5 ms·

That's just not true

by boudin 4y ago

chrisseaton 4y ago
That the French are poorer? People in the US are about 50% richer when you account for purchasing power and things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
- pseudojim 4y ago
  We're already way off topic, but it's 40%. And we're talking about two countries with significantly different tax rates and social contributions.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > but it's 40% Eh? 42800 / 28571 = 1.498 > significantly different tax rates and social contributions Eh? "includes all forms of income as well as taxes and transfers in kind from governments for benefits such as healthcare and education"
    - Bud 4y ago
      You might want to actually read that Wikipedia page; those figures are very very heavily massaged in multiple ways, and not everyone would necessarily agree with how they are massaged. Suffice it to say, there's a large fudge factor here, much larger than the difference you are trying to point out.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > those figures are very very heavily massaged in multiple ways One person complains they don't account for taxes and benefits, and another complains they do!
        Bud 4y ago
        True. Fair enough. It's hard to figure out precisely what the right way to measure this is.
      - socialdemocrat 4y ago
        Yeah, I think when you start trying to cram that much stuff into a single number it will end up misrepresenting reality. People like the simplicity of single numbers for comparison, but it is about as sensible as describing a personality by a single number. I think I would rather show the median value for a variety of variables. Not everything makes sense to turn into dollars. How do you turn health care into dollars? What you pay for it is not a true reflection of the quality. US tends to look good when things are turned into dollars and a lot worse when real world metrics and outcomes are measured such as health, happiness, safety, stress, life expectancy, leisure time etc.
    - Rexxar 4y ago
      So 50% more in one direction, 33% less in the other. This is the eternal question of percentages misunderstandings between peoples. But this doesn't feel "quite a lot poorer" to me, just less rich that the number one.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        So where's 40% from?
        Rexxar 4y ago
        Ask the one who use this number. I would suggest 33% and bad rounding.
    - pseudojim 4y ago
      > Eh? 42800 / 28571 = 1.498 I calculated percent difference. > Eh? "includes all forms of income as well as taxes and transfers in kind from governments for benefits such as healthcare and education" You're right, thanks. I was reading off my phone and missed that.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > I calculated percent difference. But the difference is 14229, which is 33% of US income, or 50% of France income.
        pseudojim 4y ago
        (|42800 - 28571| / [(42800 + 28571) / 2]) x 100 = 39.87% I was taught to use an average of the values in the denominator in a case like this to avoid the confusion @Rexxar pointed out. https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percent-difference-calculator.php https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percent-d...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- cdavid 4y ago
  Most of the difference is explained by the numbers of hours worked, since the GDP in purchase parity per hours worked is within 10 % between US and countries like France or Germany: see e.g. https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm. So those countries, implicitly or explicitly, made the choice so substitute income for more leisure. Whether that makes them richer/poorer depends on your perspective.
- boudin 4y ago
  Nothing is that simple. If you look at poverty rate, there are more poor people in the united states. And if you look at purchasing power, some numbers will give you that the cost of a basket of good in comparison with income is exactly the same: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity and some numbers will differ. My point was that, people in France have a really similar lifestyle than in the US (removing the cultural differences) and saying that people are looking at things that can be fixed because they are poor is just not true.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > And if you look at purchasing power But those numbers already account for purchasing power.
- ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
  You forgot about healthcare costs.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    No those are built into those numbers - did you read the page?

That's just not true

by boudin 4y ago

That's just not true

That the French are poorer? People in the US are about 50% richer when you account for purchasing power and things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

pseudojim 4y ago
We're already way off topic, but it's 40%. And we're talking about two countries with significantly different tax rates and social contributions.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > but it's 40% Eh? 42800 / 28571 = 1.498 > significantly different tax rates and social contributions Eh? "includes all forms of income as well as taxes and transfers in kind from governments for benefits such as healthcare and education"
  - Bud 4y ago
    You might want to actually read that Wikipedia page; those figures are very very heavily massaged in multiple ways, and not everyone would necessarily agree with how they are massaged. Suffice it to say, there's a large fudge factor here, much larger than the difference you are trying to point out.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > those figures are very very heavily massaged in multiple ways One person complains they don't account for taxes and benefits, and another complains they do!
      - Bud 4y ago
        True. Fair enough. It's hard to figure out precisely what the right way to measure this is.
    - socialdemocrat 4y ago
      Yeah, I think when you start trying to cram that much stuff into a single number it will end up misrepresenting reality. People like the simplicity of single numbers for comparison, but it is about as sensible as describing a personality by a single number. I think I would rather show the median value for a variety of variables. Not everything makes sense to turn into dollars. How do you turn health care into dollars? What you pay for it is not a true reflection of the quality. US tends to look good when things are turned into dollars and a lot worse when real world metrics and outcomes are measured such as health, happiness, safety, stress, life expectancy, leisure time etc.
  - Rexxar 4y ago
    So 50% more in one direction, 33% less in the other. This is the eternal question of percentages misunderstandings between peoples. But this doesn't feel "quite a lot poorer" to me, just less rich that the number one.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      So where's 40% from?
      - Rexxar 4y ago
        Ask the one who use this number. I would suggest 33% and bad rounding.
  - pseudojim 4y ago
    > Eh? 42800 / 28571 = 1.498 I calculated percent difference. > Eh? "includes all forms of income as well as taxes and transfers in kind from governments for benefits such as healthcare and education" You're right, thanks. I was reading off my phone and missed that.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > I calculated percent difference. But the difference is 14229, which is 33% of US income, or 50% of France income.
      - pseudojim 4y ago
        (|42800 - 28571| / [(42800 + 28571) / 2]) x 100 = 39.87% I was taught to use an average of the values in the denominator in a case like this to avoid the confusion @Rexxar pointed out. https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percent-difference-calculator.php https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percent-d...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
cdavid 4y ago
Most of the difference is explained by the numbers of hours worked, since the GDP in purchase parity per hours worked is within 10 % between US and countries like France or Germany: see e.g. https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm. So those countries, implicitly or explicitly, made the choice so substitute income for more leisure. Whether that makes them richer/poorer depends on your perspective.
boudin 4y ago
Nothing is that simple. If you look at poverty rate, there are more poor people in the united states. And if you look at purchasing power, some numbers will give you that the cost of a basket of good in comparison with income is exactly the same: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity and some numbers will differ. My point was that, people in France have a really similar lifestyle than in the US (removing the cultural differences) and saying that people are looking at things that can be fixed because they are poor is just not true.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > And if you look at purchasing power But those numbers already account for purchasing power.
ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
You forgot about healthcare costs.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  No those are built into those numbers - did you read the page?