10 ms·

Global economic inequality: what matters most is where you are

65 points by raviparikh 5y ago

atemerev 5y ago
This is an obvious driver for migration: why settle for living in a poor country, if you can migrate to a country with orders of magnitude richer opportunities? I really wonder why the global migration rate is only 3%.
- reidjs 5y ago
  It's hard to get up and move away from everyone you know just to chase wealth and financial stability. Your relationships with people are more important than money. It's not easy to learn a new language, gain citizenship, get a job, and successfully do the thousand other things required to migrate to a new country.
  - atemerev 5y ago
    I have lived in 5 different countries, with residence permits and all (Russia, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Denmark — and also a few months in the US). While it was certainly not easy, I gained a lot from this experience (new relationships and networking opportunities in particular).
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    Exactly. This is one of the (many) problems with the vulgar "homo economicus" view of human beings. Culture and nationality are likewise factors. Moving to another country is difficult. You are moving to an alien culture with an alien language where you will be unfamiliar with a whole host of social realities, some of which may contradict what you believe. That's why immigrants usually create ethnic neighborhoods[0] and it is only their grandchildren onward who are fully assimilated into the adopted nation, usually facilitated through intermarriage which tends to water down ethnic ties. [0] Tangentially, it is an interesting question how long the ethnic European neighborhoods, nostalgically portrayed in movies like "The Godfather", that began to dissolve around WWII could have lasted. According to one view of what is commonly called "white flight", a major factor was the WASP ruling class' social engineering and ethnic cleansing of them out of existence by dispersing them across the suburbs which hastened their assimilation ("into what?" is itself a question worth pursuing; a WASP-constructed "identity"?). The reason this migration out of the cities coincided with the civil rights movement, according to this view, is that the Great Migration of black sharecroppers from the South was effectively an instrument of mass migration into ethnic neighborhoods. Mass migration always fragments the peoples into which the migration flows. So, given this interpretation, this was not some manifestation of racism, but of disintegrating neighborhoods (the "white guys" throwing rocks in Marquette Park were apparently Lithuanians who felt that their community was threatened by this migration). Many of these neighborhoods were also Catholic, and with falling birth rates among Protestants following the 1930 Lambeth Conference, the idea of Catholics outbreeding them was not something they cared to endure.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    By moving to far better country you gain much more than just money. Its tons of things usually, that completely redefine overall level of quality of life. Health care, social care, low crime rate, better schools for children and generally much better environment for them to grow up and have better lives (again, not in monetary sense, this comes just as consequence of the rest). It can be very stimulating. Its a huge step, too big for way too many people, but definitely worth it for many others. It looks much worse from far than actually doing the steps though, you break them down into atomic parts just like any other problem solving. I've done it twice and when looking back to those 10/15 years, it was the right choice, probably the best in my life. But its best done before starting family.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    To add to which, the people who are most likely to get visas to move to much richer countries tend to be the ones that start off in their own country's upper middle class (allowing them to tick all the right educational boxes to become software developers or nurses, or at least have savings to pay people smugglers). They can still be materially a lot richer and often enjoy many other lifestyle benefits from moving overseas even if they have to drop down the status ladder and forget about owning land and having servants, but it does make the decision a bit more of a tradeoff than a salary comparison might suggest. The option of moving isn't really there for the people who are so poor there's no upside to staying in their own country.
    - golemiprague 5y ago
