Q4 2023 GDP, 50 States & DC

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

Texas currently sits behind France as the World's 8th largest economy.

When Texas gets to 7th, technically that gives us 3 spots within the G7. The US might need its own international group if we have other states getting into the top 10, and that's kind of unfair we have two states in the top ten lol.

[Wigs]

USA makes up only 4% (~4.2% current estimate of 8.1 Billion) of the world's population but around 26% of the world's economy.

And the world runs on US dollars.
The rest of the world is certainly not destitute and innovation exists in many countries but USA just has and will continue to have an oversized influence on practically everything given its contribution to the world economy.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

GDP Q4 2023
CA--$3,944,376
TX--$2,636,423
NY--$2,189,391
FL--$1,622,626
IL--$1,102,071
PA--$987,637

The world only has 19 countries with over $1 Trillion economies. USA has 5 soon to be 6 States with economies that large.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's the same thing, measuring local buying power across jurisdictions, whether USD or kumquats.

It is twice as complex because kumquats are a product that you purchase. In the US, all kumquats are priced in USD. When you travel across borders, they are priced in different currencies, which means the price is also impacted by foreign exchange rates. Because of this, prices across borders/currencies is significantly more complex than within the same country.

That said, I'm done arguing about this.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

It is twice as complex because kumquats are a product that you purchase. In the US, all kumquats are priced in USD. When you travel across borders, they are priced in different currencies, which means the price is also impacted by foreign exchange rates. Because of this, prices across borders/currencies is significantly more complex than within the same country.

That said, I'm done arguing about this.

And that's why we cannot assume a person living in a shack in West Virginia (or a homeless in New York) that makes US$ 1,000 a month is "richer" than a person making R$ 5,000 (US$ 1,000 on today's rate) that will afford a very comfortable middle class lifestyle down here in São Paulo (and much more on smaller cities) or that "West Virginia is richer than Germany".

That's plain obvious.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Released Friday, March 29, 2024

Not bad USA.

Perusing through nominal growth rates for 2023 show rather solid growth for the year--Florida posted peak China-esque growth last year, a whopping+9.8%! for 2023, Washington state also posted big y-o-y numbers(+8.6%)---as far as the 2 largest state economies, TX(+6.7%) and CA(+6.1%) are much closer as far as GDP growth then what I thought would be the case. California has likely surpassed $4T this current quarter-The Golden State just refuses to die I guess

In any event...

GDP Q4 2023
CA--$3,944,376
TX--$2,636,423
NY--$2,189,391
FL--$1,622,626
IL--$1,102,071
PA--$987,637
OH--$890,207
GA--$821,989
WA--$820,074
NJ--$817,354
NC--$783,202
MA--$750,435
VA--$722,502
MI--$670,690
TN--$534,217
CO--$532,489
MD--$521,159
AZ--$521,027
IN--$507,424
MN--$480,190
MO--$430,369
WI--$422,896
CT--$347,560
SC--$330,779
OR--$322,887
LA--$315,827
AL--$306,820
KY--$283,273
UT--$279,568
OK--$259,544
IA--$251,481
NV--$247,105
KS--$230,727
NE--$180,930
AR--$178,238
DC--$178,136
MS--$148,242
NM--$133,489
ID--$122,047
NH--$113,589
HI--$109,850
WV--$101,685
DE--$95,414
ME--$93,145
RI--$79,040
ND--$74,914
SD--$73,262
MT--$72,037
AK--$68,712
WY--$51,210
VT--$44,005

US--$27,956,998

Page 9 of this PDF:
https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/fi...4q23-a2023.pdf

God, America is insane.

California is comparable to Japan (40 million vs 120 million) and Vermont is comparable to Bahrain or Latvia.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

It is twice as complex because kumquats are a product that you purchase. In the US, all kumquats are priced in USD. When you travel across borders, they are priced in different currencies, which means the price is also impacted by foreign exchange rates. Because of this, prices across borders/currencies is significantly more complex than within the same country.

That said, I'm done arguing about this.

This might depend on whether the kumquat is imported or produced domestically. Imported kumquats will likely be priced in USD and converted to local currency, even if they aren't imported from the United States. If we're talking about a kumquat produced in Vietnam and imported to Brazil, fluctuations in the value of the US dollar could affect the price of a kumquat to consumers in Brazil even though they are buying them from Vietnam.

