Considering my crippling writer's block seems to have resolved itself when I sit down to do actual research, I'm going to take a page from Rambler's "blind focus on research only" strategy book and start talking the Economics of Texas, quant style.
A lot has always been said and continues to be said about the state of Texas, and I find the best way to cut through the Amarillo land mines (think about it, you'll get that joke in a second) is go straight to the data. So I will present in what are most probably the most boring blog posts to anyone else a series of posts on my interpretation of the data regarding Texas.
Let's start "top down" with the "Macro" indicators and my best data friend in the whole world FRED.
Above is the year-over-year percentage change in the Real (meaning "inflation adjusted") Gross State Product of Texas. This is the growth in the size of production. Texas appears to be recovering at an "alright" clip after the recession. The picture looks rosier compared to the US Real Gross Domestic Product as a whole:
I know, apples and much larger apples, but based on GDP, Texas isn't a bad place to be. But the size of an economy's production is not a good measure of its welfare, nor its "richness". If we spread out that production over the population (y = GDP / Population), we get a better idea of the amount of the pie available to the average resident of the US or Texas.
In terms of GDP per capita, Texas has risen above the GDP per capita of the US. In 2013 the average Texan produced (earned) around $52,000 per year, while the average US output per capita did not break $50,000.
In fact if we take the growth rates, Texas has been growing faster than the overall US economy since just before the recession:
A similar story appears when comparing Texas and New York; New York is by the far the "richer" state per capita in terms of production than Texas. Texas has been growing faster, but there is still a nearly $10,000 difference per person.
So yes, in terms of production, Texas is big, and still growing.
Here is what is not included in these graphs that I will get to in later posts:
1) Median household income, average hourly earnings, and employment,
2) Price level indicators for a standardized basket of goods in major metropolitan areas (say Dallas vs. New York City),
3) Poverty and inequality (as measured by the Gini and Theil indices- no "1%" laziness on this blog, we use all parts of the bison in the Panhandle),
5) Demographics, education, and other "dashboard" measures (as they are available).
As I tell the students: GDP is a good place to start, but not a good place to finish.
Edit. A data note. As some would probably point out, I use the total population of the United States to calculate real GDP per capita for the US, including minors and military. Some would debate the use of this population measure and ask that the "Civilian Noninstitutional Population"; those who are not under the age of 16, not incarcerated, and not serving in the military. Sure. You can do that with FRED. It changes the story, and GDP per capita for the US rises much higher and stays higher than Texas (around $64,000 per person) but the growth rate story (Texas growing faster) remains the same.
A lot has always been said and continues to be said about the state of Texas, and I find the best way to cut through the Amarillo land mines (think about it, you'll get that joke in a second) is go straight to the data. So I will present in what are most probably the most boring blog posts to anyone else a series of posts on my interpretation of the data regarding Texas.
Let's start "top down" with the "Macro" indicators and my best data friend in the whole world FRED.
Above is the year-over-year percentage change in the Real (meaning "inflation adjusted") Gross State Product of Texas. This is the growth in the size of production. Texas appears to be recovering at an "alright" clip after the recession. The picture looks rosier compared to the US Real Gross Domestic Product as a whole:
I know, apples and much larger apples, but based on GDP, Texas isn't a bad place to be. But the size of an economy's production is not a good measure of its welfare, nor its "richness". If we spread out that production over the population (y = GDP / Population), we get a better idea of the amount of the pie available to the average resident of the US or Texas.
In terms of GDP per capita, Texas has risen above the GDP per capita of the US. In 2013 the average Texan produced (earned) around $52,000 per year, while the average US output per capita did not break $50,000.
In fact if we take the growth rates, Texas has been growing faster than the overall US economy since just before the recession:
A similar story appears when comparing Texas and New York; New York is by the far the "richer" state per capita in terms of production than Texas. Texas has been growing faster, but there is still a nearly $10,000 difference per person.
So yes, in terms of production, Texas is big, and still growing.
Here is what is not included in these graphs that I will get to in later posts:
1) Median household income, average hourly earnings, and employment,
2) Price level indicators for a standardized basket of goods in major metropolitan areas (say Dallas vs. New York City),
3) Poverty and inequality (as measured by the Gini and Theil indices- no "1%" laziness on this blog, we use all parts of the bison in the Panhandle),
5) Demographics, education, and other "dashboard" measures (as they are available).
As I tell the students: GDP is a good place to start, but not a good place to finish.
Edit. A data note. As some would probably point out, I use the total population of the United States to calculate real GDP per capita for the US, including minors and military. Some would debate the use of this population measure and ask that the "Civilian Noninstitutional Population"; those who are not under the age of 16, not incarcerated, and not serving in the military. Sure. You can do that with FRED. It changes the story, and GDP per capita for the US rises much higher and stays higher than Texas (around $64,000 per person) but the growth rate story (Texas growing faster) remains the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment