[OC] California is the world's 5th largest economy. Here are the top 5.
By - JPAnalyst
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/JPAnalyst!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/o0dyts/oc_california_is_the_worlds_5th_largest_economy/h1uee7c/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"JPAnalyst"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
[Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7)
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
Assume the US economy bar includes Cali?
Yes. California is 14% of that total.
Then who is the 5th?
If you take California off the list, I’m guessing it’d be France, the UK, or Korea. Not sure but I vaguely remember seeing France up high on these graphs a few years back
Edit: not Korea
Edit 2: Electric Boogaloo: India is 5th if you don’t count California, and that’s judging by Nominal GDP [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal))
The Wikipedia article you linked says that the UK is 5th, not India.
They probably looked a different table... for 2021 estimated UK is fifth, and India is sixth, but for 2019 India was fifth and UK was sixth. Which being said, estimates are what they are and it still being 2021 and India dealing with Covid related matters who knows what the end of year figures will be like.
It makes sense they looked at 2019, as the graphic given from OP was from 2019 data.
The UK was 5th, and then we voted to impose economic sanctions on ourselves
At least they are “our sovereign economic sanctions!”
On the bright side, Covid-19 set in just as the consequences were about to show, so the Tories can just blame the 'rona and no lessons will be learnt!
The Uk and India are very close in size (of economy), India will be 5 very soon and might as well already be
Iirc India already was, but UK may overtake again very soon. UK, France and India have almost same GDP so those three positions are constantly changing
The UK and India are neck and neck. I think the UK recently took the 5th spot again.
US w/o California = 18.3 (still 1st)
Just to clarify.
In 2019 it was India, followed by UK, France, Italy. Brazil, and Canada to round out the top 10.
Britain has recently taken 5th place. Them, France and India bounce between 5-7th largest GDP quite frequently
California... if he were to have excluded california from the US it doesn't change the fact that the US is #1 and Cali is #5.
How much of the US's growth does California account for?
Hello, fellow Californian.
I love and live in beautiful Monterey, California
Born in Texas, met my wife 31 years ago while stationed at the former Ft. Ord (now CSUMB)
The only other 2 places I'd move to are Costa Rica or the Big Island of Hawaii
I think it would've been good to do the US as a stacked bar of Cali and then the rest of the US for that bar, to make explicit (and allow for an easier comparison of rest of US to Cali, and how the rest of the US lines up to other countries), but otherwise this is a good visual.
Given Cali has a bigger increase since 2015 than US, does this mean the rest of the US decreased in size?
Why is California's economy represented twice? Shouldn't it be deducted from the US total for a more accurate representation?
Then it wouldn't be the US, it would be "US minus CA". I'd rather just see CA red **inside** of the US bar personally. So as to not cause confusion.
I like that solution.
And put it at the top of the bar, so it's easier to compare US without Cali vs the rest.
Yes! Love it! Thank you.
But take Cali out of the US bar and the pic is the same minus a shorter bar on the left
Yea, it's wrong to have cali as part of US and on there, should be taken outUS total if it isn't already.
Or combined them with the color difference
Yes, that would be much better.
It would almost be beautiful data
Having said that, the ranking wouldn’t change, because at 18.3, the US would still be #1 (someone check my math if I’m wrong)
21.4 - 3.1 = 18.3.
Yup, checks out
It sounds like you are trying to apply some sort of rule of thumb.
In this case, if you exlude Cali from the US, that would be an actual misrepresentation of the US on the graph relative to the other countries.
Why is it wrong. It still represents gdp of us. You could relable the bar and out us excluding califronie but it is accurate, although possibly misleading, in its current form
No, it isn’t. California is a part of the US so listing the total US and California in the same graph isn’t misleading.
It would be like if I listed the weight of my car and the weight of the bumper on my car. Why would you expect me to list the weight of the car minus the bumper just because the bumper weight is spiked out?
Why are people having this argument, the US is still biggest even without CA
It's just showing the hypothetical position. It's fine either way.
it isn't wrong to have it included....it is part of the country.
By my calculations, California GDP will exceed US GDP in the year 2311. Be prepared.
