4 ms·

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the US Department of Commerce, California is in the top ten US states for per-capita GDP growth since 2009. Not

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the US Department of Commerce, California is in the top ten US states for per-capita GDP growth since 2009. Not 'middling' at all, particularly considering it was the country's largest state economy to begin with. And a big reason the cost of living is high there is precisely because the economy has been so good. The middle class hasn't been hurt by taxes and regulations, it's been hurt by low wage growth as the top 1% of the population has absorbed a grossly disproportionate share of the robust economic growth. The same problem shared by the rest of the country. Taxes aren't too high, they're much too low, particularly on the wealthy. Not sure where your numbers came from (the link at the bottom of the image, referencing a report at alec.org, is broken).

rayiner 8y ago
The specific ordering is somewhat sensitive to the specific date ranges. Looking at the BEA data: https://apps.bea.gov/regional/histdata/releases/0616gsp/index.cfm https://apps.bea.gov/regional/histdata/releases/0616gsp/inde... If we use 2009 to 2015 as the data points (which is the most I have on this chart), the following states grew faster than the U.S. average: North Dakota 1.37 Texas 1.16 Oklahoma 1.16 Michigan 1.15 Ohio 1.13 Pennsylvania 1.11 Indiana 1.11 Nebraska 1.10 California 1.09 Iowa 1.09 Minnesota 1.09 Tennessee 1.09 Wisconsin 1.08 Massachusetts 1.08 Illinois 1.07 Kentucky 1.07 I wouldn't call growing at about the same rate as Iowa and Tennessee as being particularly exceptional, even if it's technically in the top 10. More important, because cost of living continues to explode, California continues to be middling in terms of purchasing power: https://spectator.org/adios-california/ https://spectator.org/adios-california/ (California 37th in GDP per capita adjusted for cost of living). For real people, that's the most important benchmark of economic health. (Which is why when you're comparing different countries, you always use PPP-adjusted numbers.) Note that this particular problem isn't something you can fix through redistribution. California's COL-adjusted GDP per capita being in the middle means that, no matter how you distribute it, California's on average just can't buy as much stuff (food, housing, etc.) as Iowans.
- vannevar 8y ago
  I wouldn't call growing at about the same rate as Iowa and Tennessee as being particularly exceptional, even if it's technically in the top 10. I would. Iowa and Tennessee are much, much smaller economies. It's truly remarkable that California, with an economy ten times larger, can nonetheless grow at a comparable rate. While it's true that the cost of living is higher (in large part because the quality of life overall is higher), it is simply not true that "it doesn't matter how you distribute it." The subjective experience depends quite a lot on how it's distributed. I assure you that millions of middle class Californians would be much happier if their wages had grown even half as much as the massive increases taken by the top 1%.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > I would. Iowa and Tennessee are much, much smaller economies. It's truly remarkable that California, with an economy ten times larger, can nonetheless grow at a comparable rate. No it's not. California's economy is larger simply because it has more people. That doesn't make it any harder to grow the economy further. According to the same BEA data, the Great Lakes region as a whole (which has a population comparable to California) grew faster than California. If your theory were correct, it should be much harder for the U.S. to grow than France, and for France to grow than Sweden. But that's not borne out by the data: https://snbchf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/GDP-Per-Capita-Developed-Nations1.jpg https://snbchf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/GDP-Per-Capita... (If California's economic production per capita were much higher, you might hit "diminishing returns" effects, but that's not the case.)
    - vannevar 8y ago
      That doesn't make it any harder to grow the economy further. Nonsense. Economic growth depends on a complex web of law, culture and resources. Large economies are systematically harder to grow than smaller ones. It's not simply a matter of adding people. It is in fact harder for the US to grow than France, the fact that it actually happens doesn't negate that reality. Remember, the fundamental argument you're making is that California operates under a handicap because of its taxes and regulations. It should be laboring under both that burden and the additional inertia that comes from a larger economy. I think its growth (not to mention the historical success of the rest of the industrialized world, virtually all of it more socialized than the US) belies the conservative old wive's tale that you can't have a stable, growing economy and maintain a sensible tax and regulatory environment at the same time.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 8y ago

The specific ordering is somewhat sensitive to the specific date ranges. Looking at the BEA data: https://apps.bea.gov/regional/histdata/releases/0616gsp/index.cfm https://apps.bea.gov/regional/histdata/releases/0616gsp/inde... If we use 2009 to 2015 as the data points (which is the most I have on this chart), the following states grew faster than the U.S. average: North Dakota 1.37 Texas 1.16 Oklahoma 1.16 Michigan 1.15 Ohio 1.13 Pennsylvania 1.11 Indiana 1.11 Nebraska 1.10 California 1.09 Iowa 1.09 Minnesota 1.09 Tennessee 1.09 Wisconsin 1.08 Massachusetts 1.08 Illinois 1.07 Kentucky 1.07 I wouldn't call growing at about the same rate as Iowa and Tennessee as being particularly exceptional, even if it's technically in the top 10. More important, because cost of living continues to explode, California continues to be middling in terms of purchasing power: https://spectator.org/adios-california/ https://spectator.org/adios-california/ (California 37th in GDP per capita adjusted for cost of living). For real people, that's the most important benchmark of economic health. (Which is why when you're comparing different countries, you always use PPP-adjusted numbers.) Note that this particular problem isn't something you can fix through redistribution. California's COL-adjusted GDP per capita being in the middle means that, no matter how you distribute it, California's on average just can't buy as much stuff (food, housing, etc.) as Iowans.

vannevar 8y ago
I wouldn't call growing at about the same rate as Iowa and Tennessee as being particularly exceptional, even if it's technically in the top 10. I would. Iowa and Tennessee are much, much smaller economies. It's truly remarkable that California, with an economy ten times larger, can nonetheless grow at a comparable rate. While it's true that the cost of living is higher (in large part because the quality of life overall is higher), it is simply not true that "it doesn't matter how you distribute it." The subjective experience depends quite a lot on how it's distributed. I assure you that millions of middle class Californians would be much happier if their wages had grown even half as much as the massive increases taken by the top 1%.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > I would. Iowa and Tennessee are much, much smaller economies. It's truly remarkable that California, with an economy ten times larger, can nonetheless grow at a comparable rate. No it's not. California's economy is larger simply because it has more people. That doesn't make it any harder to grow the economy further. According to the same BEA data, the Great Lakes region as a whole (which has a population comparable to California) grew faster than California. If your theory were correct, it should be much harder for the U.S. to grow than France, and for France to grow than Sweden. But that's not borne out by the data: https://snbchf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/GDP-Per-Capita-Developed-Nations1.jpg https://snbchf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/GDP-Per-Capita... (If California's economic production per capita were much higher, you might hit "diminishing returns" effects, but that's not the case.)
  - vannevar 8y ago
    That doesn't make it any harder to grow the economy further. Nonsense. Economic growth depends on a complex web of law, culture and resources. Large economies are systematically harder to grow than smaller ones. It's not simply a matter of adding people. It is in fact harder for the US to grow than France, the fact that it actually happens doesn't negate that reality. Remember, the fundamental argument you're making is that California operates under a handicap because of its taxes and regulations. It should be laboring under both that burden and the additional inertia that comes from a larger economy. I think its growth (not to mention the historical success of the rest of the industrialized world, virtually all of it more socialized than the US) belies the conservative old wive's tale that you can't have a stable, growing economy and maintain a sensible tax and regulatory environment at the same time.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]