However, I do have a strong aversion to international comparisons of income based on the US dollar. That comparison is highly subject to fluctuations in exchange rates, how much of consumption is produced locally, etc., and doesn't necessarily mean lower standard of living. For instance, Switzerland has had incomes that are as high as, and sometimes higher than, the United States when compared in US dollars, but Switzerland has to import virtually everything that they consume. The Swiss economy is far more susceptible to global price shocks than are countries that produce goods (US, China, EU, etc), and also countries whose currency is a global reserve (US, China, EU). Germany has nowhere near the same type of vulnerabilities, even if their average incomes are smaller when compared to Swiss income in US dollars.

[MolsonExport]

I am not disputing the numbers. But it is rare to see in Northern Europe (and Canada) the level and pervasiveness of the sort of grinding poverty that I have seen in the Deep South, in Appalachia, and even in Michigan, Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Notwithstanding the far lower per capita figures of most Northern European countries (and Canada). We tend to have (far) fewer mega rich, but also far fewer down-and-out poor.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I am not disputing the numbers. But it is rare to see in Northern Europe (and Canada) the level and pervasiveness of the sort of grinding poverty that I have seen in the Deep South, in Appalachia, and even in Michigan, Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Notwithstanding the far lower per capita figures of most Northern European countries (and Canada). We tend to have (far) fewer mega rich, but also far fewer down-and-out poor.

This. The US has a massive wealth class and a massive poverty class which is unique among developed countries and something you're apt to see in developing countries. There are people shitting in gold toilets in Moscow while a sizable percentage of the population are still using outhouses.

Even though the US economy is humming along, it is not 'humming along' for everyone.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I am not disputing the numbers. But it is rare to see in Northern Europe (and Canada) the level and pervasiveness of the sort of grinding poverty that I have seen in the Deep South, in Appalachia, and even in Michigan, Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Notwithstanding the far lower per capita figures of most Northern European countries (and Canada). We tend to have (far) fewer mega rich, but also far fewer down-and-out poor.

To be fair. Poor whites in America vote for trickle down and they got it.

The deep south is a different story altogether.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

God, America is insane.

California is comparable to Japan (40 million vs 120 million) and Vermont is comparable to Bahrain or Latvia.

Talking population, Canada and California are close at 38-39 million.
Canada has a 2.something trillion GDP.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I am not disputing the numbers. But it is rare to see in Northern Europe (and Canada) the level and pervasiveness of the sort of grinding poverty that I have seen in the Deep South, in Appalachia, and even in Michigan, Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

Your comment insinuates that the governments of other countries are actively doing things that would, with absolute certainty, motivate similar results if similar policies were enacted in the United States.

A recent episode of the Freakonomics podcast reported on how the children of immigrants statistically outperform groups in the United States that have been poor for 100+ years. Part of it is geography, since immigrants typically move to cities and not remote areas, but the rest is their work and moral culture. It was one of those episodes that you're pretty surprised that NPR agreed to air (along with the Roland Fryer episode), since it was in complete opposition to the rest of NPR's "reporting".

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Yuri

No, they don't. Just look the * on their reports. It comes straight from the stats offices. It's an incredibly complex job to collect data from every single good produced, a service provided in a country.

Yuri, I regularly read such reports from the primary sources as part of my job; the * in these reports generally don't come straight from the state offices. Ipsos, Intage, Kantar, the IMF . . . they use a bucket of indicators that can be independently verified as proxies when the primary source isn't reliable. No one in the OECD has taken official PRC economic numbers at face value for decades at this point, for example. Instead, we use third-party verifiables like freight volume, passenger travel, electricity output and consumption, construction indicators, purchasing managers indexes, and financial indicators like renminbi supply and the state of the SHCOMP.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Yuri, I regularly read such reports from the primary sources as part of my job; the * in these reports generally don't come straight from the state offices. Ipsos, Intage, Kantar, the IMF . . . they use a bucket of indicators that can be independently verified as proxies when the primary source isn't reliable. No one in the OECD has taken official PRC economic numbers at face value for decades at this point, for example. Instead, we use third-party verifiables like freight volume, passenger travel, electricity output and consumption, construction indicators, purchasing managers indexes, and financial indicators like renminbi supply and the state of the SHCOMP.

