I was making more than the AVG when I lived in CT. I was nearing the 6 figure mark as a dealer tech, and then teaching at a tech school right around that number after a pay cut. Then I moved back to Buffalo… 
My gripe with it is that is it a TOTALLY useless index that represents absolutely NOTHING.
That just shows that the rich here are REALLY rich. And the rest not so much.
i wish i said this.
Hahahahahahahha
Well F U too.
No this information has nothing to do with that.
GDP per capita represents the output of goods and services per household
---------- Post added at 06:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 AM ----------
I am sorry you feel this way.
BEA does not concur
http://www.bea.gov/scb/account_articles/general/0100od/maintext.htm
---------- Post added at 06:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 AM ----------
I am sorry you feel this way.
BEA does not concur
http://www.bea.gov/scb/account_articles/general/0100od/maintext.htm
Mehh, I dont find it too hard to believe.
Every poop-poor statistic we usually see only includes the city, and lets face it, theres not much wealth there. This one finally includes the burbs and with the current size of towns like OP, Clarence, and parts of Akron and Amherst, where most people are easily making over 50k, this figure gets inflates rather quickly.
Aren’t you an accountant?
This article is about GPD. Not what people earn.
I don’t know if there has been any posts yet in this thread with people trying to even discuss what the article is really about.
lollll
LUL, kinda embarrassed that I didn’t fully read the article before posting. 
GDP, what they are trying to say after fully reading it is that Buffalo produces big numbers but the workers are poorly rewarded in comparison. They talk about how great our production (GDP) is but how poor our city is basically.
Am I on the same page as you now?
First off, this is more of economics than accounting, second Investopedia in that same link you posted describes per capita GDP as:
The gross domestic product (GDP) is one of the primary indicators of a country’s economic performance. It is calculated by either adding up everyone’s income during the period or by adding the value of all final goods and services produced in the country during the year. Per capita GDP is sometimes used as an indicator of standard of living as well, with higher per capita GDP being interpreted as having a higher standard of living.
The title of that chart even says INCOME… If im misunderstanding something please feel free to explain but what I get is that they are using income to calculate GDP…
That was what threw me off on my quick skim I did yesterday. I’m not trained in economics so I don’t know all the equations etc…
I didn’t give it much time because…well it’s Artvoice. LOL
I am getting companies make a shit load of money in a region with a relatively low population. Around 1.1 million living in the two counties as of 2010 census times the 50 someodd grand per person equals our GDP. Contributors prolly include canadians that don’t live here spending their money etc. Here is a stat for you that may blow you mind the last place I worked at grossed close to a million per employee. That is million with an m. Pay is another story.
GDP is a measure of income. Income in not always earnings.
In the full report they describe the production approach, not income approach. Artvoice just copied an pasted the graphic from the report where they define income in the key terms as:
income:per capita gDp for an economy. it is not personal income or household income,[emphasis added] and does not reflect the distribution of income distribution, but proxies the average standard of living in an area.
I think that’s where most of the confusion seems to be coming from here.
Just to make it easier, here’s the full list of Key terms as used in the report
gross Domestic Product (gDP): the sum of the market value of goods and services produced in an economy, such as a metropolitan area, country, or the world.
output (gross Value Added) of an industry: the difference between an industry’s gross output and its intermediary purchases, domestic or imported.
employment: the number of people who performed any work at all in the reference period, for pay or in-kind, or who were temporarily absent from a job for such reasons as illness, maternity or parental leave, holiday, training, or industrial dispute.
income: per capita gDp for an economy. it is not personal income or household income, and does not reflect the distribution of income distribution, but proxies the average standard of living in an area.
Population: the number of residents of a metropolitan area or country.
Free lesson in economics, yes please. 
This is a very simplistic explanation of how to calculate GDP
GDP: sum of expenditures, sum of incomes, and sum of value
added. This problem focuses on the expenditure component since this method is most closely
followed by the markets. The major expenditure components are personal consumption ©,
gross private domestic investment (I), government purchases (G), and net exports (X-M); they
form the familiar identity of:
(1) GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)
Lol well yes then, holy-misleading Batman…
Even the way they say
Key findings rom the report: An analysis of per capita GDP (income)
… what do they expect the layperson to think here? I think the average person understands what GDP is but the gratuitous slapping of “income” all over the article isnt cool lol.
When I first read the article I did a le sigh out loud because of how poorly they represented the point of the figures. I would hate to speculate but I would not be surprised if the author did not really understand the subject matter.
GDP is a representation of income in a technical sense. But not what most associate as income.
I would bet a quite high % of readers do not get out of that article what they should had it been written a little better.