 9y ago
    The GDP was relative, so even if the pie did get larger it doesn't mean the ratio couldn't go down. "Manufacturing gross output and value added shares of the economy declined steadily between 1997 and 2013, as shown in Figure A. One reason for this decline is the rapid growth of manufactured imports, which have reduced the demand for domestically manufactured goods. Total imports of manufactured goods increased from $744 billion in 1997 to $1.83 trillion in 2014, rising from 8.6 percent of GDP in 1997 to 10.9 percent in 2013. Had it not been for the increase in manufactured imports, and of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods, manufacturing output and GDP would have been significantly higher in 2013" > https://www.epi.org/publication/the-manufacturing-footprint-and-the-importance-of-u-s-manufacturing-jobs/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-manufacturing-footprint-...
  - exolymph 9y ago
    Ah, but how many people does it employ, and in what types of jobs? http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/02/19/technological-unemployment-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/02/19/technological-unemploym...
prawn 9y ago
Could it be a developing trend? Or is Trump-Clinton too much of an oddity to consider in that way? 2000, Gore won ... representing 54% of GDP. 2016, Clinton won ... represented fully 64% of GDP.

Wow, this is striking: "In 2016, Hillary Clinton won only 472 counties, but they represented fully 64% of GDP. Donald Trump’s 2,584 counties accounted for only 36%."

dahdum 9y ago

I wonder if a good portion of that is due to the continued collapse in manufacturing, mining, timber, and other areas that are now predominantly imports.

ebikelaw 9y ago
I don't really see how it could be that, since manufacturing in the USA is more valuable today than it has ever been, has a higher output than any other country but one, and more than some other continents, and makes up 1/3rd of GDP.
- dahdum 9y ago
  The GDP was relative, so even if the pie did get larger it doesn't mean the ratio couldn't go down. "Manufacturing gross output and value added shares of the economy declined steadily between 1997 and 2013, as shown in Figure A. One reason for this decline is the rapid growth of manufactured imports, which have reduced the demand for domestically manufactured goods. Total imports of manufactured goods increased from $744 billion in 1997 to $1.83 trillion in 2014, rising from 8.6 percent of GDP in 1997 to 10.9 percent in 2013. Had it not been for the increase in manufactured imports, and of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods, manufacturing output and GDP would have been significantly higher in 2013" > https://www.epi.org/publication/the-manufacturing-footprint-and-the-importance-of-u-s-manufacturing-jobs/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-manufacturing-footprint-...
- exolymph 9y ago
  Ah, but how many people does it employ, and in what types of jobs? http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/02/19/technological-unemployment-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/02/19/technological-unemploym...

prawn 9y ago

Could it be a developing trend? Or is Trump-Clinton too much of an oddity to consider in that way? 2000, Gore won ... representing 54% of GDP. 2016, Clinton won ... represented fully 64% of GDP.