Vermont makes History

[Ban my account ffs!]

Vermont didn't get to become the second-poorest state in the Northeast for nothing.

Perhaps it should move itself closer to New York City or Boston.

I haven't done very much research on NY, but if you're suggesting they become more like MA, what with our below-average taxes, below-average spending, capped property taxes, and the 9th lowest amount of state and local government employees (as a % of the population), I'd think that'd be a good start.

Vermont didn't get to become the second-poorest state in the Northeast for nothing.

I bet it's the fault of those damn illegal immigrants sneaking through the Canadian border and getting free education and health care.

Vermont is unique in that it has achieved becoming poor without having any minority populations of note (and by "minority populations" I of course mean "Catholics").  They've really made history.

I assume he was suggesting that major metropolitan areas tend to be richer. Vermont not only lacks one of these, but also lacks the suburbs of one (ie, NH has portions of suburban Boston, CT of suburban New York).

It all depends on the measure you're using.  If you use GSP per capita... you get some weird figures.  DC, for example, has the highest GSP per capita while Mississippi is in last.  Vermont is 30th.  Vermont is higher than the states Wormy mentioned.

If you use household income... Vermont is higher than North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas; basically all of the states that are truly rural like Vermont.  Other rural states poorer than vermont based on household income include Maine, Montana, West Virginia, and Mississippi... and include states with major metropolitan areas:  North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan.

So I'd say you were wrong Wormy.  Sorry.  Gross state product is a terrible measure of wealth.  Household income is a better measure despite wide variance in the cost of living.  But even in the region, the average household in Vermont makes more than the average household in New York, Maine, and Pennsylvania... and is only a few spots behind Rhode Island.

So overall, Vermont is one of the richer states in the northeast.

In contrast... New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey are all wealthier.  But Minnesota, California, Colorado, Washington, and Alaska all round out the top as well... and Minnesota, California, and Alaska are hardly low tax, low service states (despite what Sarah Palin may tell you).

I think in the end it comes down to natural resources, homogeneity, workforce participation, and overall worker productivity... not size of government (though regulations do play a role with the exception of natural resource sectors)... that determines overall wealth.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Mississippi isn't poor by any reasonable or objective definition.  Vermont, however, is in fact the second-poorest state in the Northeast.

Goldmined.

I'm glad you admire my comic skills, and Mississippi is still richer than Greece.

No it isn't.

And we don't marry our cousins.

2010 GDP per capita, Greece: $28,100
2010 GDP per capita, Mississippi: $33,000

And wrong stereotype (that's Appalachia)..

Trust me dude. We're much better off than the sh**thole under the name "State of Mississippi".
Sometimes instead of looking numbers on your laptop screen, you must get out and experience the real world.

Mississippi is the birthplace of Ernest Hemingway, also known as the "Father of Capitalism". What is your state known for?

We are the birthplace of lesbianism and the guy who invented the Pap smear.

You should know, you're a professor.

And despite one of the highest rates of smoking in the world and a large number of overweight people... has one of hte longest life expectancies in the world.  Probably because of all the wine, olive oil, and disgusting ocean creatures you people eat.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I agree with you that GDP is faintly absurd (though probably for different reasons), but it only makes the policies look bad if one's chief concern is money. HDI is actually less ridiculous than GDP, since it takes into account at least some of the things (educational and health institutions) that make someplace actually worth living in.

I'm not sure why that would be high for Vermont, then, since they have crappy schools and you don't exactly want to be in urgent need of open heart surgery over there.  I suspect the fact that Vermonters tend to have more healthy lifestyles (and therefore don't need to go to hospitals as often in the first place) is artificially boosting their numbers.  That's a cultural/geographical thing, not really related to government policy.

As a product of Vermont public schools up through fifth grade (private schools after that), I will grant you that the education system has major, major flaws. You may have a point regarding the lifestyle/cultural component (which I'd regard as a more 'real' measure of an area's wellbeing anyway, with government action or inaction being the artificial component by comparison), but remember that a part of that culture, at least nowadays, entails voting for the sort of people who are liable to enact single-payer health care.

This is definitely true.  Minnesota is always in the top 5 (if not the 1st or 2nd) when it comes to overall health.  We almost always place in the top in surveys that measure activity and healthy lifestyles.

At the same time, we often have unusually low rates of pre-natal care (despite one of the lowest rates of infant mortality in the nation) and a middling obesity rate (though we are the lowest in the nation for childhood obesity).

Then again... our public schools are quite good and if you need heart surgery... this is where you come.  (literally... royalty from the Middle East come here for heart surgery.. we're that good ).

We almost got single payer healthcare back in 1991... but Republican Arne Carlson vetoed the bill, instead coming up with MinnesotaCare, which is a subsidized insurance program for the working poor.  That reduced our non-insured rate to the lowest in the nation (though MA has since gone lower).  Unfortunately, the very same party that negotiated MinnesotaCare is trying to dismantle it today.  Only Mark Dayton stands in the way of doing that.