User blog comment:Ty Rezac/Best states to live/@comment-5789047-20130512172131/@comment-32656-20130523060638

You do realize that that is not what you argued, right?

You made the argument that the size of an economy - not the GDP per capita - was a determiner of how well it was to live somewhere. When, of course, that is not remotely true.

Now, you argue the opposite.

GDP per capita is also not a very good indicator. Yes, it is one factor in determining how well it is to live somewhere - but it's never presented in a way that makes it meaningful. Many areas of the US, for example, have low GDP per capita, but are high on this list. Without info on how much it takes to live there, that information is largely useless.

And, California? 5th most expensive state in the US, with only Hawaii and Alaska (more isolated) and New York and Connecticut (New York Metro) being worse. So the high GDP per capita in California is more or less irrelevant.

So, while economy does indeed have something to do with things, that is in fact very little. GDP, while relevant to some extent, is largely useless.

As an example, a couple of Arab countries have extremely high per capita GDP, more than even California has, and a few others aren't too far off. Going by your claim, they would thus have a very good quality of life, and be a "best place to live." Yet that is not even remotely the case.

You data about the Bay area is incorrect - you need to fact-check more. Yes, I know you got it off of wikipedia, but that does not mean it right. The source for that bit of data on that page actually says something different than what the article states. And a simple check of wikipedia pages will get you another result.

The Bay area, depending on the source, has a GDP from $335 billion to $535 billion. The most reliable one of these, which is the source cited on that wikipedia page (but not followed) is the $335 billion. Another I located claims it to be $518 billion.

Now, using these numbers and looking at a list of countries by GDP, the Bay area ranks somewhere from 21st to 34th. 34 is the low GDP figure, the other is the high one, with another figure coming up as high as 22nd. The 20th you quote is not right with any of these, nor is the claims of 19th I located with the $518 billion source.