Attention all planets of the solar federation
We have assumed control
you know it’s going to be a good day when you spot a 2112 reference out in the wild
That would be great.
This may be an unopular opinion but facts aside, I just see a chart.
I don’t think this is a beautiful display of data.
Yeah this is just /r/data instead of /r/dataisbeautiful
That's been the whole sub for a long time.
Can't remember the last time I saw actually beautiful data. Usually it's just some random facts in a simple graph which you could make in five minutes.
Same with r/MapPorn though. So many UGLY maps.
Same with every single subreddit that routinely hits r/all. The “interesting” subs are frequently uninteresting (at least “mildly-“ owns it), the humor subs are rarely funny, r/nextfuckinglevel often promotes pretty standard things, r/pics is more about stories and clickbait, clever-comebacks and word-murder are rarely impressive, r/unpopularopinions just restates what the hivemind already believes...
Of course, this is just my opinion of those subs and some may feel differently (in fact, the upvotes could suggest otherwise). My hypothesis is that people who mainly lurk/browse r/all care less about appropriate subreddit designations and more about the agreeableness of the content they are seeing. It creates a feedback loop where people post stuff that has a better chance of reaching r/all and thus a better chance of raking in those generalized upvotes.
The lack of active moderation in a lot of subs contributes to this. I suspect mods are willing to let standards sink a bit if it attracts more attention to their community.
Call me a pessimist, but I feel that, as Reddit grows, it is slowly sliding towards homogeneity. It’s like any other feed-based social media site: just a stream of barely differentiated content designed to garner general approbation.
/r/unpopularopinion is a collection of posts from people that are incapable of asking themselves "but why is this unpopular?" I'm convinced it's due to age.
The sub is all very popular viewpoints or wildly idiotic viewpoints.
It's mostly people who want to farm Not because they don't kno better.
Same with every second sub.
Just a few days ago, they had a video of a gorilla behaving...like a gorilla.
Interesting as fuck!
Next fucking level gorilla, right there!
...I hate it so much.
>the upvotes could suggest otherwise
I would say that once a post hits /r/all it doesn't matter what sub it comes from as no one voting on it cares.
The problem is exactly as you describe - lack of moderation.
So that major sport pass location wasn’t beautiful the other day?
Must've missed it, link?
I feel like its either regular data, or data presented in such a eccentric "beautiful" way that you cant understand the data
I don't know why, but I think this is my breaking point. There are enough other subs to take up my time.
Do you have any to suggest lol? My feed is so stagnant these days.
What are your interests? I've found a lot of fun out of subreddits for my favorite tv shows, bands and hobbies. There's really a subreddit for everything, or at least something adjacent.
Most subs are like that now although I think there are more quality posts now than there were six years ago. Along with that slight uptick in quality posts came a huge increase in low effort or shit posts.
Very little of the posts on this subreddit are beautiful.
Unfortunately this subreddit followed the typical Reddit pattern, being that once a subreddit gets big enough it just turns generic and doesn’t follow what the subreddit was supposed to be. At least this subreddit still focuses around data and is not a generic image board like the rest, but it’s not what it used to be.
When a subreddit has a lot of readers, a lot of people don't look at what subreddit the post is in when it pops up on their feed and / or are only moderately interested in the "core" of the subreddit.
Therefore interesting / relatable post will be upvoted more than post that follow the spirit of the sub.
The way to keep post to the spirit of the sub would be to enforce them through mods, but with the subreddit rules don't force the data to be beautiful
r/All shouldn’t exist tbh. This way we could keep a subreddit to what it’s supposed to be without being overrun by users who just want to see random stuff that’s interesting.
Or disallow upvoting/downvoting directly on r/all... but that would hurt ENGAGEMENT.
>This may be an unopular opinion but facts aside, I just see a chart.
>I don’t think this is a beautiful display of data.
I agree with you. I don't even think it's done that well. California should be a colored section of the US chart for reference.
Not that beautiful at all and there are better ways to tell this story than this simple bar chart.
