Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
So it's not really much of a surprise then that Sioux Falls uses your previous employer to advertise the benefits of moving to South Dakota, is it? HUGE difference between the two states. Looking at that chart almost makes ME want to move there.
Looks like the wealthiest states in the country are all near the bottom. Maybe South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nevada need to become less "business friendly?"
Richard,Yeah, tell me about it. I vacation there most of the time. Mountains, Badlands, buffalo. Doesn't get much better.Ed,It would seem that way, but the correct measure of wealth would be gross state product per capita AND you would have to adjust for costs of living. Friend moved out to Fargo and it's something like 25% cheaper out there. Also some would argue you wouldn't even use GSP per capita, but rather RGSP growth rate as it isn't necessarily the standards of living now, but at what rate those standards of living are increasing.
Don't forget that these states have to be business-friendly, because they are geographically/strategically not as well-placed as, say, California or New York. The millions of people, and with them the markets, are at the coasts, not in the great plains.
Hey, don't forget about Rhode Island, the nations most advanced experiment in forming a welfare state.
Post a Comment