Canada and Texas have equal GDP: map of state-country equivalents

[onodera]

New Jersey isn't high on the list. Having a GDP similar to Russia's is nothing to be proud of.

It's in the top 10. That's high in my book.

[Dauphin]

What percentage of Americans work in a state different to the one they live in?

Not necessarily aggregate, I'm thinking places where the major cities are commuting distance from another state.

[KrazyHorse]

And look what service economy has led us to. Global financial crysis. Also, why is New Jersey so high in the list? Because it does nothing and has a huge port?

You're a ******. The global financial crisis will wipe 1 or 2 years of growth away, and that's ALL. That's supposed to be a condemnation of the "service economy" which makes people in developed countries ~5 times richer than people in your backwards country?

New Jersey's somewhat high on the list because it has a lot of people, and has somewhat higher than average income per person (proximity to major cities, location on the coast).

[KrazyHorse]

What percentage of Americans work in a state different to the one they live in?

Not necessarily aggregate, I'm thinking places where the major cities are commuting distance from another state.

A large majority of people who work in and around DC live in a "different" state. New York City is similar. Philadelphia is probably pretty high on the list. Boston is too. Chicago's about 30 miles from Indiana, so I imagine there's some back and forth there.

The Northeast is where you see most of this because the states are bunched up along the coast.

[Thorgal]

New Jersey isn't high on the list. Having a GDP similar to Russia's is nothing to be proud of.

Dont know where this map comes from but, for instance, according to IMF New Jerey GDP = 1/3 Russia GDP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_nominal_GDP

[KrazyHorse]

The map is long out of date. Significant growth in Russia over the last few years plus appreciation of the currency makes a big difference

[onodera]

You're a ******. The global financial crisis will wipe 1 or 2 years of growth away, and that's ALL. That's supposed to be a condemnation of the "service economy" which makes people in developed countries ~5 times richer than people in your backwards country?

New Jersey's somewhat high on the list because it has a lot of people, and has somewhat higher than average income per person (proximity to major cities, location on the coast).

Don't call me a ****** and I won't tell everyone what you do with pandas, er, horses.
No, people in first world coutries are richer because people in backward countries do their job for less. Service economy can't feed you or clothe you, it only exists because there's cheap labour that can be exploited and that cannot enjoy the benefits of the ervice economy. Make the labour market bilaterally global, and service economy will plummet downwards like a Stuka bomber.

[KrazyHorse]

No, people in first world coutries are richer because people in backward countries do their job for less.

No, people in the first world are richer because we're better educated, better capitalized and better organized. In fact, our people are so valuable that we can't waste most of them on factory floors doing jobs that less educated people in a less organized economy can do. But even if we DID do all of our manufacturing the manufacturing sector (and certainly the resource extraction sector) would STILL be swamped by the service sector.

Service economy can't feed you or clothe you, it only exists because there's cheap labour that can be exploited and that cannot enjoy the benefits of the ervice economy.

This is ****ing retarded. By the way, the developed world feeds itself and then some; it's a net food EXPORTER. And we're so good at growing food that EVEN SO, agriculture is only a minor part of our economies. If we HAD TO, we could easily make all of our own clothes too, and with a lot less in the way of labour inputs than the Chinese, Pakistanis and Indonesians make our clothes for us; it would be SLIGHTLY less cheap, but would by no means imply that the economy wouldn't continue to be services dominated. I don't think you understand how far beyond the point where manufacturing and agriculture were the dominant economic sectors we are. Hopefully one day you guys will get to be rich too. Until then, I'm a medium shirt, 31X33 jeans.

Make the labour market bilaterally global, and service economy will plummet downwards like a Stuka bomber.

No. Massive fail.

Here are the import figures to the US for 2008 (in billions) by country:

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top0812yr.html#imports

The ones from underdeveloped or developing nations (and I'm construing this broadly) add up to ~800 billion$, in a 13.5 trillion$ economy (i.e. ~6%)

And exports to developing nations is about half of this

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top0812yr.html#exports

So don't be ****ing ridiculous. It's nice to import goods from developing nations; slightly cheaper for us than making them ourselves. And it's nice for the Chinese and co to be able to sell us all this crap that they make. The gains from trade

But by no means is it reasonable to say that our economy is service dominated BECAUSE we import goods. We could make it all ourselves and goods manufacturing would STILL only be a small portion of our economy.

[onodera]

I guess I'll have to write a longer post to make my ideas clearer to you.
1. The service sector of the economy of a developed country is so large (I do not deny the need for merchants or bankers) only because, as you have said, not that many people are required to make the real sector supply the population with material goods. However, the real sector creates added value, service sector doesn't. It redistributes it.
2. I do not think that your economy is so indepenent of imports. Compare your import figures to the real sector, not the economy as a whole. Do not forget to exclude goods produced using immigrant labour. Judging by your automotive companies, local labour is not that cheap.
3. When I say bilaterally global labour market I mean the possibility of labourers to go to any country to find employment as well, as compared to the current possibility of employers to go to any country to find labour. Can you effortlessy expand the real sector of your economy without affecting the service sector to meet the needs of all the people who produce the goods you import as well?

[KrazyHorse]

I guess I'll have to write a longer post to make my ideas clearer to you.

Your ideas are clear enough; they're simply ridiculous.

1. The service sector of the economy of a developed country is so large (I do not deny the need for merchants or bankers) only because, as you have said, not that many people are required to make the real sector supply the population with material goods. However, the real sector creates added value, service sector doesn't. It redistributes it.

Have fun being a physiocrat.

The service sector contains many different subsectors; engineering, for instance is a service sector activity. So is market research, banking, food&drink service, entertainment, legal services, health care, etc etc etc.

The service sector provides things which make manufacturing more efficient (engineering, financial services) as well as things which have value to consumers in their own right (entertainment, food&drink health care).

I have no idea what you mean by saying that the service sector simply redistributes value; do you think that factory workers in the developed world would be able to produce as much as they do without the whole service sector backing them up? That's ridiculous. Not to mention the service sector activities which provide direct consumer value.

2. I do not think that your economy is so indepenent of imports. Compare your import figures to the real sector, not the economy as a whole.

Why would I do that?

Do not forget to exclude goods produced using immigrant labour.

Why would I do that?

3. When I say bilaterally global labour market I mean the possibility of labourers to go to any country to find employment as well, as compared to the current possibility of employers to go to any country to find labour.

Free movement of people

I don't see how this has anything to do with what you're saying, however. Service sector employment is dominated by people who are educated and are fluent in the local language.

Can you effortlessy expand the real sector of your economy without affecting the service sector to meet the needs of all the people who produce the goods you import as well?

WTF does this even mean?

Not to mention the fact that "real" and "service" sectors are not disjoint sets. Perhaps you're thinking of "real" and "financial"?

[Dinner]

I don't know. There is a lot of wealth creation using intellectual services rather then old fashioned manufacturing. Designing microchips, writing books, making movies, music, designing architecture, engineering services, etc... All create something new (a design or idea) without physically manufacturing anything never the less these services are highly sought after and people pay huge money for them. The net result is something new which didn't exist any more even if it is just intellectual.

[onodera]

I'd really like to write a reply, but I have to go to bed as I'm going to Chicago on holiday and have to get up at 5. See you on 22nd.