<p>
[quote]
Its hard to understand that population alone can be the determinant factor in an economy. Ive never suggested that population doesnt make a difference. (Refer to: You fail to recognize that population alone does not necessarily mean a large, powerful economy.) In your arguments, you have focused primarily on population size, yet no mentioning of the varied resources that contribute to an economy were mentioned. Certainly having a large population has its advantages. A large pool of workers to draw from is one of them. Yet, population alone does not mean a strong economy. Hence, the references to India and Singapore. Singapore, as a small island, lacks a large population, yet it has a powerful economy (one of the Asian Tigers) because of its location as a busy port, tourism, and financial institutions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, eiffelguy. You could never say that population alone is the determinant factor in an economy, and your illustration with India and Singapore certainly shows that clearly. I am in complete agreement with you. However, in this dicussion, we are not comparing third-world countries to California, and that is where I see the illustration become irrelevant. In the United States, the median income is $65,000 p.a. The state with the highest median income is Connecticut at $86,000 and the state with the lowest is New Mexico at $46,000. Granted, the disparity is quite large, but the resultant median of highest and lowest is almost exactly the national median.</p>
<p>Why do I go into this? To argue that while there are certainly disparities of wealth within the United States, people more-or-less fall within a range of wealth that, even at their relative lowest is still higher in comparison to almost all other countries. While it is harder to find data on median income in foreign countries (vs per-capita), I would expect that New Mexico's would still be at least comparable to Japan/Germany/UK/France.</p>
<p>So, for me - arguing that California is the wealthiest state because of some inherent attributes or benefits that no other state can match, just doesn't hold water. There are a large number of states with higher per-capita incomes (or median incomes, whichever) that do not have comparable economies in sheer size because they are smaller and have less population. As you go West, county sizes and state sizes increase exponentially. So, I disagree with the suggestion that California is so much wealthier than other parts of the country. This is not true (as I've already shown croberts - in terms of median income, the figure which he wishes to use, CA is average at best). If we want to compare CA with the Northeast, I say again - does anyone actually think that CA beats the Northeast hands-down in terms of wealth? Isn't is just dumb to compare small states like Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, etc. to California....when they make up a region that is comparable to California in size and population? Why are the borders that form California so significant in proving that there is something exceptional about the wealth found inside when it is only comparable to the American average? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Really? Does New York have farming lands to accompany its financial institutions? Does Iowa possess a large IT industry to go along with its agricultural economy? Realistically speaking, most states rely primarily smaller portions of the economy. Surely there are accompaniments: New York has its tourism, etc. but compared to a state like California it simply cannot manage an agricultural, manufacturing/industrial, financial, etc. factor. Because of its unique location on the west coast, Los Angeles has the busiest port in the United States, for example, yet it has a strong agricultural economy in central California. It has technology in Silicon Valley, while some financial institutions also call California home. These are just a few of the varied sources that make California wealthy, not just its population. Perhaps using one was too narrow, and an error on my part. But the points are clear: California has a diversified economy compared to most states.</p>
<p>On a per-capita basis, using your data, California does not fall number 1. And this is due to <gasp> the large population. So in essence, if an economy were measured on a per-capita basis (which should be used with other statistical figures, such as GDP when looking at international economies), having a large population would be hurtful since it lowers the wealth per person. So in an odd paradox, having a large population helps and hurts when it comes to measuring economic power.
[/quote]
</gasp></p>
<p>A great number of states have a diversified economy - certainly in the Northeast (which is what I know best outside of California). I cannot see how California has such a more greatly diversified economy than other areas of the country (though, I do see your point and am sure that it does apply in a number of states). </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, not necessarily. Having a large population that has taxable income means more taxes, not having more people in general. It is possible to have a small population, that population can be in the top .5% of the nations income compared to a large population where the income falls below the poverty line. It is an extreme example, but it makes clear that a larger population does not mean more taxes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In this case, though, it does - does it not? You speak in hypotheticals that - as far as I know - don't exist.</p>