      That really depends on geography, if you border with a rich country also the poor people can migrate illegally just by crossing the border, that's what happening with Mexico and the US or Africa and Europe. But indeed those people don't always do so well in their new country, it just creates more problems. In general migration is not such a great solution because once too many people migrates from the same place it just creates a nation within a nation and you are setting the country for the next civil war, whether proper war or low key between all the different groups. The best way to solve the issue is within each country, China did much more to alleviate poverty for a huge number of people comparing to what migration achieved.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  My guess is the richer countries make it hard to migrate to them. USA is relatively easy to migrate to compared to basically anywhere in western Europe, UK, Canada, Japan, or South Korea.
  - gassiss 5y ago
    I don't know about the others, but Canada is probably the easiest developed country to immigrate to. You can basically get a green card before you even land
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    Usa is harder
  - atemerev 5y ago
    USA is one of the hardest countries in the world to immigrate (and still one of the most attractive).
    - Jensson 5y ago
      If you include illegal immigration then USA is probably easier than most other western nations. USA is very accepting of illegal immigrants for some reason.
      - kevinventullo 5y ago
        You know it never really occurred to me before this, but is there anything more American than working hard to skirt poorly implemented rules in order to enrich yourself and those around you? Am I talking about illegal immigrants or Uber?
        Jensson 5y ago
        That is a good point. California is top both on tech start-ups and illegal immigrants.
      - 5y ago
- vietthan 5y ago
  0.03 * 7,900,000,000 = 237,000,000 . Btw, that's not a rate, just a hard count by the world Economic Forum. That's a lot of people. There's so many variables when it comes to migration that an individual has to face, a percentage that high is actually quite significant. Rising quality of life also means immigration pressure isn't as high.
- beebeepka 5y ago
  People with guns and boots make sure it stays low.
- School-Cotton 5y ago
  Because migration is difficult, unpleasant, and usually illegal.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    Since when is moving to different countries illegal?
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      Without implying anything about other Western countries, and setting aside the US, I was curious how difficult it is to legally immigrate to Canada, since it's the nearest option to me, and everybody likes Canada. The following is what I found (no personal experience, just reading official sources on the internet) While in theory one can move to Canada legally, it appears to me that becoming a permanent resident would be difficult or impossible for most people in the world. There is a complicated points system that possibly a lot of HN readers could qualify for, but not most people. They do not want you if you aren't a member of the managerial class, professional, or skilled tradesperson. They also do not want you if you aren't between 18 and 35. It's not completely impossible but if you are closer to 50, there is a substantial penalty to your score. They do not want you if you have any health or mental condition that they determine will put a burden on the public system. They do not want you if you aren't fluent in English or French. They do not want you if you aren't highly educated. They do not want you if you don't have a guarantee of employment in Canada for a sufficient amount of time or a lot of money. Having a job in Canada isn't necessarily enough. They do not want you if you have a criminal record, especially any form of DWI, whether alcohol, pot, or something else. Marrying a Canadian is not an automatic pass. There are also a bunch of specialized programs with different criteria, such as for refugees, people working as caregivers, etc.
    - School-Cotton 5y ago
      I said usually, not always. You need a visa to do so which developed countries only grant in limited circumstances (e.g., to educated people with job offers in high-demand fields).
WannaFly 5y ago
A person who wrote this is so stupid. "People live in poverty not because of who they are, but because of where they are.". No exactly because of who they are. Because the majority of people in poor countries lazy, not skillful etc. One another person, i guess with only academic education, that thinks that economy is the horn of plenty, and not collective effort and hard work, blood, and sweat of millions of people. P.S. Yes he is.
cblconfederate 5y ago
That should be expected after having decades of free movement of capital, free movement of goods, but restricted movement of people. That maintains labour arbitrage which leads to wealthy countries becoming wealthier
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  Hasn't the global trend been for decades now that poor countries are becoming wealthier? The rich countries have had very little comparative growth. https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.KD&country=# https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=...
  - andrewmutz 5y ago