Most offices are deemed reliable anyway and I don't think IMF uses an alternative GDP for China on their official list. It's pretty much the same number provided by Chinese and specially as multilateral organization they just can't dismiss the 2nd most important country in the world as "liars" on their most important report.

----------------------

Regarding Canada vs California discussion, here the comparison between Canada vs US in selected years:

2000: 24k vs 36k
2012: 52k vs 50k
2019: 46k vs 65k
2023: 53k vs 80k

So the US was 1/3 "richer" than Canada, than all the sudden Canada became "richer" than the US and only few years ahead the US had become 1/3 "richer" again. That shows how widely currency exchanges variations can be, even in very similar countries with deeply intertwined economies.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I am not disputing the numbers. But it is rare to see in Northern Europe (and Canada) the level and pervasiveness of the sort of grinding poverty that I have seen in the Deep South, in Appalachia, and even in Michigan, Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Notwithstanding the far lower per capita figures of most Northern European countries (and Canada). We tend to have (far) fewer mega rich, but also far fewer down-and-out poor.

I think this is true, but you're somewhat conflating monetary means with overall health/wellness. The U.S. has a very f--ked up underclass that lives much worse than poorer households elsewhere. A neighborhood in Mexico or Bulgaria where household incomes average 20k will generally be much healthier/more put together than one in the U.S. where household incomes average 40k. But the U.S. one will still have (relatively) large paychecks, big vehicles, large living spaces, lots of stuff/junk, etc.

Many of my German relatives live like monks compared to Americans. They have healthy, fulfilling lives. But living in a Commieblock one bedroom, taking the bus everywhere and all your stuff fitting in a few suitcases is generally an alien lifestyle here.

It's crass, but they have Honey Boo Boo income ranges with Coastal Elitist cultural norms. They eat fresh, organic food, exercise, are secular, well-read and highly educated. They dress well (but never expensively) they have good health and know more about the world than most. They'll never have a 50k vehicle, the latest gadgets or a big home.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think this is true, but you're somewhat conflating monetary means with overall health/wellness. The U.S. has a very f--ked up underclass that lives much worse than poorer households elsewhere. A neighborhood in Mexico or Bulgaria where household incomes average 20k will generally be much healthier/more put together than one in the U.S. where household incomes average 40k. But the U.S. one will still have (relatively) large paychecks, big vehicles, large living spaces, lots of stuff/junk, etc.

I highly doubt a household making US$ 20,000 in Mexico is poorer than one making US$ 40,000 in the US. US$ 20,000 in Mexico would be like US$ 80,000 or so in the US. There are plenty of videos on YouTube these days of Americans moving to Mexico City and getting amazing apartments for a fraction of cost they get back in the US.

A more practical example, R$ 5,000 will definitely get you a much better apartment in São Paulo than US$ 5,000 in New York. R$ 5 = US$ 1.

Currency exchanges and power purchase matter. A lot.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I highly doubt a household making US$ 20,000 in Mexico is poorer than one making US$ 40,000 in the US.

By definition, a household making x is monetarily poorer than a household making 2x.

Originally Posted by Yuri

There are plenty of videos on YouTube these days of Americans moving to Mexico City and getting amazing apartments for a fraction of cost they get back in the US.

Ok? Mexico City certainly isn't cheap and I have no idea what a Youtube video has to do with the conversation. And if Americans are moving to Mexico it obviously makes Mexicans poorer by PPP.

Unless you're moving from NYC or SF you won't pay less for an apples-apples apartment, and you forgot about all the rest (job, healthcare, services, air quality).

My relatives live in an upper middle class area (definitely not rich, and no Americans anywhere; more like university professors, doctors and civil servants) and their simple 2 bed apartment (no elevator, no air conditioning, no amenities, no open space, concrete block from the 1970's) can be sold for around 400k USD. Such an apartment would be near-worthless in much of the U.S. But in Mexico City it's so expensive that all the apartments are inherited, as no one has the incomes to buy one.

