4 ms·
You're absolutely right. Not taking population size into account makes this entire comparison of QOL pointless, not just that between Iraq and Oklahoma. Conside
by pluto9 8y ago
You're absolutely right. Not taking population size into account makes this entire comparison of QOL pointless, not just that between Iraq and Oklahoma. Considering GP is the one that initially made the comparison, I'm curious why you're making this reply to my comment and not hers.
- usrusr 8y agoGP wasn't specific about absolute vs relative GDP (American performance in QOL per GDPPC may not be terrible, but certainly not beyond all doubt), the Oklahoma/Iraq comparison was.
- pluto9 8y agoYeah, no it wasn't. My comment compared quality of life while failing to account for per-capita GDP. So did GP. How is mine more specific about it?
- usrusr 8y agoGP post is open to a benevolent interpretation wherein a cooperative reader fills in the missing "per capita" from the context of talking about quality of life. Calling Iraq and Oklahoma similar closes that door, because those two are not similar at all per capita.
- pluto9 8y agoIt cannot reasonably be interpreted that way. GP made a blanket statement about how in spite of our GDP being higher than many other countries, our quality of life is not. That is obviously false. I choose to interpret GP's comment to mean what it actually says. You may choose to put words in GP's mouth so that their argument says what you wish it to say, but for me that's a waste of time. If they wish to clarify and restate their argument, they are welcome to do so. But then they will have to provide some evidence that per-capita GDP "goes farther" in other countries than in the U.S. So far nobody has done that.
- usrusr 8y ago> It cannot reasonably be interpreted that way. Well, I do, and I hope this answers your question of why I replied to your post and not the the one above (which did not add much to the discussion to begin with).