    Both are growing and getting wealthier. IIRC on a percentage basis the poorer countries are benefitting more, but in absolute terms the wealth countries are benefitting more (the wealthier countries have a lower percentage because they are already so wealthy) From what I've read, most economists say that allowing more immigration between countries would improve both the lives of the people who move, and those of the destination country. I think it is worse for the country that they leave, but on net increased immigration would significantly increase global economic conditions
  - danans 5y ago
    https://www.lse.ac.uk/International-Inequalities/Assets/Documents/Working-Papers/III-Working-Paper-24-mapping-recent-inequality-trends-in-developing-countries.pdf https://www.lse.ac.uk/International-Inequalities/Assets/Docu... The rate of growth is indeed faster in developing countries than developed countries. This is to be expected given that they recently started at a lower level of development. In rich countries, however, inequality has trended up, while in many developing countries it has trended downwards. But even that is a mixed bag. In the largest developing economies (China and India), inequality is increasing, so the rich are getting richer there faster than the poor are getting richer. Of course, the jump for many people from utter poverty to having even the basics is a massive one. It gets more complicated though. In Latin America, inequality is generally decreasing despite relatively high growth. In the developed world, inequality has grown as those with investments and/or skills tied to global growth have seen their wealth rise, while people lacking either of those have seen wealth decline. This phenomenon and the disinvestment in public infrastructure that has accompanied it, has been credited with the recent populist swing in politics in the developed world.
droopyEyelids 5y ago
This is overall a comparison of "Purchasing Power Parity" which suffers from a few gotchas. One thing that complicates this is the value of services provided 'for free' by a person's government. The average citizen of the USA lives on $75 per day, but might use another $10 per day of interstate highways paid for by the government - something the citizen of Burundi doesn't get. Likewise, the Danish citizen lives on $50 a day, but may be receiving a free college education and healthcare while the US citizen spends a substantial fraction of their income on those two. If you're interested, here is a succinct write-up of the phenomenon https://mattbruenig.com/2021/12/08/how-to-compare-incomes-across-countries/ https://mattbruenig.com/2021/12/08/how-to-compare-incomes-ac...
- dahfizz 5y ago
  This is only a problem when comparing _disposable_ income PPP, because disposable income has taxes deducted. Disposable income data is harder to collect, and is therefore less common. This article uses average income (GDP per capita), which compares pre-tax money. The $10/day value that a US citizen gains from the roads was paid for out of that average income.
omegaworks 5y ago
I think what this kind of dollar-centered analysis obscures is the accessibility of the basic goods that enable life: food, water and housing. Sure in a country classified as "poor" by this analysis you might not be able to import the finest cheeses from France or latest and greatest electronics from the US, but perhaps it is easier to feed, cloth and house a family. > To achieve a more equal world without poverty the world needs very large economic growth. I don't understand how this follows. Our global economic system is structured to concentrate wealth, so there is no guarantee that growth benefits the poorest.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  > > To achieve a more equal world without poverty the world needs very large economic growth. > I don't understand how this follows. Our global economic system is structured to concentrate wealth, so there is no guarantee that growth benefits the poorest. The post says growth is necessary; you point out that it is not sufficient. Both can be true.
lcall 5y ago
Maybe also with it is mostly affected by with whom one chooses to associate, and the habits and influences one chooses. For example, my church has tremendous programs and opportunities for: * economic status and stability: training at budgeting, job hunting, overcoming addictions -- some of the classes have been shared in joint programs with the NAACP in the US) * aids for refugees, families, volunteering, food aid, service projects, etc (worldwide) * higher-educational opportunities for almost anyone globally with internet access, including groups who are traditionally excluded due to tuition cost or academic experience, knowledge of English, etc, and teachings that really help with family stability, peace/hope, and generall going forward in life. * being a personal mentor and being mentored * etc. It goes on and on.
dv_dt 5y ago
I would love to see data on happiness and leisure time mixed into this comparison too.
- madacol 5y ago
  Is not mixed, but hope it helps a bit https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours
  - dv_dt 5y ago
