4 ms·
People didn't really need smartphones, laptops and even personal cars in 1960s in Argentine. I believe they generated that GDP while being mostly rural, where i
by thriftwy 3y ago
People didn't really need smartphones, laptops and even personal cars in 1960s in Argentine. I believe they generated that GDP while being mostly rural, where it translates to a lot of amenities.
Now they would usually be cramped in a city where the effective cost of living is much greater (leading to villas), whereas their GDP and thus income didn't grow much.
- Wytwwww 3y ago70-80%+ of the population was already living in urban areas in the 60s though.
- thriftwy 3y agoPerhaps we've spotted a case for sloggy Argentinean growth, since the country doesn't strike me as being an industrial giant or a R&D hub - what would they all do living in urban areas?
- MichaelZuo 3y agoA huge portion of the population in the cities doesn't do anything, quite literally living on the government budget. Hence why the poverty rate near instantly skyrocketed after the huge cuts to government spending recently.
- pjc50 3y ago?? Urban areas are just the default for the 20th century, let alone the 21st. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Argentina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Argentina is surprisingly comprehensive. The sidebar has agriculture at 7% of the economy. The place is not without industry, it's just making and selling things at ""wrong"" prices because of the currency issue, which in turn comes from the balance of payments issue. There's clearly substantial local commerce, just not quite enough export.
- thriftwy 3y agoWhat % of exports, though, and what % of exports to the countries outside of the region (i.e. the globally competitive industries)? Even by world standards, 70-80% of urbanization in the 60s and 92% now is quite a lot. Especially a lot for a country which mostly exports agricultural produce. Without checking, I would expect it to be 50% in the 60s and 70-80% today.