It’s a monstruosity of data display. It raises so many questions. Is Cali’s economy also included in the US? Is it really the 5th greatest economy then? Wouldn’t it be lower if you also represented China’s (for example) regions as separate additional economies? And it’s also not a beautiful representation, just bland.
This sub is for actual beautiful display of data, but every big sub slowly moves towards r/mildlyinteresting
According to Wikipedia, the top 3 national subdivisions by GDP are California, Texas, and New York.
China's Guangdong is #4. The next highest of other countries are Tokyo (#8), Île-de-France (#11; where Paris is), North Rhine-Westphalia (#13; Germany), and Seoul (#14).
That's why r/mildlyinteresting is my favorite sub, it never fails to deliver. I hate subs like r/ThatsInsane because almost nothing in that sub is really insane. But a lot of times, I'll see a post in my feed, think to myself "that's whelming", only to check the sub and realize with a content nod that it's r/mildlyinteresting.
you just wanted to say "whelming".
Wikipedia lists California as the largest subnational jurisdiction by GDP nominal. Guangdong Province is 4th, after Cali, Texas and New York. By PPP, CA is still 1st, but Guangdong moves to 2nd and Texas and NY fall to 4th and 5th, respectively.
Welcome to Reddit, where every top subreddit is just ambiguous enough to crosspost to another top subreddit
This is top 5 laziest post I’ve seen reach this many upvotes on this sub
Wonder what the GDP for NY is.
About $1.4 last year.
That’s a small order of french fries from mcdonalds
Movin up in the world!
California was 2.7 last year. The data they are using is based on 2018. NY's was 1.75 in 2018
Those some unproductive people
The Northeast US is same size as California and is ~20% of US GDP(Source Wikipedia)
The northeast also has a very high population density. California's population is concentrated in the SF Bay Area, Central Valley, LA, and San Diego regions. Otherwise, the state is surprisingly low density.
Light pollution is a useful way to visualise this as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/khmny4/light_pollution_map_of_the_contiguous_usa/
And those high population density cities produce almost all of that gdp number. The northeastern United States including Pennsylvania and north has 17 percent of the US population and 23% of US gdp. California has about 12% of population and 14.8% of gdp. It’s roughly proportional. The real question is why red states are such shit holes on a gdp per capita rate.
I would assume at one point NY was easily 1st, but I think over the past 10 years the population and GDP has been decreasing largely due to tax avoidance. I know a lot of the big financial institutions in NYC realized they can just move most of their offices to even North NJ and gain a huge tax benefit. Jersey City is full of them.
It would be helpful to see the couple nations after California for perspective.
how is this r/dataisbeautiful ? Its a bar chart of 5 things in grey and red... I do appreciate that it is clear and concise at least.
Data is beautiful on the inside
Its not clear and concise. California is counted twice. As part of the US and by itself.
Take California out of the US (it would still be 1st). Then the claim would be more accurate with the data presented.
What do you mean? This subreddit is supposed to be my substitute for TIL lacking pictures! /s
not ugly just not beautiful
omg bar chart so beautiful
look at that subtle off-red coloring... the tasteful thickness of it...
more like r/mildlyinteresting this isn’t beautiful lol
Schrodinger‘s California is both falling into the Pacific ocean and flourishing.
California has the highest and lowest point in the contiguous us.
And they're only 85 miles apart!
Not that this chart is doing this, but in general, comparing California to any single other state is a little uninteresting, since California is such a huge state. A more interesting comparison is between other similarly-sized regions.
The Midwest states (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan) have a total population of 46 million and a total GDP of $2.6 trillion.
The Southern states of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi have a total population of 39 million and a total GDP of $2 trillion.
The Northeast states of New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts have a total population of 39 million and a total GDP of $3.1 trillion.
Compare that with California's population of 40 million and GDP of $3.1 trillion. The Northeast is the only one that compares (with New York state bearing the majority of that productivity), while the Midwest is in a respectable 3rd place, and the South clearly losing.
Where does Texas / any other states you’d include with them come in?
Honestly, I just googled all the numbers and added them together. If you wanted to do, say, a Texas-Oklahoma-Arkansas-Louisiana corridor and post it, I'd be super interested to see how it compares.