    The question for happiness, seems like it’s placed in an oddly competitive context. “Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?” Most of the happiness data seems ended around 2014-2016.
rufus_foreman 5y ago
>>The huge majority of the world is very poor. The poorer half of the world, almost 4 billion people, live on less than $6.70 a day. $6.70 a day is 3 and a half times what is considered extreme poverty. I guess the site is focusing on the negative side here, maybe in order to get more donations, and that's fine, but the world wide reduction in extreme poverty in recent decades is worth commenting on. From the NY Times: "In 1990, about 36 percent of the global population — and nearly half of people in developing countries — lived on less than $1.25 a day, the World Bank’s definition of extreme poverty at the time. (It’s now $1.90 a day.) In 2000, United Nations member states pledged to cut extreme poverty worldwide — specifically to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, from 1990 levels, by 2015. Bottom line: The U.N. goal was met. By 2015, the share of the world’s population living in extreme poverty fell to 12 percent from 36 percent in 1990, a steep decline in just two and a half decades. During a single generation, more than a billion people around the world climbed out of extreme poverty, surpassing the goal."
- notahacker 5y ago
  > $6.70 a day is 3 and a half times what is considered extreme poverty. The question then is, do you think $6.70 a day (US ppp equiv) is actually quite a decent income, or do you think the extreme poverty threshold might be a pretty low bar to have set? (FWIW I think the UN's targets were more closely tied to the need to be low enough to stand a chance of being hit - which is fine - than Max's editorial is linked to what the donors to his data website may or may not already think about poverty.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    The bar is set so you can eat healthy food and have a dry place to rest. You wont get prepared meals or expensive wares, but you can afford to eat meat, you can't afford western housing but you can afford a hut. Those two fixes most issues humanity have struggled with throughout history. Of course you can add so much more quality of life things on top of that, but at least then people don't starve or get diseases from sleeping in poor places or being malnourished. That is a poor life, but not necessarily a bad life, if you can eat and sleep well then you can live a good life. Of course in the western world a hut isn't considered proper housing so you can't rent that out, instead people have to pay for expensive housing or become homeless. Same with food etc. That increases the quality of life, sure, but is also the reason you can't live on a few dollars per day here.
pydry 5y ago
If I was going to write some propaganda to try and whitewash the staggering amount of wealth and power is held by American oligarchs this is what I would do: 1) Write an article about income inequality. Wealth inequality is 100x worse than income inequality - http://metrocosm.com/wealth-vs-income-inequality/ http://metrocosm.com/wealth-vs-income-inequality/ but if you just smoothly transition from talking about economic inequality to income inequality, not only is it not as bad, the reader becomes a much bigger part of it and hence you become less of a part of it. 2) Ignore PPP entirely. If a Slovakian gets paid 5x less than you do in New York and also has 5x cheaper haircuts, you should probably feel a bit guilty about that. 3) Focus on personal responsibility. This is an effective technique. It was used to turn jaywalking into a crime in the early 20th century. It was used to make the litter epidemic of the mid 20th century Not McDonalds Or Coke's Fault. It was used to shift responsibility from Oil supermajor CEOs on to suburban white middle class soccer moms and voila - reduced pressure. Just remember, as the article says: "If you want to reduce global inequality and support poorer people, you do have this opportunity. You can donate some of your money."
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Why ignore ppp? Why feel bad if two lives are equal in all respects? Non PPP only matters if someone moves countries.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    The dataset doesn't ignore PPP, it's expressed in "international dollars" which is a standard PPP adjustment to US levels. That's not really discussed because it's an utterly standard thing to do in cross-country comparisons, but the article might have been better if it talked about the fact the data is PPP adjusted so the actual dollar amounts earned in the poorer countries are even lower, and the fact that PPP adjustments aren't perfect so people on $6.70 of imputed US purchasing power can still pay rent
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      The parent post argued that the article would have been more impactful if it ignored PPP. It also said people should feel guilty if they have the same PPP, but higher salary without adjusting. This makes no sense to me. This is the point I am pushing back on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

