Alaska Without Anchorage
This would be completely true, except for one big problem - Anchorage.
"Los Anchorage" is a nickname that seems to have stuck to the largest city in Alaska, and it totally makes sense to me. For almost any non-Anchorage Alaskan, your first reaction to the city has to be "OH, THE URBANITY!" Granted, I've never been in Anchorage at a time of year when there wasn't dirty snow everywhere, (February-April), so if I'm being fair, I don't have the experience to judge the city fully.
Still, I think it is worth asking: What would Alaska be like without Anchorage?
Population: 418,405 people (least populous state - 710,231 and 4th least populous with Los Anchorage)
Population density: 1.58 square miles per person (0.63 people per square mile - 1.07/mi² with L.A.)
|Notice the difference? Kenai is almost an island now!|
Enrolled in school: 27.91% (28.37% w/L.A.)
Students in private schools: 12.14% (12.98% w/L.A.)
Employed out of pop. 16 and older: 60.49% (61.26% w/L.A.)
Workers in private sector: 71.7% (76.82% w/L.A.)
Poverty rate: 10.57% (9.94% w/L.A.)
Fairbanks (31,535 people)
On average, one state house representative for every 10,460 people (17,756 w/L.A.)
U.S. Senators: Lisa Murkowski (R) and unknown (Mark Begich wouldn't be one)
U.S. Representative: Don Young (always)
To make a long story short, without Anchorage there would be a lot fewer Alaskans, so there'd be more land, more representation, and more Permanent Fund money to go around. On the other hand, Alaskans would be more male, less enrolled in school, less employed, more impoverished, and probably even more Republican. Maybe having Anchorage isn't such a bad thing after all!
Note: Data comes from the 2010 U.S. Census, the American Community Survey of 2010, and the 2010 economic census. Data is accessible here.