In NYC, the poor live in permanently subsidized housing, paying almost nothing. NYCHA housing is almost free. In Mexico City, the poor live in illegal shantytowns 2 hours from anything, with no reliable water, even.

Originally Posted by Yuri

R$ 5,000 will definitely get you a much better apartment in São Paulo than US$ 5,000 in New York. R$ 5 = US$ 1.

I have no idea what things currently cost in SP, but this is a silly comparison. SP has very low incomes. They don't have garbage men making 150k. You know what an investment banking analyst or software engineer makes? And neither NYC nor SP are representative of their countries.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Crawford

By definition, a household making x is monetarily poorer than a household making 2x.

Yes, but that's not a very useful definition of "poor." What's more important is the amount of disposable income after necessities (food, housing, transportation, healthcare, retirement savings) and what can be bought with it. Sure, there are items that cost the same everywhere, and those may be more unaffordable (like, a nice camera). But even still, as a random example, if you look at digital camera revenues by country (from https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo...l-comparison):


You'll find that the US is nowhere near the top per capital for digital cameras, which are a luxury good. Ok, maybe Americans are so productive (i.e. working too hard) that they don't have time for hobbies, or suck at taking pictures. Or maybe Americans don't actually have as much disposable income at other places...

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

By definition, a household making x is monetarily poorer than a household making 2x.

Monetary on USD? This Mexican household will definitely have a much wealthier lifestyle, from housing to utilities, goods and services in general as you can buy tons of stuff in Mexico with US$ 20,000 on the way you cannot do it in the US.

You go to Mexico. You know that. You know how much a house cost there, rent or even a visit to a nice restaurant. And that's Mexico with a quite dollarized economy very exposed to the US. In a self-sufficient, inward looking, far away country like Brazil, such differences are even more pronounced.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Ok? Mexico City certainly isn't cheap and I have no idea what a Youtube video has to do with the conversation. And if Americans are moving to Mexico it obviously makes Mexicans poorer by PPP.

Unless you're moving from NYC or SF you won't pay less for an apples-apples apartment, and you forgot about all the rest (job, healthcare, services, air quality).

My relatives live in an upper middle class area (definitely not rich, and no Americans anywhere; more like university professors, doctors and civil servants) and their simple 2 bed apartment (no elevator, no air conditioning, no amenities, no open space, concrete block from the 1970's) can be sold for around 400k USD. Such an apartment would be near-worthless in much of the U.S. But in Mexico City it's so expensive that all the apartments are inherited, as no one has the incomes to buy one.

In NYC, the poor live in permanently subsidized housing, paying almost nothing. NYCHA housing is almost free. In Mexico City, the poor live in illegal shantytowns 2 hours from anything, with no reliable water, even.

No elevator?! Such apartment would cost USD 100k in an upmarket neighbourhood in São Paulo.

And what you really mean by "worthless in much of the US"? How much such apartment would cost in New York and San Francisco?

Again, power purchase exists.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I have no idea what things currently cost in SP, but this is a silly comparison. SP has very low incomes. They don't have garbage men making 150k. You know what an investment banking analyst or software engineer makes? And neither NYC nor SP are representative of their countries.

You are the one making nonsensical comparisons between Appalachia and Germany.

You have Google: you keep saying Americans have all they want and I'm saying R$ 5,000 get a much better space for living than US$ 5,000 in New York despite the R$ 5 = US$ 1 exchange.

A garbage men makes US$ 150,000 in New York? That's R$ 750,000 in Brazil (in fact, it's about the public sector ceilling, the presidential wage: Lula makes around that). That's a rich person income, with definitely more than 1 million dollars in savings (an actual millionaire), that travel several times a year abroad staying on luxury hotels and have access to the best medical treatments in the world.

This garbage man goes to Europe several times a year or live a luxury house? Do garbage men in New York are "richer" than this hypothetical person in Brazil?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I have no idea what things currently cost in SP, but this is a silly comparison. SP has very low incomes. They don't have garbage men making 150k. You know what an investment banking analyst or software engineer makes? And neither NYC nor SP are representative of their countries.

Are you saying that garbage men in NYC live a higher standard relative to NYC than garbage men in São Paulo do in their own city? I strongly suspect that's not true, and possibly the opposite.