Texas is bolstered by their hill country tech sector, gulf port refineries and west Texas crude. The rest is a lot of prairie land and mountain ranges. What surprises me is that Texas has lower productivity per capita than Alaska (another oil rich, wide open spaces state), and Nebraska, which I can only assume one man is doing some very heavy lifting there.
Many of the more large-population liberal states have higher gdp, even with their typically higher taxes.
This chart you shared identifies Texas as having the 44th highest GDP per capita out of every region in the entire world out of 454 regions, which is actually really good. It’s especially good given how much rural land Texas includes, where an entire state’s per capita GDP is being compared to much smaller urban regions like Luxembourg, Warsaw, and London.
According to this, all but 3 states receive more than they contribute, and Texas is roughly 17th out of 50 in terms of receiving the least amount back. I guess I don’t understand how Texas could be singled out in a dataset like this
RetroFed
Godric
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
You’re not wrong. Was looking at this for a different reason today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_regions_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Texas is bolstered by their hill country tech sector, gulf port refineries and west Texas crude. The rest is a lot of prairie land and mountain ranges. What surprises me is that Texas has lower productivity per capita than Alaska (another oil rich, wide open spaces state), and Nebraska, which I can only assume one man is doing some very heavy lifting there.
Many of the more large-population liberal states have higher gdp, even with their typically higher taxes.
This chart you shared identifies Texas as having the 44th highest GDP per capita out of every region in the entire world out of 454 regions, which is actually really good. It’s especially good given how much rural land Texas includes, where an entire state’s per capita GDP is being compared to much smaller urban regions like Luxembourg, Warsaw, and London.
https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-portal/
And here is a screenshot of the relevant data
Texas clocks in at $1.21 receivers for every $1 sent to the federal government.
According to this, all but 3 states receive more than they contribute, and Texas is roughly 17th out of 50 in terms of receiving the least amount back. I guess I don’t understand how Texas could be singled out in a dataset like this
Nobody singled them out, yes dozens of states like texas are massively subsidized by the federal government
Are we reading the same comments
Idk show me a comment where they said texas is the only one or something?