Map: US States Renamed as Countries with Similar GDPs • Hacker News Board

Re: Map: US States Renamed as Countries with Similar GDPs

#31

Post by rukittenme » Thu, May 31, 2018, 2:46 PM UTC

curiousgal wrote: post #23

pluto9 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure? I've been to both Iraq and Oklahoma, and I can tell you the quality of life in Oklahoma is a hell of a lot better than Iraq, pre- or post-war, in spite of their similar GDPs.

Well I've been to Scandinavia and despite the countries having less GDPs, the quality of life, for the average citizen, is way higher.

But that wasn't your point:

> America is mighty but that doesn't translate into the life quality of its citizens at all.

Countries can vary in development and quality of life but your original statement is demonstrably false.

Re: Map: US States Renamed as Countries with Similar GDPs

#32

Post by pluto9 » Thu, May 31, 2018, 2:47 PM UTC

curiousgal wrote: post #23

pluto9 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure? I've been to both Iraq and Oklahoma, and I can tell you the quality of life in Oklahoma is a hell of a lot better than Iraq, pre- or post-war, in spite of their similar GDPs.

Well I've been to Scandinavia and despite the countries having less GDPs, the quality of life, for the average citizen, is way higher.

I haven't been to Scandinavia, but I have been to some of the "wealthy" European countries, including Ireland. I now live in its GDP counterpart, Colorado. I would say their quality of life is comparable.

It would be helpful for you to explain how life in, say, Sweden is vastly better than life in Georgia. Before you cite poor uneducated Georgian hillbillies, keep in mind that Georgia is home to Georgia Tech, not to mention Atlanta, which was quite prosperous last time I checked. And if you're going to cite Sweden's "free" universities, you might as well go ahead and throw in a side-by-side comparison of Georgian/U.S. Federal and Swedish tax rates as well.

Re: Map: US States Renamed as Countries with Similar GDPs

#33

Post by rukittenme » Thu, May 31, 2018, 2:53 PM UTC

tjr225 wrote: post #25

hood_syntax wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It does, just not at the rate that it could.

This is it right here. A safety net(including healthcare, education, retirement) intended for all would be an awesome way to spend all of this money, but instead it gets squandered elsewhere.

Where does it get squandered? 60% of the federal budget goes to retirement and healthcare. That doesn't account for all of the local budgets which almost exclusively target human welfare projects.

There are only two stereotypical places I can think of it being "squandered". The first is the military which, who knows, could be NPV if you consider what the world could be like without it. Ultimately its unknowable. The second is the money not taxed. Which is a particularly frustrating mindset that I encounter on the internet.

In either case, we're not "squandering" money anywhere. You may disagree with the allocation of some resources but that doesn't mean its been squandered.

Re: Map: US States Renamed as Countries with Similar GDPs

#34

Post by brightball » Thu, May 31, 2018, 2:55 PM UTC

danielvf wrote: post #14

From the original article and chart (not the current linked site): > "California has a labor force of 19.3 million compared to the labor force in the UK of 33.8 million (World Bank data here). Amazingly, it required a labor force 75% larger (and 14.5 million more people) in the UK to produce the same economic output last year as California! ... Further, California as a separate country would have been the 5th largest…

I've always been curious to find out if there is a study of California's location relative to it's GDP.

How much of the GDP is based on coastline, major ports, access to imports from China/Southeast Asia that get distributed to the rest of the US, US based companies located there with manufacturing based in China and even Mexico.

Geographically, it seems like it's in an ideal location to hold business HQ's with access to less expensive labor for imported goods.

Is there a study like this out there?

You compare that to the UK that doesn't have any clearly accessible inexpensive labor force option and it makes you wonder.

Re: Map: US States Renamed as Countries with Similar GDPs

#35

Post by zer00eyz » Thu, May 31, 2018, 2:55 PM UTC

mhandley wrote: post #22

danielvf wrote: post #14

From the original article and chart (not the current linked site): > "California has a labor force of 19.3 million compared to the labor force in the UK of 33.8 million (World Bank data here). Amazingly, it required a labor force 75% larger (and 14.5 million more people) in the UK to produce the same economic output last year as California! ... Further, California as a separate country would have been the 5th largest…

That shows the power of immigration. I'm not even talking about immigration from outside the US, though that's significant too. California has such high GDP per capita because it draws well educated people from the rest of the US. If it was an independent country, it couldn't do that so easily.

> I'm not even talking about immigration from outside the US...

Migration, or internal migration is probably a better term here.

It isn't just the migration either - it is the nature of what happens. The top cities/areas for several industries are here, and many secondary ones as well. Film production, software/web, lots of aerospace. It also helps that a fair bit basic needs are provided back to the state by itself (Central Valley farming).

Re: Map: US States Renamed as Countries with Similar GDPs

#36

Post by rayiner » Thu, May 31, 2018, 2:58 PM UTC

It would also be interesting to see this chart with GDP per capita.

Re: Map: US States Renamed as Countries with Similar GDPs

#37

Post by verelo » Thu, May 31, 2018, 2:59 PM UTC

pluto9 wrote: post #13

curiousgal wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the saddest part, America is mighty but that doesn't translate into the life quality of its citizens at all.

How do you figure? I've been to both Iraq and Oklahoma, and I can tell you the quality of life in Oklahoma is a hell of a lot better than Iraq, pre- or post-war, in spite of their similar GDPs.

And I've been to Ukraine and Detroit. Statements like this need larger samples to be useful.

Re: Map: US States Renamed as Countries with Similar GDPs

#38

Post by danharaj » Thu, May 31, 2018, 3:01 PM UTC

pluto9 wrote: post #13

curiousgal wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the saddest part, America is mighty but that doesn't translate into the life quality of its citizens at all.

How do you figure? I've been to both Iraq and Oklahoma, and I can tell you the quality of life in Oklahoma is a hell of a lot better than Iraq, pre- or post-war, in spite of their similar GDPs.

Which war? Iraq was quite a nice place to live before the Iran-Iraq War, First Gulf War, embargo, and Second Gulf War.

Re: Map: US States Renamed as Countries with Similar GDPs

#39

Post by habosa » Thu, May 31, 2018, 3:01 PM UTC

InitialLastName wrote: post #19

Related to this, I've recently been mulling a similar comparison: New Jersey is approximately the same area and population as Israel. The joke in the anecdote is that the two regions' neighbors have similar attitudes about them.

Their borders also draw very similar shapes.

Re: Map: US States Renamed as Countries with Similar GDPs

#40

Post by 0xbadcafebee » Thu, May 31, 2018, 3:02 PM UTC

The article lists Russia as the US's "nemesis". "Competitor" or even "enemy" would have been an appropriate designation, but "nemesis" means retribution, justice, or vengeance. Exactly whom is seeking retribution against whom, and for what?

Since the birth of the nation, Russia supported the US. It supported its revolution and supported the Union during the civil war. It even sold Alaska to the US. We brokered the end of the Russo-Japanese war, and about 3.3 million Russian Jews and Poles immigrated to the US by 1917. We then started down the path of trying to support the anti-communists, which of course backfired. We allied with the Soviets during WWII, but then we quickly started the cold war and formed NATO.

Since then, the Soviet Union basically wanted to control eastern (and possibly, eventually, all?) Europe, but it didn't work out, and the nations they had absorbed along the way eventually became independent again. So now their sphere of influence is smaller, but they still have a lot of nukes, and neither of us trust each other.

I would call us "frenemies", perhaps (a bit like China). But we really don't have some big grudge against each other. We're just two dicks who want to rule the world.