Comments on: GDP overachievers

By: Ewan McIntosh

Ewan McIntosh — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

What an excellent first-stop analysis of this data. It’s no coincidence that economy is related to education standards in other parts of the world. However, if you read the McKinsey report on what makes great ed systems great, then money, actually, doesn’t come into it ALL of the time (although it does make a difference).

Perhaps all that this reveals is that parents who are more well-off (middleclass and up) are more likely to be adding more value after hours i.e. the education systems themselves may or may not be doing particularly well themselves, but parents may be pushing children to do more constructive work in the evenings and weekends.

What do you think?

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

As the cost of technology continues to decrease, the barrier to entry weakens for developing countries entering into a globally competitive arena. I think a cycle exists that wealthy countries can afford to invest in technology and thus increase their wealth even more. As it becomes cheaper and easier to invest in technology, the less wealthy countries have an opportunity to catch up.

By: John Kain

John Kain — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

This is a fascinating piece of research and I agree with the conclusion about focusing on digital technology skills. However, I think there are a lot of other factors that explain why some states are GDP overachievers or underachievers. I suspect Connecticut is an overachiever because it is home to large number of rich people who work in lucrative fields in New York such as Wall Street or show business. And I would guess that oil revenue makes Alaska and Wyoming overachievers. Arizona (my home state) is probably an underachiever because of low wages and a high concentration of illegal immigrants. But developing a tech-literate workforce would certainly help us.

By: Scott McLeod

Scott McLeod — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

John, I think you’re right. There are a number of contributing factors to this. However, while states can’t do much about geographic issues like natural resources or proximity to major metro areas, they can do other things to make themselves globally competitive. From my viewpoint, investing in their future workforce and technology infrastructure are some of the smartest bets states can make. Countries like Ireland, Singapore, and South Korea are excellent examples of how to do this well.

By: Doug Johnson

Doug Johnson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Hi Scott,

You should send this to Steven Levitt of Freakonomics fame. Interesting stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics

You don’t mention how Iowa and Minnesota do which both tend to rank high in educational measures.

All the best,

Doug

By: A. Mercer

A. Mercer — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

Saw the video…the delivery makes Thomas Friedman looked staid. Can I say I was really underwhelmed by the revelations it purported to make. You’ve taken this lemon of a video and made not just lemonade, but something to chew over. Nice job.

Doug, thanks for the Freakanomics link, it prompted me to check out the blog on NY Times: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/ good read.

By: Chris Goldschmidt

Chris Goldschmidt — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 05:00:00 +0000

I think there’s a flaw in your analysis, chiefly because you look at a snapshot rather than long term trends. Southern states have very steadily narrowed the gap over the past three decades, to the point that the next decade will see a change in the overall ranking of states. Need an example? If trends continue, Alabama will surpass Michigan in per capita income by 2011, a scant four years from now.