3 ms·
Per capita GDP is one thing, a lot more important is per capita income. Those are two very different things, particularly when you're talking about China - a co
by shingen 15y ago
Per capita GDP is one thing, a lot more important is per capita income. Those are two very different things, particularly when you're talking about China - a country with a billion extremely poor people, and a lot of mega corporations that the state has blessed with near monopolies. What you want to know, is: how much money are the people of China keeping out of that huge economy.
Per capita income in the US is closer to $40k, and in China it's closer to $3,600 to $4k. In 1990, it was closer to $350 to $450 range (IMF).
The focus always goes to China's per capita GDP, but it's a very misleading way to measure economic parity. People get upset about America's wealth inequality - China's wealth inequality is several orders of magnitude worse.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- rudiger 15y agoPeople get upset about America's wealth inequality - China's wealth inequality is several orders of magnitude worse. Source? I'd like to see wealth (and income) inequality metrics for both countries.
- shingen 15y agoYou mean a country with 100 billionaires, the second largest economy, and 500 million people (40%) living on less than $2 per day? 130x million people living on $1 per day (both courtesy of the world bank)? 50% of the population without indoor plumbing (cia factbook)? Not hard to source the extremely dire statistics. They're plentiful. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8668086.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8668086.stm http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_06/b4214013648109.htm http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_06/b42140136...
- anamax 15y ago> The focus always goes to China's per capita GDP, but it's a very misleading way to measure economic parity. People get upset about America's wealth inequality - China's wealth inequality is several orders of magnitude worse. Relative wealth inequality is the wrong measure. If I've got food and shelter, I'm better off than if I don't, no matter how much you have.