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.

[xelas81]

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  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 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

[Nyvin]

Redid Xelas81's post with color code using 2016 Presidential winner:


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 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 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]

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

[Nyvin]

The geographic area of the Dakotas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wyoming seem to be better off than most  other rural states.   

Alaska, North Dakota, and Wyoming are low population rural states propped up by the fossil fuel industry. 

I guess I'm kinda surprised how low Michigan and Arizona are on the per capita scale.

[Del Tachi]

I don't find these numbers very surprising; GDP is used to value the entirety of goods and services produced in a given geographic area; it generally communicates very little about income, earnings and/or quality-of-life.

For example, despite having a GDP/capita of $208,284 Washington, D.C. has a poverty rate of 16.6% and the highest income inequality in the country. 

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.

If you want to understand which states represent the biggest "markets" for consumer goods/services, its probably best to look at the list of states by total personal income (in millions):

    California    10,188,065
    Texas    5,855,987
    New York    5,412,440
    Florida    4,317,553
    Illinois    2,921,572
    Pennsylvania    2,915,565
    New Jersey    2,455,903
    Ohio    2,302,001
    Massachusetts    2,003,671
    Virginia    1,990,144
    Georgia    1,979,553
    Michigan    1,952,458
    North Carolina    1,939,130
    Washington    1,895,538
    Maryland    1,546,218
    Colorado    1,352,800
    Minnesota    1,305,714
    Arizona    1,288,790
    Tennessee    1,286,166
    Indiana    1,273,569
    Wisconsin    1,211,291
    Missouri    1,182,451
    Connecticut    1,104,449
    South Carolina    900,242
    Louisiana    872,136
    Oregon    863,312
    Alabama    834,440
    Kentucky    765,817
    Oklahoma    737,960
    Iowa    641,243
    Kansas    604,677
    Nevada    604,553
    Utah    593,886
    Arkansas    525,963
    Mississippi    456,407
    Nebraska   413,550
    New Mexico    353,510
    New Hampshire    336,739
    Hawaii 317,773
    Idaho    312,044
    West Virginia    298,473
    Maine    264,920
    Rhode Island    234,116
    District of Columbia    232,503
    Delaware    205,181
    Montana    203,795
    South Dakota    185,804
    Alaska       176,953
    North Dakota    170,483
    Wyoming    141,476
    Vermont    137,436

[AGA]

I don't find these numbers very surprising; GDP is used to value the entirety of goods and services produced in a given geographic area; it generally communicates very little about income, earnings and/or quality-of-life.

Avatar checks out.

[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).

[Del Tachi]

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).

I made no such "curious comment".  GDP is the valuation of all final goods and services in an economy, and I'm not suggesting we change the definition.

I simply responded that I was not surprised by your observation.  Why?  Because a lot of the GDP generated in a state like New York is the value of financial/legal agreements, venture capital, intellectual property, transactions, and other intangible service-sector output.  These industries create a lot of wealth, but don't require an army of employees to maintain - hence the discrepancy between GDP and total population.   

[Tintrlvr]

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).

I made no such "curious comment".  GDP is the valuation of all final goods and services in an economy, and I'm not suggesting we change the definition.

I simply responded that I was not surprised by your observation.  Why?  Because a lot of the GDP generated in a state like New York is the value of financial/legal agreements, venture capital, intellectual property, transactions, and other intangible service-sector output.  These industries create a lot of wealth, but don't require an army of employees to maintain - hence the discrepancy between GDP and total population.   

The list doesn't change that much when you just look at either MHI or PCI, anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income#States_and_territories_ranked_by_per_capita_income

[RINO Tom]

The geographic area of the Dakotas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wyoming seem to be better off than most  other rural states.   

Alaska, North Dakota, and Wyoming are low population rural states propped up by the fossil fuel industry. 

I guess I'm kinda surprised how low Michigan and Arizona are on the per capita scale.

It always surprises me when anyone paints Iowa like a Rust Belt state but rural and or Nebraska like a slightly less Southern Arkansas.  These states have a pretty high quality of life.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I don't find these numbers very surprising; GDP is used to value the entirety of goods and services produced in a given geographic area; it generally communicates very little about income, earnings and/or quality-of-life.

For example, despite having a GDP/capita of $208,284 Washington, D.C. has a poverty rate of 16.6% and the highest income inequality in the country.  

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.

If you want to understand which states represent the biggest "markets" for consumer goods/services, its probably best to look at the list of states by total personal income (in millions):

    California    10,188,065
    Texas    5,855,987
    New York    5,412,440
    Florida    4,317,553
    Illinois    2,921,572
    Pennsylvania    2,915,565
    New Jersey    2,455,903
    Ohio    2,302,001
    Massachusetts    2,003,671
    Virginia    1,990,144
    Georgia    1,979,553
    Michigan    1,952,458
    North Carolina    1,939,130
    Washington    1,895,538
    Maryland    1,546,218
    Colorado    1,352,800
    Minnesota    1,305,714
    Arizona    1,288,790
    Tennessee    1,286,166
    Indiana    1,273,569
    Wisconsin    1,211,291
    Missouri    1,182,451
    Connecticut    1,104,449
    South Carolina    900,242
    Louisiana    872,136
    Oregon    863,312
    Alabama    834,440
    Kentucky    765,817
    Oklahoma    737,960
    Iowa    641,243
    Kansas    604,677
    Nevada    604,553
    Utah    593,886
    Arkansas    525,963
    Mississippi    456,407
    Nebraska   413,550
    New Mexico    353,510
    New Hampshire    336,739
    Hawaii 317,773
    Idaho    312,044
    West Virginia    298,473
    Maine    264,920
    Rhode Island    234,116
    District of Columbia    232,503
    Delaware    205,181
    Montana    203,795
    South Dakota    185,804
    Alaska       176,953
    North Dakota    170,483
    Wyoming    141,476
    Vermont    137,436

