If Britain were a U.S. state, it would be the second-poorest(washingtonpost.com)

If Britain were a U.S. state, it would be the second-poorest

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/26/if-the-uk-was-a-u-s-state-it-would-be-the-second-poorest-behind-alabama-and-before-mississippi

12 comments

forlulz12년 전

Yay, another linkbaity apples vs oranges comparison. As per the comments mention, no accounting for social services like health care.

(I'd love to downvote but I don't have the karma)

madaxe_again12년 전

I see.

Do they have free healthcare in Alabama?

GDP isn't everything.

[deleted]12년 전

arethuza12년 전

Interesting comment from a thread on ARRSE about that article:

"It would also be the most populous by a very wide margin so would get double the number of votes than the next nearest state which would mean we would have the balance of power in all elections. Now wouldn't that be fun"

[NB I don't think it would be wise to directly link to ARRSE from HN]

dddave12년 전

"United Kingdom’s low ranking showed Britain had “no reason to feel smug” about recent events in Ferguson, Mo."

Err... Hello? I think that Britain is largely appalled about the recent events in Ferguson rather than smug.

Also worth pointing out that UK != Britain.

ojbyrne12년 전

Pretty ludicrous. I'm sure if we divided up Britain appropriately you would have ended up with high-per-capita GDP regions with small populations(City of London?) well above Alaska.

Watch out for that economic powerhouse, Wyoming..

mhurron12년 전

Why not divide by land area, since that has as much to do with GDP as population.

theklub12년 전

Total Linkbait.

dang12년 전

This post was killed by user flags.

_of12년 전

This is not a fair comparison.