Right to Work by the Numbers: Part 7: GDP by State and GDP per Capita by State

What follows is a list of U.S. states by GDP and GDP per capita in 2010. The “right to work” states are indicated in boldface.

Rank	GDP	Pct. of US	Pop.		GDP Per	Rank Per
Total GDP	(000’s)	GDP	(Millions)		Capita	Capita

United States	14,657,800	100.00	308.7		47,482

1 California	1,936,400	13.34	37.3		51,914	11
2 Texas	1,307,432	7.95	25.1		45,940	23
3 New York	1,156,500	7.68	19.4		57,423	6
4 Florida	754,000	5.20	18.8		40,106	39
5 Illinois	644,200	4.44	12.8		50,328	14
6 Pennsylvania	575,600	3.97	12.7		45,323	24
7 New Jersey	497,000	3.42	8.8		56,477	7
8 Ohio	483,400	3.33	11.5		42,035	32
9 Virginia	427,700	2.95	8.0		53,463	8
10 North Carolina	407,400	2.81	9.5		42,884	30
11 Georgia	403,100	2.79	9.7		41,711	34
12 Massachusetts	377,700	2.60	6.5		58,108	5
13 Michigan	372,400	2.57	9.9		37,616	41
14 Washington	351,100	2.42	6.7		52,403	9
15 Maryland	300,000	2.07	5.8		51,724	12
16 Indiana	267,600	1.84	6.5		41,169	35
17 Minnesota	267,100	1.84	5.3		50,396	13
18 Arizona	261,300	1.80	6.4		40,828	38
19 Colorado	259,700	1.79	5.0		51,940	10
20 Wisconsin	251,400	1.73	5.7		44,105	28
21 Tennessee	250,300	1.72	6.3		39,730	40
22 Missouri	246,700	1.70	6.0		41,117	36
23 Connecticut	233,400	1.61	3.6		64,833	3
24 Louisiana	213,600	1.47	4.5		47,467	20
25 Alabama	174,400	1.20	4.8		36,333	45
26 Oregon	168,900	1.16	3.8		44,447	26
27 South Carolina	164,300	1.13	4.6		35,717	47
28 Kentucky	161,400	1.11	4.3		37,535	42
29 Oklahoma	160,500	1.11	3.8		42,237	31
30 Iowa	147,200	1.01	3.0		49,067	18
31 Kansas	128,500	0.89	2.9		44,310	27
32 Nevada	127,500	0.88		2.7	47,222		22
33 Utah	116,900	0.81		2.8	41,750		33
34 Arkansas	105,800	0.73		2.9	36,483		44
35 Mississippi	98,900	0.68		3.0	32,967		50
36 Nebraska	89,600	0.62		1.8	49,778		16
37 New Mexico	75,500	0.52		2.1	35,952		46
38 Hawaii	68,900	0.47		1.4	49,214		17
39 West Virginia	66,600	0.46		1.9	35,053		48
40 Delaware	62,700	0.43		0.9	69,667		1
41 New Hampshire	61,600	0.42		1.3	47,385		21
42 Idaho	54,800	0.38		1.6	34,250		49
43 Maine	53,200	0.37		1.3	40,923		37
44 Rhode Island	49,500	0.34		1.1	45,000		25
45 Alaska	45,600	0.31		0.7	65,143		2
46 South Dakota	39,900	0.27		0.8	49,875		15
47 Wyoming	38,200	0.26		0.6	63,667		4
48 Montana	37,200	0.26		1.0	37,200		43
49 North Dakota	33,400	0.23		0.7	47,714		19
50 Vermont	26,400	0.18		0.6	44,000		29

Of the top ten states by total GDP, four are “right-to-work” states; of the top twenty, eight are “right to work”; of the top thirty, 14 are “right to work.”

In contrast, of the top ten states by per-capita GDP, two are “right to work” states”; of the top twenty, seven are “right to work” states; of the top thirty, thirteen are “right to work.”

Moreover, of the nine “right to work” states in the top twenty-five states in total GDP, all but Virginia rank 20 or more spots lower in per-capita GDP.

So there is a clear pattern here: the difference between the “right to work states” the “pro-labor” states is more pronounced in terms of per-capita GDP than in terms of total GDP: that is, any economic gains reflect population growth and not increased wealth across the population.

This difference has a corollary in both the lower average wages and the higher numbers of low-wage jobs in “right to work” states. The “average” worker may find it somewhat easier to find employment in at least some of the “right to work” states, but it may be more difficult to find employment that pays a living wage. Notably, among the “right to work” states, Virginia’s singularly high rank in both total GDP and per-capita GDP seems related to, if not directly reflective of, the large percentage of well paid and largely unionized federal workers in the densely populated northern counties surrounding Washington, D.C.

Most tellingly, between 2004 and 2010, there was almost no movement in the rankings by either total GDP or per-capita GDP. Michigan experienced a drop of several places in both categories, and three other pairs of states simply switched places in terms of total GDP. So, in terms of total GDP and especially in terms of per-capita GDP, there is very little evidence that the “right to work” states have made appreciable economic gains on the “pro-labor” states.

__________________________

Previous posts in this series have included:

Part 1: Population Growth and Movement: https://academeblog.org/2013/04/03/2666/

Part 2: Immigration: https://academeblog.org/2013/04/21/right-to-work-by-the-numbers-part-2/

Part 3: Unemployment Rates, by State: https://academeblog.org/2013/04/30/right-to-work-by-the-numbers-part-3/

Part 4: Historic Highs and Lows in Unemployment, by State: https://academeblog.org/2013/05/05/right-to-work-by-the-numbers-part-4/

Part 5: Employment in Manufacturing: https://academeblog.org/2013/05/10/right-to-work-by-the-numbers-part-5/

Part 6: Loss of Employment in Manufacturing, before and during the Great Recession: https://academeblog.org/2013/07/21/right-to-work-by-the-numbers-part-6/

My other posts on “right to work” have included:

“Right to Work Isn’t Going Away, at Least for the Moment”: https://academeblog.org/2012/09/07/right-to-work-isnt-going-away-at-least-for-the-moment/

“Right to Work Is an Insult to Intelligence”: https://academeblog.org/2012/12/11/right-to-work-is-an-insult-to-intelligence/

“Right to Work Is an Insult to Intelligence, Addendum”: https://academeblog.org/2012/12/12/right-to-work-is-an-insult-to-intelligence-addendum/