Per a quick Google search, Texas + Oklahoma + Arkansas + Louisiana population and GDP are:
29 + 0.64 + 3.02 + 4.65 = 37.31 million people
1.76 + 0.197 + 0.131 + 0.240 = 2.328 trillion USD
These are based on 2019 data.
So the Midwest is actually bigger GDP wise compared to the South? I would never have guessed that.
The Midwest has more people so the GDP should be higher. Also keep in mind the entire south isn’t bunched together by the last guys math. It doesn’t include Tennessee, the Carolinas, and some other states
If you added Tennessee + North Carolina + South Carolina, the numbers would be:
37.31 + 6.83 + 10.49 + 5.15 = 59.78 million people
2.328 + 0.377 + 0.592 + 0.248 = 3.545 trillion USD
This represents 51.3% more people than California and a 14.7% higher GDP
California is 4th for gdp per capita. If you include DC. It’s $400 off from .3rd.
19. New Hampshire
20. USA (general)
There 6 Midwest and southern states together are in the T20
The majority of Northeast states have really high gdp per capita compared to the rest of the country. As of 2018, the ones in the top half of all states are: 1. Massachusetts ($65,545), 2. New York ($64,579), 3. Connecticut ($64,511), 5. Delaware ($63,664), 9. New Jersey ($57,084), 11. Maryland ($55,404), 17. New Hampshire ($51,794), 20. Pennsylvania ($50,997), 24. Rhode Island ($47,639). The I95 corridor really punches above its weight. I got the numbers from [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP_per_capita) if anyone wants to look at every state.
Plus the best hospitals and universities.
A good region to work in, get educated in, and get sick in.
Chicago and Detroit actually have very highly regarded hospitals and universities as well.
Not to mention the Texas healthcare system, which pumps put a ton of research.
The Northeast had quite the head start on California tho!
How is this data beautiful?
What does the list look like if it's GDP per capita? I'm guessing that China would fall way down the list. The US too, but not quite as far. Would Japan be on the top then?
It would be an interesting dataset.
For 2019 (same year as the graph data), GDP per capita according to World Bank would be:
Japan used to be far ahead of the US, but its lost decades have meant its GDP (in USD terms) has remained relatively static since the 90s. Crazy to think about, but before its crash Japan was almost the same share of global GDP as China is now!
Paul Krugman actually has an interesting chart about this
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/opinion/economic-nationalism-biden-trump-trade.html - chart in that article.
Japans GDP per working age population has more or less kept up with the US since 1990 - what has happened is their aging and shrinking population has started to limit GDP per capita.
Which would be more of a problem with the U.S. but immigrant labor props us up. Which is why supposedly serious immigration reform won't happen even with Republican control, as they're pressured by agriculture companies to leave it alone or only make symbolic changes, despite their rhetoric.
Japan's aging and declining population have hurt them a great deal. China is about to start experiencing the same aging and declining population trend. It will be interesting to see if they find a way out.
Japan wouldn’t be close to the top with 40k dollars, USA would be somewhat close to the top with 65k, China would be only 10k.
California appears to be at 78k (New York would be the highest USA state with 86k, Massachusetts would be second with 84k)
3.1T/40M is closer to 78k, no?
High tax states CA and MA among the top 10 countries, right below the tax havens, and ahead of pretty much every country, including CH and NO.
You are correct about California, I misinterpreted my source.
Anyway, I edited my original comment:
California appears to be at 78k (New York would be the highest USA state with 86k, Massachusetts would be second with 84k)
Holy fuck, Americans are rich.
Skilled labor often pays way better here than pretty much anywhere else. I was shocked to find out how much of a pay cut I’d have to take if I moved out of the country (even to a place like Western Europe).
>High tax states CA and MA
MA taxes aren't high at all. In 2020, the total tax receipts of the MA state government were about 29.5 billion USD, compared to a 2020 GDP of 584 billion USD.
The effective tax rate of MA was 5.05%.
[Source MA tax receipts](https://www.mass.gov/lists/year-to-date-and-monthly-tax-collection-benchmark-ranges)
Texas in 2020 took in 60 billion as taxes, with a GDP of 1700 billion, for an effective tax rate of 3.5%.
