Talk:List of U.S. states by GDP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Economics (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.


I put line breaks in between the map and the data table. This is necessary because the map overlaps and makes the data table unreadable PLEASE DO NOT remove the breaks. Remember most people do not have the elongated computer screens as found on laptops so by removing the breaks you are distorting the data table. This way the map appears readable then the data table appears readable. 16:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Eric

the state data for 2013 is cited to, which is only a private blog site not an official government data source; furthermore that site says that its 2013 figures are only "guesstimated" by the website itself, without any specified source. Some of the state figures look questionable and inconsistent with historical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.[edit]

Washington, D.C. is not a state, so I left it out of the ranking, but left in its place for comparison purposes. 08:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks thats great you did a good job on that but you forgot to do the same for Puerto rico and i see puerto rice on the old list but its not ranked on the newer list . (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

2004 data[edit]


Map of states by Gross state product in billions of U.S. dollars, 2004 figures.
Rank State GSP
1 California 1,550,753
2 New York 896,739
3 Texas 884,136
4 Florida 599,068
5 Illinois 521,900
6 Pennsylvania 468,089
7 Ohio 419,866
8 New Jersey 416,053
9 Michigan 372,169
10 Georgia 343,125
11 North Carolina 336,398
12 Virginia 329,332
13 Massachusetts 317,798
14 Washington 261,549
15 Maryland 227,991
16 Indiana 227,569
17 Minnesota 223,822
18 Tennessee 217,626
19 Wisconsin 211,616
20 Missouri 203,294
21 Colorado 199,969
22 Arizona 199,953
23 Connecticut 185,802
24 Louisiana 152,944
25 Alabama 139,840
26 Kentucky 136,446
27 South Carolina 136,125
28 Oregon 128,103
29 Iowa 111,114
30 Oklahoma 107,600
31 Nevada 100,317
32 Kansas 98,946
33 Utah 82,611
34 Arkansas 80,902
District of Columbia 76,685
35 Mississippi 76,166
36 Nebraska 68,183
37 New Mexico 61,012
38 Delaware 54,274
39 New Hampshire 51,871
40 Hawaii 50,322
41 West Virginia 49,454
42 Idaho 43,571
43 Maine 43,336
44 Rhode Island 41,679
45 Alaska 34,023
46 South Dakota 29,386
47 Montana 27,482
48 Wyoming 23,979
49 North Dakota 22,687
50 Vermont 21,921

I (re) corrected New Jersey's GSP for 2006, edited by some Digg user. <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>

Comparable Country[edit]

The list of List_of_Chinese_administrative_divisions_by_population has a column for comparable country. Using the List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal), if such a column were to be added to this table, California would be comparable to Russia (8th in world GDP ranking) and Vermont would be comparable to Trinidad and Tobago (94th). Any thoughts on the value of adding that info to this table? --Mikebrand (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ways to merge PPP ("real GDP") data for comparison? (and maybe per capita data)[edit]

Is anyone is interested in adding PPP ("real GDP") data? (The PPP data IS available from the same dot-gov source that this page used. Or at least we can a link to it @ bottom of this page...but AFAIK, no such page exists on Wikipedia, for this page to be _able_ to link to it. Please see below proposal for how to fit it within this page...)

And can per-capita data be added as well (nominal and/or PPP) by merging this article with List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)?

It's redundant, so perhaps ditch the "Rank" column? The reason it's redundant is because you can get it ranked (in terms of largest-to-smallest or vice-versa) by just clicking the icon in the column header for "2008 GSP ($millions)". IFF (if and only if) other ways to measure the states such as GDP(PPP) and GDP(nominal) were _both_ present side-by-side, _then_ one might want the "rank" column, so when you click to rank it by PPP GDP, you can also see the _rankings_ of GDP(nominal). But in its current 3-column state, GDP(nominal) isn't listed next to other economic data, so the "Rank" column is useless as there's no other data to compare it to. Then the space saved by removing those numerous "Rank" columns could be used to add the following extra columns, or could just reduce it to only showing rank+both forms of GDP but maybe only 2 years-worth of data will fit the width of most people's monitors that's a judgment call (assuming that 2 more columns (per-capita GDP and population data) also makes it too wide to fit the same, 3 years-worth of data that it currently has side-by-side, on most people's monitors, maybe put the per-capita data either in a section 1.1 (preferable by my reasoning; see bold text, below) or on another webpage).

