• 1bluepixel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    131
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The author takes PPP (Purchase Power Parity) per capita of the UK as a whole versus individual U.S. states. So what does it mean that Mississippi on average has a higher PPP than the UK? Two things:

    1. The UK gets dragged down by it’s poorer regions; and
    2. The U.S. has enough ultra-rich people to drag its PPP up despite a large swathe of its population being poor.

    Another way to look at it is, if wealth distribution was fair in the U.S., even people in Mississippi would be better off than the average Brit.

    • lasagna@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the problem with averages vs medians. It completely overlooks wealth gap.

      Here is an example. Moderna CEO made something like $500 million last year. If Moderna had 1000 employees, that would mean the company’s average employee pay is $500,000. And that’s before even adding their pay to this average.

      • Tar_alcaran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. The median wealth of me, my partner and Bill gates is basically zero. The average wealth in billions of dollars.

    • Teppic@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep, there is a good reason the median average is usually used when looking at incomes.

    • delicious_tvarog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The PPP adjustment is going to inflate the values in low cost of living states/nations; cost of living correlates pretty well with average income (i.e. don’t travel to Switzerland unless you like spending money), which means all those eastern European countries and southern states with lower average incomes are going to get a leg up on central/western Europe.

      We’re approaching BadEconomics territory

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s like Bernie always says: it’s the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. So why is basically everybody poor?

      • 1bluepixel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        1 year ago

        I did, and it’s a vast argument to make based on two data points. That the bottom 10% of the U.S. and Finland have the same PPP says nothing about the wealth of the rest of the population, just that the rock bottom of both countries is more or less the same. Not to mention, socialized services probably means Finland and Sweden’s bottom 10% probably has higher life expectancy than the U.S.'s bottom 10%.

        • sab@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A homeless person in Finland has free access to medical treatment that could render a moderately wealthy American homeless.

          Studying isn’t just free - the state pays you for it.

          What you can purchase is, despite popular belief, not a good indicator of life quality.