Talk:List of U.S. states and territories by GDP/Archive 1

Notes

I put line breaks in between the map and the data table. This is necessary because the map overlaps and makes the data table unreadable PLEASE DO NOT remove the breaks. Remember most people do not have the elongated computer screens as found on laptops so by removing the breaks you are distorting the data table. This way the map appears readable then the data table appears readable.

4.143.228.37 16:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Eric[reply]

the state data for 2013 is cited to usgovernmentspending.com, which is only a private blog site not an official government data source; furthermore that site says that its 2013 figures are only "guesstimated" by the website itself, without any specified source. Some of the state figures look questionable and inconsistent with historical data. http://usgovernmentspending.blogspot.com/2009/03/table-of-data-sources-by-year.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.211.85 (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C. is not a state, so I left it out of the ranking, but left in its place for comparison purposes. 68.6.85.167 08:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks thats great you did a good job on that but you forgot to do the same for Puerto rico and i see puerto rice on the old list but its not ranked on the newer list . 76.253.133.121 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2004 data

2004

Rank	State	GSP ($millions)
1	California	1,550,753
2	New York	896,739
3	Texas	884,136
4	Florida	599,068
5	Illinois	521,900
6	Pennsylvania	468,089
7	Ohio	419,866
8	New Jersey	416,053
9	Michigan	372,169
10	Georgia	343,125
11	North Carolina	336,398
12	Virginia	329,332
13	Massachusetts	317,798
14	Washington	261,549
15	Maryland	227,991
16	Indiana	227,569
17	Minnesota	223,822
18	Tennessee	217,626
19	Wisconsin	211,616
20	Missouri	203,294
21	Colorado	199,969
22	Arizona	199,953
23	Connecticut	185,802
24	Louisiana	152,944
25	Alabama	139,840
26	Kentucky	136,446
27	South Carolina	136,125
28	Oregon	128,103
29	Iowa	111,114
30	Oklahoma	107,600
31	Nevada	100,317
32	Kansas	98,946
33	Utah	82,611
34	Arkansas	80,902
	District of Columbia	76,685
35	Mississippi	76,166
36	Nebraska	68,183
37	New Mexico	61,012
38	Delaware	54,274
39	New Hampshire	51,871
40	Hawaii	50,322
41	West Virginia	49,454
42	Idaho	43,571
43	Maine	43,336
44	Rhode Island	41,679
45	Alaska	34,023
46	South Dakota	29,386
47	Montana	27,482
48	Wyoming	23,979
49	North Dakota	22,687
50	Vermont	21,921

I (re) corrected New Jersey's GSP for 2006, edited by some Digg user. <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>

Comparable Country

The list of List_of_Chinese_administrative_divisions_by_population has a column for comparable country. Using the List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal), if such a column were to be added to this table, California would be comparable to Russia (8th in world GDP ranking) and Vermont would be comparable to Trinidad and Tobago (94th). Any thoughts on the value of adding that info to this table? --Mikebrand (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to merge PPP ("real GDP") data for comparison? (and maybe per capita data)

Is anyone is interested in adding PPP ("real GDP") data? (The PPP data IS available from the same dot-gov source that this page used. Or at least we can a link to it @ bottom of this page...but AFAIK, no such page exists on Wikipedia, for this page to be _able_ to link to it. Please see below proposal for how to fit it within this page...)

And can per-capita data be added as well (nominal and/or PPP) by merging this article with List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)?

It's redundant, so perhaps ditch the "Rank" column? The reason it's redundant is because you can get it ranked (in terms of largest-to-smallest or vice-versa) by just clicking the icon in the column header for "2008 GSP ($millions)". IFF (if and only if) other ways to measure the states such as GDP(PPP) and GDP(nominal) were _both_ present side-by-side, _then_ one might want the "rank" column, so when you click to rank it by PPP GDP, you can also see the _rankings_ of GDP(nominal). But in its current 3-column state, GDP(nominal) isn't listed next to other economic data, so the "Rank" column is useless as there's no other data to compare it to. Then the space saved by removing those numerous "Rank" columns could be used to add the following extra columns, or could just reduce it to only showing rank+both forms of GDP but maybe only 2 years-worth of data will fit the width of most people's monitors that way...it's a judgment call (assuming that 2 more columns (per-capita GDP and population data) also makes it too wide to fit the same, 3 years-worth of data that it currently has side-by-side, on most people's monitors, maybe put the per-capita data either in a section 1.1 (preferable by my reasoning; see bold text, below) or on another webpage).

first, a good option is to change the "2008 GSP," "2007 GSP," and all other GSP columns to light-blue background to match the blue map in the upper-right of this article, then add:

column for GDP (PPP) with a light-yellow background,

"per capita" and "state population" (the latter being from census.gov), both in red columns, to match the reddish map @ the upper-right corner of |this webpage?

If anyone is hesitant about how colour-coding columns would look, the colour-coding on the following page isn't exactly what I'm proposing -- I think on this GDP page, it's best if each column is the same colour top-to-bottom, and the colour of a PPP column for each year is the same colour as PPP columns for all other years, GDP(nominal) columns are also same colour as each other, for each and every year, and following that pattern instead of the colour-coded list here: list_of_indices_of_freedom#Current_assessments. If people want to do this but they're unfamiliar with how to change colours of columns, people can "borrow" the code from that webpage as it has coloured columns.

I've added some notes on the other page's Talk page in the meantime.

Easier to analyze many things when nominal, PPP, and per-capita GDP data are all on the same page...24.155.205.244 (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add U.S. Average Data?

