Number of quarters with negative growth by state: 2005-2013

[eric82oslo]

These statistics (see source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/20/all-but-two-states-saw-economic-growth-in-the-last-quarter-of-2013/) include the last 35 quarters of GDP growth or decline by state, from 2nd quarter 2005 up until 4th quarter 2013. This is the number of quarters with negative growth per state in this period:

Michigan: 19 (no other state has seen such a massive destruction of its economy)
Florida: 16 (contradicts those claiming the Florida economy has been booming the last few years, only one quarter saw greater than 2% increase)
Connecticut: 16
New Mexico: 16
Delaware: 16 (small economy seeing big quarterly changes)
Nevada: 15 (of which more than half were between 2008 and 2010)
Ohio: 15 (2005-2009: a lost half decade)
New Jersey: 15
Alaska: 15 (experiencing both strong growth rates and strong declines)
Rhode Island (like with Louisiana, the recession struck (super) early)
Maine: 14
Arizona: 14
New Hampshire: 14 (as with all small economies, booms and busts all the time)
Vermont: 14
Iowa: 14
Oklahoma: 14
(D.C.: 14)
Louisiana: 13 (Louisiana's recession came a couple of years earlier than in most states)
Illinois: 13
Hawaii: 13
Idaho: 13
Mississippi: 13
Kentucky: 13
Minnesota: 13 (for Minnesota it's been a roller coaster decade)
New York: 13
West Virginia: 12
Montana: 12
South Dakota: 12
Wisconsin: 11
Missouri: 11
South Carolina: 11
California: 11
Arkansas: 11
North Carolina: 11
Pennsylvania: 11
Massachusetts: 11
Alabama: 10 (hardly growth even in growing quarters)
Georgia: 10
Virginia: 10
Wyoming: 10
Nebraska: 10
Indiana: 10
Tennessee: 9
Kansas: 9
Washington: 9
Colorado: 9
Maryland: 9
Utah: 6 (very stable growth rates around 1-2%)
Oregon: 6 (surprisingly consistently strong growth rates over time, up to 5% a quarter)
North Dakota: 6 (by far the fastest growing economy in the nation, with quarterly growth rates of up to 7%; has seen more than a doubling of its economy in less than a decade!)
Texas: 4 (since Texas is a big/enormous economy, it's much less vulnerable to fluctuations than North Dakota or Oregon, thus the stability seems somewhat more impressive than it is; at most, Texas has had a quarterly growth rate at 3% over this period)

It's easy based on this, to see which states have struggled the most this past decade (Michigan, Florida and Connecticut) and which have barely felt the cold winds of the recession ghost at all (Texas, North Dakota, Oregon & Utah). Only 4 quarters with negative Growth rate for Texas, compared to 19 (almost 5 times as many) for Michigan.

The national median is 12 quarters by the way.
Anything less than that is good/great, more is poor (or horrific as in Michigan's case).

[eric82oslo]

Surprised NH is so high. Small economies don't create boom/bust cycles.

What I meant is that little things - like the price of oil - affect them much more. Thus they can have 6% GDP growth one month and perhaps 2% decline two months later. That doesn't happen in Texas however, or in California.

[bgwah]

I seem to recall Oregon's economy being in rough shape well before the recession. Perhaps they simply didn't have as far to fall as other states did.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Florida is a divided state with skilled sectors, like healthcare, being limited and growing somewhat while the vast majority of Floridians are unskilled coolies who don't realize that Florida stopped being cheap since Andrew.

[Adam Griffin]

[eric82oslo]

Nice map.

[Indy Texas]

Surprised NH is so high. Small economies don't create boom/bust cycles.

What I meant is that little things - like the price of oil - affect them much more. Thus they can have 6% GDP growth one month and perhaps 2% decline two months later. That doesn't happen in Texas however, or in California.

You think oil prices affect the New Hampshire economy more than the Texas economy?

[eric82oslo]

Surprised NH is so high. Small economies don't create boom/bust cycles.

What I meant is that little things - like the price of oil - affect them much more. Thus they can have 6% GDP growth one month and perhaps 2% decline two months later. That doesn't happen in Texas however, or in California.

You think oil prices affect the New Hampshire economy more than the Texas economy?

If you substitute New Hampshire with North Dakota then definitely yes! Why you so stubborn? You trying to say something? I don't think what I said was particularily controversial. Is it new to you that a small economy is more vulnerable than a large one?