> 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?
No, because the quality of life is not similar. I think the parent of your post implicitly used that quality of life and poverty rates between the two are (relatively) comparable.
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 acces…
California...and the West Coast of the U.S. is an interesting place in that it's geographically divided from the rest of the country by a couple of major mountain ranges and large deserts. In addition, something like almost 50% of the state is unusable federal land (national parks, military bases, etc.) Despite this, it's one of the major agricultural producers in the world due to it's variety of climate zones and lo…
> cross-Pacific trade isn't as big as cross-Atlantic
Huh? Newport Beach is the busiest port in the world. Cross-Pacific trade dwarfs cross-Atlantic trade.
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…
It comes down to how you measure. People doing well have a high quality of life in pretty much the entire United States. People at the bottom, less so. The US does have an awful lot of support for people, but our society is also hostile to poor people and we have awful workplace regulation for low quality jobs.
Yeah, life sucks when you're poor. More so in many of these countries than in the U.S, and less so in a few.
You've said nothing. Every country has economic strata. Pointing it out only in the case of the U.S. is specious.
> 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?
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.
The UK has 1.75x the number of people than California, but has 2.19x the number of homeless people (more than 250,000 as of 2016, compared to California having 114,000 as of 2017).
Does that mean the Central African Republic is the most efficient economy on the planet?
No, because the quality of life is not similar. I think the parent of your post implicitly used that quality of life and poverty rates between the two are (relatively) comparable.
How comparable, exactly? If QoL in California is better in proportion to the workforce disparity then the UK isn’t any more efficient. If it goes the other way then the UK is even more efficient. Assuming they’re the same doesn’t make any sense.
It comes down to how you measure. People doing well have a high quality of life in pretty much the entire United States. People at the bottom, less so. The US does have an awful lot of support for people, but our society is also hostile to poor people and we have awful workplace regulation for low quality jobs.
Yeah, life sucks when you're poor. More so in many of these countries than in the U.S, and less so in a few. You've said nothing. Every country has economic strata. Pointing it out only in the case of the U.S. is specious.
Well no, pointing out that the US strata are unusually and unnecessarily capricious isn't specious.
The US is a rich country and the lack of resources for people at the bottom is more likely to be arbitrary than it is to be contributing to that wealth.
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 acces…
California...and the West Coast of the U.S. is an interesting place in that it's geographically divided from the rest of the country by a couple of major mountain ranges and large deserts. In addition, something like almost 50% of the state is unusable federal land (national parks, military bases, etc.) Despite this, it's one of the major agricultural producers in the world due to it's variety of climate zones and lo…
I looked up the stats on public vs. private land in each state and was totally surprised to see that your 50% figure is correct (actually 52% on that chart I was looking at). That said, much of that land falls into national and state parks, monuments, recreational areas, forests, lakes and reservoirs, all of which make the state a more pleasant place to live and recreate in so I'm perfectly fine with that.
> 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.
The UK has 1.75x the number of people than California, but has 2.19x the number of homeless people (more than 250,000 as of 2016, compared to California having 114,000 as of 2017).
Homeless people don't die off seasonally due to weather in California.
>> Nominal GDP per capita does not, however, reflect differences in the cost of living and the inflation rates of the countries; therefore using a basis of GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) is arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards between different nations. If you live in a roach infested box in California you need to be putting dollars in the bank and have an exit plan to…
You do realize that most of California is not the Bay Area, right?
Also you sound pretty bitter. I never saw a roach when I lived in Mountain View, though my apartment was pretty small.