Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmoriarty | Hacker News Reader

Vermont is one of the poorest states in the nation as well, while California's economy is one of the biggest in the world.

View on HN

Vermont is 32nd in per capita GDP. Poorest would be Mississippi, dead last. California is indeed a massive economy and we're ranked 10th in per capita GDP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per...

One point about our size. When CA does something at the state level a lot of other states follow along. Minnesota can't dictate to manufacturers but CA can.

That's GDP per capita. CA is the largest state in terms of overall GDP.

Overall population/economy size matters, not just per-capita.

Per capita GDP matters more in determining whether Vermont or California can better afford this. In fact, CA can better afford this than Vermont.

By comparison, Mississippi cannot afford this. They're basically supported by states like California; their economy is trivial and they're propped up by defense spending.

Why? Disagree with your reasoning, it's not about per-capita, it's about absolute numbers in the risk pool and ability for a large actor like CA to better negotiate prices down.

Why do you think Apple gets better prices than, e.g. Logitech for component parts? Because they order massively more, up-front, and with strict timetables for delivery.

Costs are still per capita. We will only be able to negotiate so much and we'd be negotiating with providers rather the insurance companies.

To be very clear, I think CA can afford this and I think we should do it.

In what way is Vermont one of the poorest states?

There are a lot of very poor communities in Vermont, though I doubt Vermont is poor by median household income. I don't have the numbers in front of me but in terms of corporate tax base, Vermont is probably quite poor compared to NY or CA.

Ben and Jerry's can only foot so much of the tax bill.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com