65 points by raviparikh 5y ago

This is an obvious driver for migration: why settle for living in a poor country, if you can migrate to a country with orders of magnitude richer opportunities? I really wonder why the global migration rate is only 3%.

reidjs 5y ago
It's hard to get up and move away from everyone you know just to chase wealth and financial stability. Your relationships with people are more important than money. It's not easy to learn a new language, gain citizenship, get a job, and successfully do the thousand other things required to migrate to a new country.
- atemerev 5y ago
  I have lived in 5 different countries, with residence permits and all (Russia, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Denmark — and also a few months in the US). While it was certainly not easy, I gained a lot from this experience (new relationships and networking opportunities in particular).
- bobthechef 5y ago
  Exactly. This is one of the (many) problems with the vulgar "homo economicus" view of human beings. Culture and nationality are likewise factors. Moving to another country is difficult. You are moving to an alien culture with an alien language where you will be unfamiliar with a whole host of social realities, some of which may contradict what you believe. That's why immigrants usually create ethnic neighborhoods[0] and it is only their grandchildren onward who are fully assimilated into the adopted nation, usually facilitated through intermarriage which tends to water down ethnic ties. [0] Tangentially, it is an interesting question how long the ethnic European neighborhoods, nostalgically portrayed in movies like "The Godfather", that began to dissolve around WWII could have lasted. According to one view of what is commonly called "white flight", a major factor was the WASP ruling class' social engineering and ethnic cleansing of them out of existence by dispersing them across the suburbs which hastened their assimilation ("into what?" is itself a question worth pursuing; a WASP-constructed "identity"?). The reason this migration out of the cities coincided with the civil rights movement, according to this view, is that the Great Migration of black sharecroppers from the South was effectively an instrument of mass migration into ethnic neighborhoods. Mass migration always fragments the peoples into which the migration flows. So, given this interpretation, this was not some manifestation of racism, but of disintegrating neighborhoods (the "white guys" throwing rocks in Marquette Park were apparently Lithuanians who felt that their community was threatened by this migration). Many of these neighborhoods were also Catholic, and with falling birth rates among Protestants following the 1930 Lambeth Conference, the idea of Catholics outbreeding them was not something they cared to endure.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  By moving to far better country you gain much more than just money. Its tons of things usually, that completely redefine overall level of quality of life. Health care, social care, low crime rate, better schools for children and generally much better environment for them to grow up and have better lives (again, not in monetary sense, this comes just as consequence of the rest). It can be very stimulating. Its a huge step, too big for way too many people, but definitely worth it for many others. It looks much worse from far than actually doing the steps though, you break them down into atomic parts just like any other problem solving. I've done it twice and when looking back to those 10/15 years, it was the right choice, probably the best in my life. But its best done before starting family.
- notahacker 5y ago
  To add to which, the people who are most likely to get visas to move to much richer countries tend to be the ones that start off in their own country's upper middle class (allowing them to tick all the right educational boxes to become software developers or nurses, or at least have savings to pay people smugglers). They can still be materially a lot richer and often enjoy many other lifestyle benefits from moving overseas even if they have to drop down the status ladder and forget about owning land and having servants, but it does make the decision a bit more of a tradeoff than a salary comparison might suggest. The option of moving isn't really there for the people who are so poor there's no upside to staying in their own country.
  - golemiprague 5y ago
    That really depends on geography, if you border with a rich country also the poor people can migrate illegally just by crossing the border, that's what happening with Mexico and the US or Africa and Europe. But indeed those people don't always do so well in their new country, it just creates more problems. In general migration is not such a great solution because once too many people migrates from the same place it just creates a nation within a nation and you are setting the country for the next civil war, whether proper war or low key between all the different groups. The best way to solve the issue is within each country, China did much more to alleviate poverty for a huge number of people comparing to what migration achieved.
VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
My guess is the richer countries make it hard to migrate to them. USA is relatively easy to migrate to compared to basically anywhere in western Europe, UK, Canada, Japan, or South Korea.
- gassiss 5y ago
  I don't know about the others, but Canada is probably the easiest developed country to immigrate to. You can basically get a green card before you even land
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  Usa is harder
- atemerev 5y ago
  USA is one of the hardest countries in the world to immigrate (and still one of the most attractive).
  - Jensson 5y ago
    If you include illegal immigration then USA is probably easier than most other western nations. USA is very accepting of illegal immigrants for some reason.
    - kevinventullo 5y ago
      You know it never really occurred to me before this, but is there anything more American than working hard to skirt poorly implemented rules in order to enrich yourself and those around you? Am I talking about illegal immigrants or Uber?
      - Jensson 5y ago
        That is a good point. California is top both on tech start-ups and illegal immigrants.
    - 5y ago
vietthan 5y ago
0.03 * 7,900,000,000 = 237,000,000 . Btw, that's not a rate, just a hard count by the world Economic Forum. That's a lot of people. There's so many variables when it comes to migration that an individual has to face, a percentage that high is actually quite significant. Rising quality of life also means immigration pressure isn't as high.
beebeepka 5y ago
People with guns and boots make sure it stays low.
School-Cotton 5y ago
Because migration is difficult, unpleasant, and usually illegal.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Since when is moving to different countries illegal?
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    Without implying anything about other Western countries, and setting aside the US, I was curious how difficult it is to legally immigrate to Canada, since it's the nearest option to me, and everybody likes Canada. The following is what I found (no personal experience, just reading official sources on the internet) While in theory one can move to Canada legally, it appears to me that becoming a permanent resident would be difficult or impossible for most people in the world. There is a complicated points system that possibly a lot of HN readers could qualify for, but not most people. They do not want you if you aren't a member of the managerial class, professional, or skilled tradesperson. They also do not want you if you aren't between 18 and 35. It's not completely impossible but if you are closer to 50, there is a substantial penalty to your score. They do not want you if you have any health or mental condition that they determine will put a burden on the public system. They do not want you if you aren't fluent in English or French. They do not want you if you aren't highly educated. They do not want you if you don't have a guarantee of employment in Canada for a sufficient amount of time or a lot of money. Having a job in Canada isn't necessarily enough. They do not want you if you have a criminal record, especially any form of DWI, whether alcohol, pot, or something else. Marrying a Canadian is not an automatic pass. There are also a bunch of specialized programs with different criteria, such as for refugees, people working as caregivers, etc.
  - School-Cotton 5y ago
    I said usually, not always. You need a visa to do so which developed countries only grant in limited circumstances (e.g., to educated people with job offers in high-demand fields).

