• uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    this is a good run down, with one nit, probably caused by availability of data. Gdp per capita is not a good metric, because its a mean, so verp vulnerable to outliers, and because it represents generation of wealth regardless of if that money stays in the state.

    North Dakota is an oil state.

    It has a median household income of $68,000, meaning half of all households bring in less than that.

    It has a mean income per capita of $37,343

    11.5% of people in north dakota live in poverty

    north dakota ranks 39th for poverty, which is better than middle.

    This is an example of how different stats will have different results. When looking at poverty rates, out of the ten worst, only New Mexico is not a right-to-work state.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was going to say gdp isn’t a good metric. GDP is economic output and not really relevant.

      I’d look at cost of living and wages.

      • neanderthal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thank you. I’m not a fan of GDP. If you and I started crotch kicking businesses and paid each other $1,000,000 dollars to kick each other in the crotch, we just contributed $2,000,000 to the GDP with nothing of value created. My testicles hurt and your $PARTS hurt.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. You have a lot of funny money being passed around but that doesn’t mean anyone is making a living wage or if people are poor or not. Cost of living and income are more important. In some states it’s cheap to live and you’re paid accordingly. Other states it’s expensive and you’re paid more but not always enough for the living. GDP is fine to track things at a high level or national level but horrible for tracking how workers are doing

          • neanderthal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I even question the usefulness at high levels. It doesn’t measure how much wealth is produced. Say our GDP is 10 billion. Let’s say 2 billion is tshirts that suck and get thrown away. Next year we make tshirts that last 5 years and our GDP is 11 billion because they cost more. Year 3, it shrinks to 9 billion because we don’t have to make as many tshirts. We are better off in year 3 than year 1 by a billion, because we actually kept those shirts instead of tossing them.

            I would like to see GDP numbers adjusted for useful production. E.g. since 40% of food is trashed, cut that portion of the GDP by 30% (we need some wiggle room so a bad crop doesn’t cause a famine)

            • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not an economist, as such I don’t understand all the nuances for gdp but it seems every time a dollar trades hands, it impacts the gdp.

              The problem is a lot of its funny money.

              We also base our budgets on gdp. As such it’s screwy as we spend like all of its being taxed.

              Military is 3% gdp which doesn’t place us in the top 10 for spending. Yet on dollars we are the highest spender by far but we don’t collect enough to cover our debts.

    • DrMango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is great qualifying information and I think this shows that you can’t just take the back of a tee shirt at face value. Who knows what the wearer meant by “poorest states.”