4 ms·

Seems misleading because it doesn't account for debt or differing costs of living [edit: doesn't account for it effectively].

• thehappypm 7y ago
  "Another important strength of this data is that it is adjusted for purchasing power to measure tangible realities like square feet of living area, foods, smartphones, etc. This removes the confounding effects of factors like inflation and exchange rates. Thus, an apple in one nation is counted the same as an apple in another."
  • qntty 7y ago
    Averages like purchasing power don't tell the whole story for poor people. You have to ask how much of the basic necessities of life they can actually get for their money.
  • cheriot 7y ago
    Does it account for access to health care? How about the way we underfund schools in poor neighborhoods?
  • kstenerud 7y ago
    The problem is that this article is all over the place, and seems to be deliberately muddying the waters. For example: "The upshot is laid bare by the fact that this OECD measure assigns a higher poverty rate to the U.S. (17.8%) than to Mexico (16.6%). Yet, World Bank data shows that 35% of Mexico’s population lives on less than $5.50 per day, as compared to only 2% of people in the United States." The article is full of loaded words, which already makes me distrust it, and then I find these kinds of silly comparisons...
  • JAlexoid 7y ago
    "Thus, an apple in one nation is counted the same as an apple in another." Em.... Nope. That's factually incorrect. PPP is a metric for overall currency value, not apples to apples comparison. If you wish to point out apples - the cheapest retail apples I can buy in NY is $3.21/kg, while retail price for apples in Germany is $1.94/kg. The apple PPP index is, anecdotally, 1.65. The formal PPP index for Germany is 1.08, as in $1 buys you 8% more in Germany... that is factually untrue at the lower end of the income.
• zerr 7y ago
  The quality of life is what matters.