Wouldn't this list be a little better if it had the average U.S. data as well. It could be unranked like D.C. but placed at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeClock871 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would also be of interest is the “median” per capita, rather than the average. This would be a more realistic depiction of the per capita income in a state. 2607:FB91:2F17:677:B877:BE72:AFA3:8DE8 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Territories

It would be interesting to see U.S. territories here as well, since economic performance there is arguably part of the politics of the same country. -- Beland (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. But the US territories could be included if all of them were included, not just Puerto Rico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.196.39 (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Ranking

Why is it that when you rank them by 2009 numbers, the rankings don't match up with the actual data? --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why when you try to rank these with the 2009 numbers, it doesn't work? --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Default

What is the default position for the 2010 estimate list? I ask, because the default neither ranks it by the raw number or the rank number, so, what's the deal? --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical data

Is there a list of statewise US GDP for 1890? Spade and Shovel (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Numbers Out

2010 GDP numbers are out courtesy of the BEA, so these can all be updated:

http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/action.cfm

adding in country comparisons

I have added to each state which country has closest GDP and GDP per capita figures, as per 2011 IMF data. It appears to fit within the table. Any comments? Kransky (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this but I'd prefer it used PPP GDP than nominal, especially in the per capita case. PPP GDP per capita tells us countries with the same standard of living. R42 (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added per capita PPP in another column. Personally I would just keep this and remove the non-PPP one, because non-PPP comparisons seem kind of meaningless to me. Don't know what others think of this. A few points about the numbers I have used:

1) I didn't use PPP adjustment for the states; didn't have that to hand. I think there's some debate about whether PPP adjustment within a country even makes sense. But I'd be happy to redo it with the adjustment.

2) My list is more repetitive than Kransky's. There aren't many countries rich enough to compare. Maybe that's an argument against this column.

3) I used the country that is closest in ratio, not the absolute difference. I could use absolute difference instead if that's better but I prefer the former.

4) I wrote <none comparable> for D.C.. Kransky used Luxembourg but that's only half of D.C. in PPP. I don't mind replacing mine with Luxembourg.

R42 (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also I used 2010 IMF data from here. R42 (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R42 - it would be good to make PPP and nominal comparisions, but where can you find PPP data for US states? You cannot equate the GSP for a US state with the PPP of a country. Oranges and lemons. Kransky (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting

Why aren't the tables on this page sortable? Obviously it's sorted for GDP but what about allowing people to sort it by GDP per capita? The page focuses too much on simple GDP which is pretty pointless because obviously the larger states appear at the top of the page. The important figure is GDP per capita so we can see what the average Yank is earning.--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 23:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

Perhaps this has already been discussed ad nauseum, but I'm looking at the 2010 number listed for Michigan, here, and it conflicts with the BEA number for 2010 that I keep seeing ($384.1 billion). What is the source of the discrepancy? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the 2011 numbers are out. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington DC Figure for per capita income is way too high

It's about double what it should be. Plus the citation goes to a page that doesn't even list per capita income. Data should be taken from the Census American Community Survey when it comes back online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.250.236 (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are WRONG?!

Greetings,

I don't know why the numbers are taken from an unofficial website called usgovernmentrevenue.com while we can use the official data published by the BEA of the Current-Dollar GDP by State (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/2013/pdf/gsp0613.pdf)

What do you think guys? should we just edit the numbers and use the official BEA data?--- Oalhenaki 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The usgovernmentrevenue numbers should not be used. The website even indicates that these are 'guesstimates' rather than real numbers. In addition, the 'guesstimates' have changed since they were copied into wikipedia so the citation doesn't even back up the data shown. 66.68.36.158 (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think far more significant is the fact that this is 2014 and the article only shows numbers through 2009. That's painfully out of date. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per capita

We need to have a column of the data per capita, otherwise it is just a list of big states. How that economic activity is per person is more important and determines the standard of living. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC) The population data comes from List of U.S. states and territories by population. Look how close California and Texas are on a per capita basis. Does anyone have objections?[reply]

List of U.S. states and territories by GSP in 2015
State	2015 Rank	2015 GSP $ Millions	2015 GSP per capita
California	1	2,287,021	$58,940
Texas	2	1,602,584	$59,449

Adding KY and IA

The first table of the article neglected to include Kentucky or Iowa, I will fix that. However, there continues to be an issue around the accuracy of the source material. The rest of the table derives from the "State Debt Clocks" of 'usdebtclock.org'. I'll follow this precedent for lack of more up-to-date information from a more definitive source.

As a side note, because the numbers for most of the states were transcribed in February of 2015, the numbers I have access to now are different and would change the ordering of the table. Any advice on the matter would be appreciated. Aleman G. Nemetsky (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is mis-titled and misleading

This article is titled "List of US States by GDP." The article does not list states by GDP -- but rather by GSP, a different, much newer and less tested measurement. The title of the article should be changed to "List of US states by GSP" -- which I will do unless somebody can come up any good reasons to object. Smallchief (talk 17:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the footnote to the GSP table is incorrect. Does GSP really exist? Smallchief (talk

Is this a phony article

I have to wonder whether GSP is a real measurement. I never heard of it until I stumbled across this article -- and a google search doesn't turn up much -- except the Wikipedia articles. The graphs in this article refer mostly to GDP -- as does the information in the article titled Gross State Product. Is GSP the invention of some jokester? Is it really relevant and notable? In other words, should this article exist? Smallchief (talk

My impressions is that it is WP:OR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be bold and move the page. Joel Amos (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map labels are too far north

The labels on the map are all too far north from where they should be. For example, the label over top of Virginia is the number for North Carolina, and the label for Washington, D.C. is in the middle of Pennsylvania. I don't know how to fix this. Is there someone who could correct this? Vontheri (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This happens when the window is not wide enough. It’s due to the small map that’s right-adjusted and floating so that it collides with the labels in the second map. I changed that map to a similar size as the second map, so that it no longer floats — Andy Anderson 00:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]