[Source TX tax receipts](https://bivisual.cpa.texas.gov/CPA/opendocnotoolbar.htm?document=documents%5CTR_Master_UI.qvw)
The source you linked shows $59.77 billion as 2020 tax revenue for Texas, or an effective rate of 3.5% using your GDP figure.
Ahh i see. I had selected all revenue sources by mistake.
Thanks for correcting, I'll edit the comment.
Is this what you’re referring to?
US is 7th GDP per capita, Japan is 27th, and China is 70th.
bro why is ireland so high
Tax haven with small population. The profits of multinationals flow through it making it look like it's got a very large GDP.
[Sketchy economics measures](https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/we-re-not-as-rich-as-we-have-been-told-to-think-we-are-1.4476247), corporate wealth that's not really part of the normal citizen's economy.
Think about all those American companies that set up tax-dodging shell companies in Ireland. On paper, the taxes/fees flow into the Irish GDP.
Keep reading. There’s an entire section that explains it. (Tax haven)
>Would Japan be on the top then?
Japan isn't that rich actually
The US is number 5 overall in GDP per Capita. and California would be number 4 behind Norway.
Scandinavia, micro-states, and oil states on top. Pretty boring list.
Not even all of Scandinavia. Just Norway
California would massively top that list at $79k. The rest are [here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(nominal\)_per_capita)
Enter Switzerland and Ireland
As an outsider, why do Americans shit on CA when it clearly has sustained growth (on top of being ahead to start)?
CA’s natural beauty, climate, entertainment, amenities, and massive economy make it a very desirable place to live. Generally, the zoning of Californian cities is strict. Rent is insane anywhere in CA and mortgages are even harder to afford. Like NYC, Chicago, or Boston, it’s just a difficult place to live comfortably. It’s an amazing place to live if you’re making $100k+ (and that’s probably low-balling).
The poverty line for a family of 5 in San Francisco is over $110,000. It’s completely bonkers.
But salaries in SF are usually really high to partially make up for it
In practice they should but much like LA the cost of living is incredible. Even at 15$/hr you \*need\* to be working full time or more to afford a non-shared room/house but the places you'll work for 15/hr rarely if ever offer full-time with a few exceptions, meaning you'll need at 2 jobs to pay for basic amenities assuming unskilled or entry level. That means more time traveling, worse scheduling, no paid benefits, healthcare etc. Considering most places that will rent will also charge up to 3x the cost to move in, first/last months rent, and require 3x the rent to apply assuming your studio costs 1.2k/mo you have to be making at least 3.6k a month. At 15$/hr that is only 2,400$/mo at 40hrs (untaxed).
So it really doesn't make up for it.
At $15/hr full time, you’re looking at an annual salary of $31,200.
Let’s say you spend half your salary on rent (which is far higher than the standard 30% recommended), monthly that’s $1,300.
I’d wager it’s pretty darn difficult to find even a room to rent at that price in the city. Privacy is out of the question.
Top reason is probably conservative hate about Democratic policies and "red states and blue states":
Uhh median home prices in costal cities are now almost $900k. You need a household income >$200k to live comfortably in ant of the nicer places in CA. IMO, if you are living inland CA, houses drop to $500-600k but may as well move to AZ or Texas as the cost of living here isn't worth it.
laughs in san diego... tears of laughter
We bought our "starter home" in Clairemont in 2014. Unless something huge changes, it's probably now our "forever home..."
True, but it's also probably worth 10x what you paid for it.
It really depends. I'm comfortably living in Ventura County and making 6 figures as a teacher. I'd be making like 40k in AZ.
It really depends on when you plan on moving. If you manage to live most of your career in CA and then retire to another state, you'll be sitting super pretty. Making enough money to retire in CA from another state is way more difficult.
If you manage to live most of your career in CA and then retire to another state, you'll be sitting super pretty. Making enough money to retire in CA from another state is way more difficult.
The irony of this statement, New York used to be this way, guess California is going to feel it soon
What subject do you teach?
