51–60 of 175 posts
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…
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.
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 en…
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…
> Amazingly, it required a labor force 75% larger (and 14.5 million more people) in the UK to produce the same economic output Look at it the other way, the UK can house & feed more people with the same economic output, therefore being more efficient at those tasks.
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.
A most undesirable state of affairs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
...haha what was I thinking never mind. Also what does net present value have to do with any of this?
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.
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.
When looking at quality of life, GDP per capita is your number, not absolute GDP. There are quite a few more Iraqis than Oklahomans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I've been to Scandinavia and despite the countries having less GDPs, the quality of life, for the average citizen, is way higher.
As a Swede living in the United States, I can agree that the average person has a higher quality of life in Scandinavia! I don't think it's possible to have that in the States, though; the country doesn't seem meant for it. The Scandinavian model relies on many incompatible tenets that could be mentioned, including but not limited to immigration. The Swedish system is already practically collapsing from its first maj…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Amazingly, it required a labor force 75% larger (and 14.5 million more people) in the UK to produce the same economic output Look at it the other way, the UK can house & feed more people with the same economic output, therefore being more efficient at those tasks.
Does that mean the Central African Republic is the most efficient economy on the planet?