Vermont makes History

[tpfkaw]

Vermont didn't get to become the second-poorest state in the Northeast for nothing.

[tpfkaw]

Vermont didn't get to become the second-poorest state in the Northeast for nothing.

Perhaps it should move itself closer to New York City or Boston.

I haven't done very much research on NY, but if you're suggesting they become more like MA, what with our below-average taxes, below-average spending, capped property taxes, and the 9th lowest amount of state and local government employees (as a % of the population), I'd think that'd be a good start.

Vermont didn't get to become the second-poorest state in the Northeast for nothing.

I bet it's the fault of those damn illegal immigrants sneaking through the Canadian border and getting free education and health care.

Vermont is unique in that it has achieved becoming poor without having any minority populations of note (and by "minority populations" I of course mean "Catholics").  They've really made history.

[tpfkaw]

Vermont might be lower than average in New England, but it's certainly not poor by any reasonable or objective definition.

Mississippi isn't poor by any reasonable or objective definition.  Vermont, however, is in fact the second-poorest state in the Northeast.

[tpfkaw]

Mississippi isn't poor by any reasonable or objective definition.  Vermont, however, is in fact the second-poorest state in the Northeast.

Goldmined.

I'm glad you admire my comic skills, and Mississippi is still richer than Greece.

[tpfkaw]

Mississippi isn't poor by any reasonable or objective definition.  Vermont, however, is in fact the second-poorest state in the Northeast.

Goldmined.

I'm glad you admire my comic skills, and Mississippi is still richer than Greece.

No it isn't.

And we don't marry our cousins.

2010 GDP per capita, Greece: $28,100
2010 GDP per capita, Mississippi: $33,000

And wrong stereotype (that's Appalachia).

Is Vermont poorer than any rural area equivalent in size and population? I imagine the opposite.

Alaska, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, Nevada, Oregon, and Kansas are all more rural than Vermont, and all are richer than Vermont.

[tpfkaw]

(ie, NH has portions of suburban Boston, CT of suburban New York).

Um, I'm not sure what's considered a "suburb" in Washington, but I wouldn't consider "an hour away" to count.  In any case, the area bordering NH is the poorest part of Massachusetts.

[tpfkaw]

Alaska, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, Nevada, Oregon, and Kansas are all more rural than Vermont, and all are richer than Vermont.

If you are using GDP per capita this is true. By Human Development Index, however, Vermont is richer more developed (which at least TRIES to be a holistic quality of life measurement, even though it fails in several respects, unlike mere GDP, which only measures the amount of mammon that an area has) than every one of those states except Colorado and Minnesota. Maine, Pennsylvania, and Delaware have lower Human Development Indices than Vermont does.

GDP was a measure created by Keynesian economists in order to make left-wing economic policies look superior (since all government spending is added to GDP, which is why the aforementioned "welfare states" are high).  Finding that even their own tailor-made measure makes their policies look bad, they have since been forced to come up with still more ridiculous measures in order to justify their positions.

[tpfkaw]

I agree with you that GDP is faintly absurd (though probably for different reasons), but it only makes the policies look bad if one's chief concern is money. HDI is actually less ridiculous than GDP, since it takes into account at least some of the things (educational and health institutions) that make someplace actually worth living in.

I'm not sure why that would be high for Vermont, then, since they have crappy schools and you don't exactly want to be in urgent need of open heart surgery over there.  I suspect the fact that Vermonters tend to have more healthy lifestyles (and therefore don't need to go to hospitals as often in the first place) is artificially boosting their numbers.  That's a cultural/geographical thing, not really related to government policy.

[tpfkaw]

It all depends on the measure you're using.  If you use GSP per capita... you get some weird figures.  DC, for example, has the highest GSP per capita while Mississippi is in last.  Vermont is 30th.  Vermont is higher than the states Wormy mentioned.

If you use household income... Vermont is higher than North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas; basically all of the states that are truly rural like Vermont.  Other rural states poorer than vermont based on household income include Maine, Montana, West Virginia, and Mississippi... and include states with major metropolitan areas:  North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan.

So I'd say you were wrong Wormy.  Sorry.  Gross state product is a terrible measure of wealth.  Household income is a better measure despite wide variance in the cost of living.  But even in the region, the average household in Vermont makes more than the average household in New York, Maine, and Pennsylvania... and is only a few spots behind Rhode Island.

So overall, Vermont is one of the richer states in the northeast.

In contrast... New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey are all wealthier.  But Minnesota, California, Colorado, Washington, and Alaska all round out the top as well... and Minnesota, California, and Alaska are hardly low tax, low service states (despite what Sarah Palin may tell you).

I think in the end it comes down to natural resources, homogeneity, workforce participation, and overall worker productivity... not size of government (though regulations do play a role with the exception of natural resource sectors)... that determines overall wealth.

Lemme give you a third measure, the one I would use.  Disposable personal income - the income that people earn and are then free to spend after purchasing essentials (food, fuel, healthcare, mortgage, and of course the tax man...).  Vermont is once again the second-poorest state in the Northeast (or the third-poorest, if you count Delaware as part of the Northeast).

Source: http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2011/05%20May/D%20pages/0511dpg_i.pdf (page 3)