WannaFly 5y ago

A person who wrote this is so stupid. "People live in poverty not because of who they are, but because of where they are.". No exactly because of who they are. Because the majority of people in poor countries lazy, not skillful etc. One another person, i guess with only academic education, that thinks that economy is the horn of plenty, and not collective effort and hard work, blood, and sweat of millions of people. P.S. Yes he is.

cblconfederate 5y ago

That should be expected after having decades of free movement of capital, free movement of goods, but restricted movement of people. That maintains labour arbitrage which leads to wealthy countries becoming wealthier

ChrisLomont 5y ago
Hasn't the global trend been for decades now that poor countries are becoming wealthier? The rich countries have had very little comparative growth. https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.KD&country=# https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=...
- andrewmutz 5y ago
  Both are growing and getting wealthier. IIRC on a percentage basis the poorer countries are benefitting more, but in absolute terms the wealth countries are benefitting more (the wealthier countries have a lower percentage because they are already so wealthy) From what I've read, most economists say that allowing more immigration between countries would improve both the lives of the people who move, and those of the destination country. I think it is worse for the country that they leave, but on net increased immigration would significantly increase global economic conditions
- danans 5y ago
  https://www.lse.ac.uk/International-Inequalities/Assets/Documents/Working-Papers/III-Working-Paper-24-mapping-recent-inequality-trends-in-developing-countries.pdf https://www.lse.ac.uk/International-Inequalities/Assets/Docu... The rate of growth is indeed faster in developing countries than developed countries. This is to be expected given that they recently started at a lower level of development. In rich countries, however, inequality has trended up, while in many developing countries it has trended downwards. But even that is a mixed bag. In the largest developing economies (China and India), inequality is increasing, so the rich are getting richer there faster than the poor are getting richer. Of course, the jump for many people from utter poverty to having even the basics is a massive one. It gets more complicated though. In Latin America, inequality is generally decreasing despite relatively high growth. In the developed world, inequality has grown as those with investments and/or skills tied to global growth have seen their wealth rise, while people lacking either of those have seen wealth decline. This phenomenon and the disinvestment in public infrastructure that has accompanied it, has been credited with the recent populist swing in politics in the developed world.

droopyEyelids 5y ago

This is overall a comparison of "Purchasing Power Parity" which suffers from a few gotchas. One thing that complicates this is the value of services provided 'for free' by a person's government. The average citizen of the USA lives on $75 per day, but might use another $10 per day of interstate highways paid for by the government - something the citizen of Burundi doesn't get. Likewise, the Danish citizen lives on $50 a day, but may be receiving a free college education and healthcare while the US citizen spends a substantial fraction of their income on those two. If you're interested, here is a succinct write-up of the phenomenon https://mattbruenig.com/2021/12/08/how-to-compare-incomes-across-countries/ https://mattbruenig.com/2021/12/08/how-to-compare-incomes-ac...

dahfizz 5y ago
This is only a problem when comparing _disposable_ income PPP, because disposable income has taxes deducted. Disposable income data is harder to collect, and is therefore less common. This article uses average income (GDP per capita), which compares pre-tax money. The $10/day value that a US citizen gains from the roads was paid for out of that average income.

omegaworks 5y ago

I think what this kind of dollar-centered analysis obscures is the accessibility of the basic goods that enable life: food, water and housing. Sure in a country classified as "poor" by this analysis you might not be able to import the finest cheeses from France or latest and greatest electronics from the US, but perhaps it is easier to feed, cloth and house a family. > To achieve a more equal world without poverty the world needs very large economic growth. I don't understand how this follows. Our global economic system is structured to concentrate wealth, so there is no guarantee that growth benefits the poorest.

dllthomas 5y ago
> > To achieve a more equal world without poverty the world needs very large economic growth. > I don't understand how this follows. Our global economic system is structured to concentrate wealth, so there is no guarantee that growth benefits the poorest. The post says growth is necessary; you point out that it is not sufficient. Both can be true.

lcall 5y ago

Maybe also with it is mostly affected by with whom one chooses to associate, and the habits and influences one chooses. For example, my church has tremendous programs and opportunities for: * economic status and stability: training at budgeting, job hunting, overcoming addictions -- some of the classes have been shared in joint programs with the NAACP in the US) * aids for refugees, families, volunteering, food aid, service projects, etc (worldwide) * higher-educational opportunities for almost anyone globally with internet access, including groups who are traditionally excluded due to tuition cost or academic experience, knowledge of English, etc, and teachings that really help with family stability, peace/hope, and generall going forward in life. * being a personal mentor and being mentored * etc. It goes on and on.

