Only if you owned a horse. You walkin'? GFY.

Feel like this needs to be adjusted by number of banks in the state or some sort of per capita metric. California and Florida are going to have a lot just by virtue of having massive populations.

[removed]

And % of bank assets

Been a long time since I heard someone say they were proud of Ohio....

Some of the best county and city names ever. Bacon County and my fav city Cumming

And then you consider Alaska, which is more than twice the size with only 29 counties or California which is 3/5th the size with only 58 counties.

Lots of interesting decisions were made when subdividing our states.

Because 160 would be too many!

Yeah but the size of Texas completely negates that "fun" fact, making it quite boring.

Agreed but the catch is the return on investment is much lower. If your property value means nothing to you then affordability is everything, but would you rather be paying 1k in mortgage plus 800 in local taxes, or 1.3k in mortgage plus 500 in local taxes?

I'd like to see lost value per capita in each state.

That'd actually show us something resembling the stability of the banking systems in each state.

While true, housing costs in IL are still massively cheaper than the coasts even when factoring that in. Chicago is a huge bargain, and even with taxes is nowhere near PNW, CA, NY, or even Florida prices while still offering high incomes. Hell, there are podunk Midwestern college towns with housing costs that aren't all that different than Chicago

[removed]

Said by someone who likely has never stepped foot in either state.

Early Georgia really wanted a local government/county seat to be within about a day's journey by whatever means of travel was available at the time.

As the state grew, that meant creating a bunch of counties.

I chose to make it vertical because my family and friends will be referencing it on their mobile devices while app-switching to/from other vertically oriented apps.

The colors do not represent anything in particular.

I suspect if you, or someone you love, we’re going through cancer this would be a little easier to comprehend, but I understand that without that life experience and context, it’s difficult to read unfamiliar data in a colorful vertical gannt chart.

Makes sense.

what’s your theory on illinois?

[deleted]

I think it's a different fallacy but not one I know the name of.

In essence it's a count problem. Georgia had a bunch of smaller banks and this is only counting the bank entity, not the size of the bank itself.

If you changed the chart to show magnitude based on total $s of banks that busted by state, you might see a different result

Lumping Columbia, Towson, and Baltimore probably really affects the results. It's a real contrast between arguably the best and worst schools in the state.

The number of banks doesn't mean much to me. There's a massive difference between a small town bank and Wachovia or Washington Mutual.

Someone I play card games with makes charts like this for a living. And it's honestly amazing how good people can get at making this stuff. It's like a legit skill.

Also great job making this OP. Everyone seems really interested with the data, there's minimal confusion about what's being shown, and you're taking feedback really well.

True but you have to ask two questions:

1. when was it created. Things on the east coast are older and the administration of a county the size of Delaware would have been difficult in 1770s. They also took on a lot of historical boundaries that existed during colonial times.

2. A state like Nevada with big counties might make sense as it was a state that developed much later, and is much less dense.

3. even with the changes in advancement of transportation - who's going to vote to get rid of their own autonomy and be merged into a larger entity with neighboring counties that could have differ goals, budgets, etc.

Agreed, though my immediate reaction was "hey, a data map of the US that doesn't just look like population data!"