Tuesday, June 05, 2012

Visualization of Real GDP by State in 2011

The custom, interactive graphic above comes courtesy of the folks at Tableau Software, using the "Real GDP by State" data released today by the BEA and featured earlier today on CD

The contributors to real GDP in 2011 are ranked in the top part of the graphic, showing that "durable goods manufacturing" was the largest positive contributor to real output growth in 2011 at 0.5% (more empirical support that manufacturing has been leading the economic recovery), and real estate was the largest negative contributor at -0.2%.  The color-coded map shows real GDP growth by state, from No. 1 North Dakota in dark grey at 7.6% growth in 2011 to No. 50 Wyoming at -1.5% growth, in dark pink.  
If you click on a sector above, like durable-goods manufacturing, the map changes to show state rankings for that sector's contribution to state output growth, with Oregon ranked No. 1 at 3.94% (towards 4.7% state growth), followed by Michigan at 1.2% (towards 2.3% overall growth), etc.  Click on mining, and you'll see West Virginia ranked No. 1, at 3.9% growth towards 4.5% overall state growth, followed by North Dakota's mining growth of 2.81% towards 7.6% overall growth, etc.  

Thanks to Tableau Software for contributing a great interactive graphic to Carpe Diem! 


At 6/05/2012 8:35 PM, Blogger kmg said...

So California is higher than most other states....

At 6/05/2012 8:59 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

So, let's kick Maine, Wyoming, New Jersey, Mississippi, and Alabama out of the country.

At 6/05/2012 9:02 PM, Blogger Henry H said...

I am surprised Oregon is leading the nation. What's going on in Oregon?

At 6/05/2012 9:20 PM, Blogger Mark J. Perry said...

On a per-capita basis, California ranked #21 last year for per-capita real GDP growth.

At 6/05/2012 11:57 PM, Blogger Steve said...

All the pink states have supply side Governors. How interesting...

At 6/06/2012 1:31 AM, Blogger Jason said...

Where are Alaska and Hawaii?

At 6/06/2012 2:19 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Yes, however, where are they compared to 2007, when the downturn began.

In California, I suspect, the top 20% are doing very well:

Booming Silicon Valley GDP growth leaves San Francisco behind
September 13, 2011

"Silicon Valley’s economy exploded in 2010, with GDP growing by 13.4 percent, faster than U.S. GDP growth of 2.6 percent and far faster than San Francisco and Oakland, where GDP growth was just 0.5 percent.

Not only did the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara metropolitan area grow fast, it also turned around quickly, according to numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. In 2009, Silicon Valley GDP growth was negative 2.4 percent, but that changed by 15.8 points to hit 13.4 percent in 2010.

In the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont conurbation (a “metropolitan statistical area” in government actuarial parlance) real GDP growth (measured in constant 2005 dollars) was negative 4 percent in 2009 and grew just 0.5 percent in 2010."

At 6/06/2012 2:39 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Oregon economy growing at nation's second-fastest rate
June 05, 2012

"Oregon's economic growth outpaced all but one state in 2011, driven largely by double-digit manufacturing gains.

The state's real gross domestic product...growing 4.7 percent from the previous year. The rate more than triples the U.S. average and falls behind only North Dakota and its oil-fueled 7.6 percent gain.

But take durable-goods manufacturing out of the equation and Oregon's GDP grew just 0.8 percent.

And if the past two years are any indication, high-tech players such as Intel likely contributed to almost all of the growth. The California-based chipmaker is building its fourth Hillsboro fab and is the metro-area's largest employer.

The high-tech sector helped speed Oregon's economic growth in relation to other states, economists say.

"It obviously doesn't feel like we're doing nearly this well," said Conerly, who runs his own consulting firm. "To me this has Intel written all over it," he said."

At 6/06/2012 3:25 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

"If you click on a sector above, like durable-goods manufacturing, the map changes."

Yes, "a great interactive graphic."

At 6/06/2012 8:43 AM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

peak trader: "Yes, however, where are they compared to 2007, when the downturn began."

That's a good question. Here's average annual GDP growth by state, 2007 to 2011:

Top 5 states
ND ... +9.0%
LA ... +4.6%
WV ... +4.1%
OR ... +3.9%
AK ... +3.6%

Bottom 5 states
NV ... -0.5%
FL ... -0.2%
MI ... -0.1%
AZ ... -0.1%
NJ ... +0.8%

GDP by State Interactive Map

At 6/06/2012 9:32 AM, Blogger Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...


Speaking for NJ...

We went through two Governors and one acting after Mr. "Gay American McGreevey" resigned. During that period we got:

Our income taxes raised with a particular onerous 'millionaire's' tax that started at $500k (maybe it's the Dem math?). We lost tens of thousands of upper income residents as a result (per the IRS) and the tax base they represented. Plus, many I am sure took their LLC, LLP, S corps, and C corps with them.

Sales tax was raised over 16% and was extended to previously exempt items such as labor for certain home improvements (flooring and tile work).

An 'alternative minimum business tax' that is a punitive as arbitrary. A C-Corp 'may' be forced to pay income tax based on revenue and not profit. By 'may', a lot depends on how much political pull a marginal business may have. In addition (under McGreevey) a proposal was floated to apply the corporate income tax to LLC's, LLP's, S-corps, and other 'pass through' incorporations.

Electric rates went up 50% to pay for a"green energy" program that is destabilizing the grid while producing less than 2% of the power consumed.

Christie has managed to stem the bleeding. No small task since both houses of the legislature is controlled by the opposition party. His tax cut proposals are still only proposals, though we have had some reform in regards to business depreciation. Until the tax burden is reduced, the State of NJ will not grow.

At 6/06/2012 11:51 AM, Blogger morganovich said...


the same was true of wisconsin.

you have the causality backward steve: these states are getting new, better government BECAUSE the previous guys were so awful.

funny how the leading states like north dakota and texas are supply side, no?

At 6/06/2012 12:58 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

States that balanced their budgets likely had slower growth.

At 6/06/2012 1:09 PM, Blogger Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...


I think Vermont is the only state that doesn't have some form of a balanced budget requirement in its laws or its constitution.

At 6/06/2012 1:37 PM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

As PeakTrader suggested, the 2007-2011 growth figures are far more revealing than the single year growth statistics.

Energy states - ND, SD, WY, WV, PA, TX, OK, and LA - are all significantly above 2007 economic levels. So are VA and MD, the states which are home to federal government workers and lobbyists.

States hit hardest by the real estate boom - FL, NV, and AZ - remain well below economic levels of 4 years ago.

States which have relied on the Big 3 auto companies - MI and OH - are also still way down from 2007.

I'm not sure why AL, GA, and SC have not yet recovered. Anyone have ideas?


Post a Comment

<< Home