State GDP per capita

[Storebought]

Normally, GDP is a function of population -- the higher the population of a state, the higher its GDP. That's true for both developed and developing economies. The most recent state GDP data strike me, though. Consider the largest states:

List of states by population

List of states by GDP

By Population
1 California    39,512,223    
2 Texas    28,995,881    
3 Florida    21,477,737    
4 New York    19,453,561    
5 Pennsylvania    12,801,989    
6 Illinois    12,671,821

By State GDP (in millions of dollars)
1 California 3,155,224    
2 Texas    1,896,063    
3 New York 1,740,745    
4 Florida    1,100,721    
5 Illinois    901,572
6 Pennsylvania    817,216

CA has a GDP 158 billion higher than TX and FL combined. This, despite TX and FL having a population 10.96 million greater than CA.

TX has a GDP 155 billion higher than NY, but has a population 9.5 million higher.

IL, a state that has been losing population almost the entire decade 2010-2020, still handily outproduces PA.

Even allowing for differences in productivity and economic concentration (FL has a particularly large low productivity service-oriented economy), these results are stark.

[Storebought]

I can make a few explanations why this is the case:

(1) FL punches well below its weight as a retiree-focused state. AZ does as well.

(2) NY is the financial clearing house of the entire US and that distorts its GDP. There is a theory that nation-states with peak GDP per capita are tax havens (Luxembourg, Ireland) if not otherwise oil states (Norway, Qatar).

(3) Chicago is a wealthier city than Philadelphia. IL has higher value added manufacturing than other Rust Belt like of OH and MI despite its population loss.

It also illustrates why CA will never build more houses and why NY will never lower the rent -- it will not suffer economic consequences for doing so.

[Storebought]

Thank you contributors! I don't have the patience to tab correctly
US GDP per capita (50 states + DC ex PR and Territories) in bold:

Table of GDP per capita

District of Columbia  New York  Massachusetts  Connecticut  California  Washington  Delaware  Alaska  North Dakota  New Jersey  Maryland  Illinois  Hawaii  Wyoming  Colorado  Minnesota  Nebraska  US  New Hampshire  Texas  Virginia  Pennsylvania  Iowa  South Dakota  Rhode Island  Ohio  Oregon  Wisconsin  Kansas  Utah  Georgia  Nevada  Louisiana  North Carolina  Indiana  Vermont  Tennessee  Michigan  Missouri  Oklahoma  Florida  Arizona  Maine  New Mexico  Montana  Kentucky  South Carolina  Alabama  Idaho  Arkansas  West Virginia  Mississippi  U.S. Virgin Islands  Guam  Puerto Rico  Northern Mariana Islands  American Samoa

208284 89482 86206 80655 79854 79288 77806 75771 74936 73066 71189 71148 68978 68440 68131 67929 66140 65631 65567 65391 65274 63835 62077 60692 60322 60008 59993 59910 59789 59205 58377 57991 56972 56322 56316 56047 55944 54469 54467 52124 51249 50635 50517 49765 49093 48255 48111 47346 45602 44410 43674 40152 36744 35355 31666 28862 11394

[Storebought]

A lot of what buoys these GDP estimates are big financial services, legal, technology and entertainment industries anchored in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and Silicon Valley.  Very little of this GDP in these cities is being represented in the form of salaries/rents; its valuation is from transactions, inventories, patents and intellectual property rights.

That's a curious comment: "If we ignore the service sectors that generate the most towards GDP in service-oriented economies, then these places would have a low GDP." Should we also ignore the oil and gas contributions of the oil and gas producing states as well, since oil and gas, like finance, is well-known to contribute to GDP "tampering" like I mentioned above?

Besides, it's not like TX lacks multiple huge cities itself. That should be reflected in the economic output of the state (which is why this thread is about GDP, not about personal incomes).