2 ms·

I think that article is just number massaging. I have been to both Sweden and several US states (some of them quite wealthy) and there's no color. As in: a diab

by otikik 4y ago

I think that article is just number massaging. I have been to both Sweden and several US states (some of them quite wealthy) and there's no color. As in: a diabetic school teacher can afford insulin. On the explanation section of that article it says: > The Census numbers are much higher than the OECD numbers for a variety of reasons. In fact, the OECD income number of the US is only 59 percent of the Census number. The adjustment they did was "moving all the medians of all the states down by 59%" but I don't think that is enough. A more appropriate way to compare things would have been figuring how what those "differentiating reasons" and deducing amounts for each of the states, or incrementing the other countries' median in the same way. The American Census could (for example) be counting every state's natural resources as part of each household's income. In that case, they should include Sweden's petrol reserves in that computation. With the disparate measurement methods and the simplistic adjustment, they are comparing apples to oranges.

rayiner 4y ago
In the US, most school teachers can also afford insulin, because they have generous healthcare plans. Remember, over 80% of Americans are happy with their own healthcare quality. The difference between the US and Sweden is that Americans would rather have bigger houses and more cars than ensure that the small fraction of teachers who can’t get insulin now can do so. To be clear, that adjustment can only affect the relative numbers across US states, not the overall average for US states. That is because all states are adjusted by the OECD number for the US. Presumably the OECD methodology is consistent within itself. So maybe the Census includes oil resources and OECD doesn’t. Discounting the US numbers across the board to 59% may make Texas and California artificially look better than Mississippi. But the overall average of the US states would still correspond to the OECD number for the US, which presumably is computed the same way as for Sweden.

by otikik 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

In the US, most school teachers can also afford insulin, because they have generous healthcare plans. Remember, over 80% of Americans are happy with their own healthcare quality. The difference between the US and Sweden is that Americans would rather have bigger houses and more cars than ensure that the small fraction of teachers who can’t get insulin now can do so. To be clear, that adjustment can only affect the relative numbers across US states, not the overall average for US states. That is because all states are adjusted by the OECD number for the US. Presumably the OECD methodology is consistent within itself. So maybe the Census includes oil resources and OECD doesn’t. Discounting the US numbers across the board to 59% may make Texas and California artificially look better than Mississippi. But the overall average of the US states would still correspond to the OECD number for the US, which presumably is computed the same way as for Sweden.