If you’re not set on owning, renting here can be comfortable. My wife and I barely pull in around $120k combined, and we’ve lived a mile from the beach for about ten years. We don’t vacation much, and we don’t have a lot of extra toys, but we’re happy here.
Rent really isn’t insane everywhere in California lol. There are plenty of affordable areas in california. Will you be by the coast/destination areas? No, but it’s still fairly affordable.
This⬆️ also people who “claim” to be from CA who aren’t give us a bad name because they are trying to be edgy and cool.
There's a lot of resentment towards California in the other western states because it's the center of economic power and population in the western US and accordingly has an outsized influence on pretty much everything. This kind of dynamic --resentment of centers of power and influence-- happens all over the world and can even be seen in California itself where the northern half of the state resents --or at least is somewhat contemptuous of-- the more populous south. Where I live in Oregon you see it with rural Oregonians being contemptuous not only of Californians, but also of urban Oregonians. I've seen similar attitudes in other countries as well, most notably, in a lot of Mexican views of Mexico DF, for example.
I grew up in Ohio but have lived in Los Angeles for 16 years. I love it here, but at the same time understand a lot of the hate towards CA from people across the country. The biggest thing I hear people say is there’s an arrogance to many living in CA... or LA and SF. Kind of an attitude of we’re better than you, and that makes sense seeing how desirable of a place it is to live. It’s obviously not for everyone, but I would venture to say that CA, or more specifically Los Angeles, is one of the most desirable and sought after regions in the entire world. Whether that’s to visit or to live in. Obviously Hollywood and the entertainment industry drives a lot of this.
I can also say that people who grew up in CA seem much more likely to stay here and don’t experience much of the rest of the country compared to where I grew up in the mid west. But that comes with good reason since CA has basically everything! But that attitude obviously rubs outsiders the wrong way. For example my wife was born and raised here and seemingly knows very little about the mid wet states or southern states. A lot of her friends who are seemingly very smart and successful people are also like this.
With all that said about how much I’ve loved living here for 16 years, we’re now planning on moving to Denver area for a more affordable area, less crime/homelessness, social unrest etc.
Cause Americans love to shit on other states. Honestly most of it isn’t real hate.
Depends on the political party of the person hatin. A lot of it actually is hate.
I imagine it is due to very liberal political views. Other than that, cannot think why this would be.
There's also extremely high costs, homeless rates, high crime rates and a lot more. This one is more anecdotal but when foreigners think of the U.S places like LA and California will likely come to mind. As a result, California will be what people think or expect of the U.S, for better or for worse. People from other states could get annoyed by this, even Californians not from the cities, because the cities in that state are nothing like what most of the nation is.
I've legitimately had foreign friends who visit the U.S, go to LA and immediately assume that's what the rest of the country is like. It's extremely irritating because it usually leaves bad tastes in peoples mouths.
The same goes for most countries. A lot of Americans like to idealise certain countries in Europe but there's just as much variance if not more in those countries. We all come from broken-down states super glued together with some rules which dangles at the edge of a precipice. Take care of your democracies.
The amount of foreigners who spend a week in one city or area and assume the entire country is exactly like what they experienced drives me crazy.
This is how most tourists are tbh, unless they're avid travelers who know better. It's the same for any country.
Despite this LA is full of foreigners and tourist. So what's your point?
Because it makes them feel better about their states. People constantly saying California is “bankrupt” when we’ve had a surplus the last few years and contribute more to the GDP than any other state by a lot
Politics. Republicans hate CA because it is a solid Democratic state (although in 2020, there were more Trump voters in California than in Texas due to its sheer size). Also, it’s really expensive to live in, and a lot of people buy homes and move to out-of-state blue cities in Arizona and Texas and continue to vote blue. This makes these states become much more Democratic as the elections roll around.
Because politicians use hating on CA as a way to divide us.
Incoming something something newsom something something homeless
It's ironic how many rural Americans meme the death of California online, as if California's downfall wouldn't directly impact their lives negatively. All those government subsidy dollars for farmers don't just shit themselves out spontaneously.