Interesting. Still, adjusting this per capita shows some massive variation, with the District of Columbia (33k/person) having more than double the income per capita as Mississippi (15k/person). I made a table below showing each state:

District of Columbia   329441
Connecticut   309778
Massachusetts   288739
New York   278224
New Jersey   276497
California   257846
Maryland   255756
Washington   251545
Alaska   249142
New Hampshire   248249
Wyoming   244447
Illinois   235250
Colorado   234432
Virginia   233160
Minnesota   231525
Pennsylvania   227743
Hawaii   224436
North Dakota   223713
Rhode Island   221425
Vermont   220254
United States   219903
Nebraska   214356
Delaware   210709
South Dakota   210029
Wisconsin   208039
Kansas   207685
Oregon   206006
Iowa   203242
Texas   201959
Florida   201025
Nevada   199234
Maine   197937
Ohio   196936
Michigan   196030
Missouri   193007
Montana   191842
Indiana   189175
Tennessee   188207
Louisiana   187155
Oklahoma   186496
Georgia   186444
Utah   185244
North Carolina   184889
Arizona   179706
South Carolina   174848
Idaho   174613
Arkansas   174287
Kentucky   171385
Alabama   170183
New Mexico   168593
West Virginia   166545
Mississippi   153355

[RINO Tom]

Has anyone ever done this with any type of cost of living/purchasing power included?  Regardless of your personal preference, it is undeniable that a household making $150,000 in an Omaha suburb is living a much wealthier lifestyle with a higher standard of living than a family making $200,000 in the Bay Area ... I would be curious to see a similar "equalizer" in regard to state GDP.  For example, North Dakota does not NEED as a high of a GDP per capita as New York to provide its citizens with relative wealth.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Has anyone ever done this with any type of cost of living/purchasing power included?  Regardless of your personal preference, it is undeniable that a household making $150,000 in an Omaha suburb is living a much wealthier lifestyle with a higher standard of living than a family making $200,000 in the Bay Area ... I would be curious to see a similar "equalizer" in regard to state GDP.  For example, North Dakota does not NEED as a high of a GDP per capita as New York to provide its citizens with relative wealth.

Sure. You just have to divide by a COL index.

COL-adjusted income per person is:
Wyoming: 26570
Illinois: 24454
Nebraska: 23607
Connecticut: 23503
Virginia: 23339
Minnesota: 23315
Washington: 23162
Kansas: 23024
New Jersey: 22983
North Dakota: 22968
Colorado: 22433
Texas: 22192
Iowa: 22188
Pennsylvania: 22068
United States: 21990
District of Columbia: 21674
Indiana: 21644
Michigan: 21447
Ohio: 21221
Oklahoma: 21216
Missouri: 21209
New Hampshire: 21145
Wisconsin: 21120
Tennessee: 21028
South Dakota: 20732
Delaware: 20576
Maryland: 20575
New York: 20548
Georgia: 20488
Florida: 20285
Louisiana: 19910
Utah: 19897
North Carolina: 19710
Massachusetts: 19682
Arkansas: 19582
Alabama: 19036
Kentucky: 18979
California: 18931
Montana: 18882
Idaho: 18877
Nevada: 18831
Alaska: 18761
Arizona: 18374
Rhode Island: 18269
Mississippi: 17978
New Mexico: 17840
Maine: 17783
Vermont: 17748
South Carolina: 17380
West Virginia: 17029
Oregon: 15773
Hawaii: 11641

COL-adjusted GDP per person is:
District of Columbia: 137029
North Dakota: 76936
Delaware: 75982
Wyoming: 74391
Illinois: 73958
Washington: 73009
Nebraska: 72841
Texas: 71858
Minnesota: 68408
Iowa: 67770
Kansas: 66285
New York: 66087
Virginia: 65339
Colorado: 65197
Ohio: 64664
Indiana: 64435
Georgia: 64151
Utah: 63593
United States: 62641
Tennessee: 62507
Pennsylvania: 61856
Connecticut: 61195
Wisconsin: 60822
New Jersey: 60736
Louisiana: 60609
North Carolina: 60045
South Dakota: 59913
Michigan: 59594
Oklahoma: 59299
Massachusetts: 58763
California: 58630
Missouri:  57279
Maryland: 57272
Alaska: 57056
New Hampshire: 55849
Nevada: 54812
Kentucky: 53439
Alabama: 52960
New Mexico: 52661
Arizona: 51774
Florida: 51714
Arkansas: 49899
Rhode Island: 49771
Idaho: 49299
Montana: 48320
South Carolina: 47824
Mississippi: 47072
Oregon: 45936
Maine: 45388
Vermont: 45163
West Virginia: 44656
Hawaii: 35777

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

interesting to see TX so high on this. Life is cheap in Texas though...