I'd like to see them break this down a little more by county, rather than state. For a place like New Hampshire I'm sure things stay in the same range across the state, but I have to imagine showing figures that combine LA with Northern California distorts both regions low and high, respectively.
I totally agree, and would like to see even more granularity down to urban/rural boundaries, or even census tract. Hell, the report hints at metropolitan area income effects, so surely the BEA data is somewhere out there. Otherwise, the rolled-up numbers are potentially going to be misconstrued, especially if such a study gets traction as a vehicle for public policy implications.
I'd like to see them break this down a little more by county, rather than state. For a place like New Hampshire I'm sure things stay in the same range across the state, but I have to imagine showing figures that combine LA with Northern California distorts both regions low and high, respectively.
I totally agree, and would like to see even more granularity down to urban/rural boundaries, or even census tract. Hell, the report hints at metropolitan area income effects, so surely the BEA data is somewhere out there. Otherwise, the rolled-up numbers are potentially going to be misconstrued, especially if such a study gets traction as a vehicle for public policy implications.