Also, California produces more GDP in the agricultural sector than the next five states combined. We have our fare share of farmers. Cesar Chavez and all that.
CA also does more farming than the "farmer" states
How is this a beautiful data representation? It is a simple bar chart, the Y axis is missing, and it does not look like it is linear or starts at 0.
Would it be the 5th largest economy without being in US though?
It's a good question, probably not at all. American firms enjoy massive economies of scale from the large internal market, and California profits from that.
It's honestly huge. Entering foreign markets -even within the EU- is quite a hassle. I've advised on a number of market entries and the differences between European countries just a few hours away can be very big in terms of the products they use.
You could make bread toppings or whatever in the Netherlands and decide to expand to neighbouring country Germany, only to find that while the Dutch consume bread for lunch, the Germans do it for dinner. And heck even if you enter Germany, the country itself is still a federation so will still be dealing with barriers.
And then there's a lot of bread toppings and food stuffs that would be considered bonkers to anyone in Italy. Or the difference in marketing styles...
It's fun stuff.
There's an interesting article from the economist on this, and on how this makes American firms larger in market cap while EU firms are struggling and falling behind in terms of size.
"Looking at European gdp as a whole assumes firms there have access to the entire economic zone. Too often they do not. In theory the eu offers its firms and citizens a “single market” stretching across much of the continent (though no longer to Britain, one of the biggest economies). In practice it is a part-built edifice. It is still fiddly for a bank in Portugal to offer services in Finland—much harder than for a Californian bank to expand to Texas."
For example, there are hundreds of telecom operators in Europe, vs a handful in the US. Same for the number of airlines. This helps the consumer, as we have lower prices and service than in the US in those sectors, but it may hinder the economy as companies are less able to invest.
Link : The Economist | The land that ambition forgot https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/06/05/once-a-corporate-heavyweight-europe-is-now-an-also-ran-can-it-recover-its-footing?frsc=dg%7Ce
I don't see why it's so surprising.
The USA is a single country, even if it's made up of different states.
Europe is a bunch of different countries with different languages and cultures. Ofc its not going to be anywhere even close to as easy to expand here as it is in an USA.
It’s not surprising, it’s just notable. In the long run if Europe wants to remain competitive economically, further integration of the single market is a requirement. To be clear there’s nothing like the EU in terms of international agreements, but it can’t stay how it is today and expect to thrive without more integration.
Would US be the largest economy if it had China as a neighbor?
Would Germany be 4th if it wasn't in the EU?
That damn US beats us CA everytime... you win this time United States! But just wait and see...
It needs a dotted line at the top of the US bar that shows where the US would be without California factoring into it.
Removing it entirely from the US's total would change the scale of the graph as well and make the data more meaningful.
Meh.. Uttar Pradesh is the world's fifth populous country
Some races you want to win. Others, not so much.
[Actually, it’s 8th](https://www.census.gov/popclock/print.php?component=counter)
UP has a population of approx 200m
Yet they only have 2 senators like South Dakota and are under represented per person in the electoral college.
We need a constitutional re-write.
I hear Dethklok is the worlds 7th largest.
Be interesting to see the breakdown of what the economy is. Agriculture, service, etc
I bet Disneyland Carmel apples account for at least 2% of this volume.
That’s what you get when you let a bunch of socialists run your state… wait, what?
As a Californian, I say dream of CA seceding from the rest of the US. They need us more than we need them.
Texas is soooo jealous of CA
And people wonder why it is that California is the de-facto decider of economic related things in the US when the Federal government cedes that control to states.
* States Rights People: The federal government shouldn't be able to control the emissions standards on cars! It's bad for business.
* Federal government: Fine we'll relax them and states can set their own provided they are at LEAST our relaxed level.
* California: Fine, I'm passing emissions standards even tighter than the federal government had before.
* Car Companies: Do I want to deliberately exclude 14% of my possible market for 0 gain? No. no I do not. Do I want to pointlessly complicate my logistics supply train by having cars that can be sold everywhere BUT California and cars that can be sold everywhere? No. No I do not. So we'll just have every car meet California's standards.
* States Rights People: Wait. That's not what we meant!