3 ms·
That's still apples and oranges because that's based on the WHO European Region which includes all these countries: https://who-sandbox.squiz.cloud/en/countrie
by oblio 2y ago
That's still apples and oranges because that's based on the WHO European Region which includes all these countries:
https://who-sandbox.squiz.cloud/en/countries https://who-sandbox.squiz.cloud/en/countries
Uzbekistan - GDP per capita $2,667
Tajikistan - GDP per capita $1,271
Kyrgyzstan - GDP per capita $1,922
Ukraine - GDP per capita $5,663
Meanwhile:
US - GDP per capita $85,373 (LOL)
To compare apples to apples you'd want:
US vs EU
to make it somewhat comparable, or maybe even better:
US (334m) vs Germany (83m) + France (67m) + UK (67m) + Italy (59m) + Spain (48m) = 324m people
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoSo you want to use only the richest and most sophisticated EU countries but then compare them against a federation of US states that includes the likes of Mississippi and West Virginia?
- oblio 2y agoLOL, of course. If you don't believe me, compare the GDPs per capita of "the richest and most sophisticated EU countries" versus Mississippi and West Virginia. Hint: the "sophisticated" EU countries are poorer. Comparing ANY US state (average: $85,373) with Tajikistan ($1,271) would be a travesty.
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoMississippi: ~$39,000 GDP per capita, PPP[0]: Turkey: $41,881 Spain: $50,472 Slovenia: $51,407 UK: $56,836 Germany: $66,038 Denmark: $74,958 Norway: $82,264 Ireland: $137,638 Luxembourg: $143,304 [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu... The difference between New York (the highest US state by per capita GDP, ~$91,000) and Ireland is larger than the difference between Mississippi and a per-capita GDP of literally zero.
- acje 2y agoPretty sure we can´t divide Mississippi by zero
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoIt's an average. You can average zero in with 140 and still have a higher average than the average of 90 and 40. And what do you expect if you don't average in the zero?
- oblio 2y agoGDP per capita PPP can't buy you many things. It's a disingenuous comparison. You also didn't address my Tajikistan comment, because you know you're but won't admit it.
- oblio 2y ago*you're wrong but won't admit it
- oblio 2y agoAlso, I forgot, it's a disingenuous comparison if you know anything about how life, subsistence, marginal savings rate & co work, which I assume you do if we're discussing these kinds of topics. The scale of "GDP per capita and how people are living" is roughly this: At a "GDP of literally zero" you're DEAD. At a GDP of 1k, you can afford a cheap bicycle. At a GDP of 10k, you can afford small, old, beat up and unsafe cars. At a GDP of 30k, you can afford almost all modern amenities, they'll just be smaller, older, have fewer features. At a GDP of 80k you can do whatever the hell you want if real estate expenses aren't killing you. So no, you can't freely compare a country at 10k with one at 80k and try to bail out the comparison with PPP. And the difference between 1 billion and 1 billion 30k is 1 billion. Percentages matter, thresholds matter. The person having 1 billion 30k doesn't have a materially different life to the person having 1 billion. The person having 30k is reasonably well off, the person having 0 is dead. The person having 40k is also reasonably well off while the person having 10k is poor (and NOT US poor, world standards poor; which BTW, is about the global average, which makes the average person in the world poor by modern development standards). Compare like with like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country#Comparative_table_(2024) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country#Comparative_...