dv_dt 5y ago

I would love to see data on happiness and leisure time mixed into this comparison too.

madacol 5y ago
Is not mixed, but hope it helps a bit https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours
- dv_dt 5y ago
  The question for happiness, seems like it’s placed in an oddly competitive context. “Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?” Most of the happiness data seems ended around 2014-2016.

rufus_foreman 5y ago

>>The huge majority of the world is very poor. The poorer half of the world, almost 4 billion people, live on less than $6.70 a day. $6.70 a day is 3 and a half times what is considered extreme poverty. I guess the site is focusing on the negative side here, maybe in order to get more donations, and that's fine, but the world wide reduction in extreme poverty in recent decades is worth commenting on. From the NY Times: "In 1990, about 36 percent of the global population — and nearly half of people in developing countries — lived on less than $1.25 a day, the World Bank’s definition of extreme poverty at the time. (It’s now $1.90 a day.) In 2000, United Nations member states pledged to cut extreme poverty worldwide — specifically to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, from 1990 levels, by 2015. Bottom line: The U.N. goal was met. By 2015, the share of the world’s population living in extreme poverty fell to 12 percent from 36 percent in 1990, a steep decline in just two and a half decades. During a single generation, more than a billion people around the world climbed out of extreme poverty, surpassing the goal."

notahacker 5y ago
> $6.70 a day is 3 and a half times what is considered extreme poverty. The question then is, do you think $6.70 a day (US ppp equiv) is actually quite a decent income, or do you think the extreme poverty threshold might be a pretty low bar to have set? (FWIW I think the UN's targets were more closely tied to the need to be low enough to stand a chance of being hit - which is fine - than Max's editorial is linked to what the donors to his data website may or may not already think about poverty.
- Jensson 5y ago
  The bar is set so you can eat healthy food and have a dry place to rest. You wont get prepared meals or expensive wares, but you can afford to eat meat, you can't afford western housing but you can afford a hut. Those two fixes most issues humanity have struggled with throughout history. Of course you can add so much more quality of life things on top of that, but at least then people don't starve or get diseases from sleeping in poor places or being malnourished. That is a poor life, but not necessarily a bad life, if you can eat and sleep well then you can live a good life. Of course in the western world a hut isn't considered proper housing so you can't rent that out, instead people have to pay for expensive housing or become homeless. Same with food etc. That increases the quality of life, sure, but is also the reason you can't live on a few dollars per day here.

pydry 5y ago

If I was going to write some propaganda to try and whitewash the staggering amount of wealth and power is held by American oligarchs this is what I would do: 1) Write an article about income inequality. Wealth inequality is 100x worse than income inequality - http://metrocosm.com/wealth-vs-income-inequality/ http://metrocosm.com/wealth-vs-income-inequality/ but if you just smoothly transition from talking about economic inequality to income inequality, not only is it not as bad, the reader becomes a much bigger part of it and hence you become less of a part of it. 2) Ignore PPP entirely. If a Slovakian gets paid 5x less than you do in New York and also has 5x cheaper haircuts, you should probably feel a bit guilty about that. 3) Focus on personal responsibility. This is an effective technique. It was used to turn jaywalking into a crime in the early 20th century. It was used to make the litter epidemic of the mid 20th century Not McDonalds Or Coke's Fault. It was used to shift responsibility from Oil supermajor CEOs on to suburban white middle class soccer moms and voila - reduced pressure. Just remember, as the article says: "If you want to reduce global inequality and support poorer people, you do have this opportunity. You can donate some of your money."

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Why ignore ppp? Why feel bad if two lives are equal in all respects? Non PPP only matters if someone moves countries.
- notahacker 5y ago
  The dataset doesn't ignore PPP, it's expressed in "international dollars" which is a standard PPP adjustment to US levels. That's not really discussed because it's an utterly standard thing to do in cross-country comparisons, but the article might have been better if it talked about the fact the data is PPP adjusted so the actual dollar amounts earned in the poorer countries are even lower, and the fact that PPP adjustments aren't perfect so people on $6.70 of imputed US purchasing power can still pay rent
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    The parent post argued that the article would have been more impactful if it ignored PPP. It also said people should feel guilty if they have the same PPP, but higher salary without adjusting. This makes no sense to me. This is the point I am pushing back on.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]