  • first, a good option is to change the "2008 GSP," "2007 GSP," and all other GSP columns to light-blue background to match the blue map in the upper-right of this article, then add:
  • column for GDP (PPP) with a light-yellow background,
  • "per capita" and "state population" (the latter being from, both in red columns, to match the reddish map @ the upper-right corner of |this webpage?
  • If anyone is hesitant about how colour-coding columns would look, the colour-coding on the following page isn't exactly what I'm proposing -- I think on this GDP page, it's best if each column is the same colour top-to-bottom, and the colour of a PPP column for each year is the same colour as PPP columns for all other years, GDP(nominal) columns are also same colour as each other, for each and every year, and following that pattern instead of the colour-coded list here: list_of_indices_of_freedom#Current_assessments. If people want to do this but they're unfamiliar with how to change colours of columns, people can "borrow" the code from that webpage as it has coloured columns.
I've added some notes on the other page's Talk page in the meantime.

Easier to analyze many things when nominal, PPP, and per-capita GDP data are all on the same page... (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Add U.S. Average Data?[edit]

Wouldn't this list be a little better if it had the average U.S. data as well. It could be unranked like D.C. but placed at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeClock871 (talkcontribs) 13:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


It would be interesting to see U.S. territories here as well, since economic performance there is arguably part of the politics of the same country. -- Beland (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. But the US territories could be included if all of them were included, not just Puerto Rico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

2009 Ranking[edit]

Why is it that when you rank them by 2009 numbers, the rankings don't match up with the actual data? --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why when you try to rank these with the 2009 numbers, it doesn't work? --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 Default[edit]

What is the default position for the 2010 estimate list? I ask, because the default neither ranks it by the raw number or the rank number, so, what's the deal? --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical data[edit]

Is there a list of statewise US GDP for 1890? Spade and Shovel (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

2010 Numbers Out[edit]

2010 GDP numbers are out courtesy of the BEA, so these can all be updated:

adding in country comparisons[edit]

I have added to each state which country has closest GDP and GDP per capita figures, as per 2011 IMF data. It appears to fit within the table. Any comments? Kransky (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I like this but I'd prefer it used PPP GDP than nominal, especially in the per capita case. PPP GDP per capita tells us countries with the same standard of living. R42 (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I've added per capita PPP in another column. Personally I would just keep this and remove the non-PPP one, because non-PPP comparisons seem kind of meaningless to me. Don't know what others think of this. A few points about the numbers I have used:
1) I didn't use PPP adjustment for the states; didn't have that to hand. I think there's some debate about whether PPP adjustment within a country even makes sense. But I'd be happy to redo it with the adjustment.
2) My list is more repetitive than Kransky's. There aren't many countries rich enough to compare. Maybe that's an argument against this column.
3) I used the country that is closest in ratio, not the absolute difference. I could use absolute difference instead if that's better but I prefer the former.
4) I wrote <none comparable> for D.C.. Kransky used Luxembourg but that's only half of D.C. in PPP. I don't mind replacing mine with Luxembourg.

R42 (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

also I used 2010 IMF data from here. R42 (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
R42 - it would be good to make PPP and nominal comparisions, but where can you find PPP data for US states? You cannot equate the GSP for a US state with the PPP of a country. Oranges and lemons. Kransky (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


Why aren't the tables on this page sortable? Obviously it's sorted for GDP but what about allowing people to sort it by GDP per capita? The page focuses too much on simple GDP which is pretty pointless because obviously the larger states appear at the top of the page. The important figure is GDP per capita so we can see what the average Yank is earning.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 23:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps this has already been discussed ad nauseum, but I'm looking at the 2010 number listed for Michigan, here, and it conflicts with the BEA number for 2010 that I keep seeing ($384.1 billion). What is the source of the discrepancy? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the 2011 numbers are out. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Washington DC Figure for per capita income is way too high[edit]

It's about double what it should be. Plus the citation goes to a page that doesn't even list per capita income. Data should be taken from the Census American Community Survey when it comes back online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Numbers are WRONG?![edit]


I don't know why the numbers are taken from an unofficial website called while we can use the official data published by the BEA of the Current-Dollar GDP by State (

What do you think guys? should we just edit the numbers and use the official BEA data?--- Oalhenaki 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The usgovernmentrevenue numbers should not be used. The website even indicates that these are 'guesstimates' rather than real numbers. In addition, the 'guesstimates' have changed since they were copied into wikipedia so the citation doesn't even back up the data shown. (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think far more significant is the fact that this is 2014 and the article only shows numbers through 2009. That's painfully out of date. (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Per capita[edit]

We need to have a column of the data per capita, otherwise it is just a list of big states. How that economic activity is per person is more important and determines the standard of living. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)