|
|
|
|
|
|
by adventured
3191 days ago
|
|
|
> Has the American Midwest recovered from not being one of the coasts? That's not a great reference point. It only works well if you're only talking about New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut. California's GDP per capita is only about 8%-10% higher than Nebraska. Iowa is as high as Oregon. Illinois is 30% higher than Florida. Indiana is higher than Vermont. Wisconsin is higher than North Carolina. Minnesota is close to Maryland. South Dakota is higher than New Jersey or Virginia. Kansas is 20% higher than Maine. Missouri is higher than South Carolina. Ohio is on par with Rhode Island. The US mid-west is an economic juggernaut compared to the rest of the world. It's larger than the economies of France or the UK, and nearly as big as Germany. Averaged out it's very comparable to the coastal states. |
|
|
But how are populations developing? When people follow the money, GDP per capita evens out, maybe to the point of overcompensation given enough mobility and optimism to "make it there". Just look at how real estate prices are not matching the distribution of GDP per capita at all: real estate is less mobile than people.
(Edit: and yes, there surely are also some economic hotspots within the Midwest, some of those states are huge and have plenty of room to have their own internal concentration patterns)
Back to real estate, which brings us back to Germany, where rising real estate prices (both owned and rented) have increasingly been on people's minds recently: the solution cannot be just rent regulation or construction deregulation, it has to go to the root, find was to Conner concentration, to make the backwaters more economically viable, where housing prices ar not rising but in free fall.