3 ms·

Whose "actual definition" is that? Which authority established the the "actual definition" is in the name of all of us? At the end of the day, definitions are i

Whose "actual definition" is that? Which authority established the the "actual definition" is in the name of all of us? At the end of the day, definitions are irrelevant, what matters is majority voter perception. GDP/capita don't matter if majority of voters perceive themselves as poor. And GDP/capita is a poor metric since it doesn't account for inequality differences of wealth accumulation. Like if your economy has a few ultra wealthy Elon Musks, Jeff Bezos, Larry Elissons, Jenson Huangs and and tens of thousands of broke homeless people, then the average GPD per capita is more than fine. My and many other peoples' definition, is how many people can find decent paying jobs right now, and how much they can afford after paying rent and bills. They don't care about the stock market, as that's just the playground of the top 10% of asset holders(including HN), not of the majority working class.

dismalaf 27d ago
> GDP/capita don't matter if majority of voters perceive themselves as poor. The per capita part literally covers the amount of people in an economy. There are very few examples of countries where GDP per capita doesn't lead to an objectively high standard of living - really only recent low-population petrostates and tax havens. Switzerland? High GDP per capita objectively nice place to live. Japan? High GDP per capita, objectively nice. Norway? Sweden? Netherlands? All high GDP per capita all nice. And then there's countries like China and India. Large economics, rich as a country. But large populations of poor. And their GDP per capita reflects it. Here's a blog post about why it's good (not mine): https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/four-reasons-why-gdp-is-a-useful https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/four-reasons-why-gdp-is-a-usef... It's not an absolutely perfect, fine grained measure, but economists haven't settled on a better measure. Even in the HDI calculation, GNI per capita PPP is their "living standards" measure. > Like if your economy has a few ultra wealthy Elon Musks, Jeff Bezos, Larry Elissons, Jenson Huangs Russia has plenty of oligarchs, yet their GDP per capita is way lower than the US'. Also keep in mind, poor people in the US are richer than the average in most countries... Inequality itself isn't bad if it still brings up the bottom to a decent standard of living. Most of the EU is poorer than the poorest US state, for example.
- PorciiVorbesc 27d ago
  >The per capita part literally covers the amount of people in an economy. But like I said, it doesn't cover inequality. >Switzerland? High GDP per capita objectively nice place to live. Japan? High GDP per capita, objectively nice. Norway? Sweden? Netherlands? All high GDP per capita all nice. And how many workers there can afford to buy a home? What use is a high GDP/capita if a lot of people can't afford to live decently as most of that wealth only concentrates in few hands and your salary melts away every month on the high-CoL with no chance of purchasing assets?
  - dismalaf 26d ago
    > But like I said, it doesn't cover inequality. Again, like I wrote, you need to prove that inequality is inherently bad. Or that home ownership is inherently good. You ever live in a 3rd world country? I saw families who "owned" homes that were 4 walls, 300 sq ft with a tin roof that covered the top, but had no electricity, plumbing and wasn't even sealed from small animals getting in. Is that wealth?
    - PorciiVorbesc 21d ago
      >Or that home ownership is inherently good Home ownership is always better than no home ownership, 3rd world country or first world country. Owning an asset is better than owning nothing. >You ever live in a 3rd world country? What does that have to do with home ownership in first world countries? That's some bad faith moving the goalposts whataboutism. >Is that wealth? Where they live, by those standards, yes, it's wealth, and it's better than having zero wealth and needing to pay rent.

dismalaf 27d ago

> GDP/capita don't matter if majority of voters perceive themselves as poor. The per capita part literally covers the amount of people in an economy. There are very few examples of countries where GDP per capita doesn't lead to an objectively high standard of living - really only recent low-population petrostates and tax havens. Switzerland? High GDP per capita objectively nice place to live. Japan? High GDP per capita, objectively nice. Norway? Sweden? Netherlands? All high GDP per capita all nice. And then there's countries like China and India. Large economics, rich as a country. But large populations of poor. And their GDP per capita reflects it. Here's a blog post about why it's good (not mine): https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/four-reasons-why-gdp-is-a-useful https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/four-reasons-why-gdp-is-a-usef... It's not an absolutely perfect, fine grained measure, but economists haven't settled on a better measure. Even in the HDI calculation, GNI per capita PPP is their "living standards" measure. > Like if your economy has a few ultra wealthy Elon Musks, Jeff Bezos, Larry Elissons, Jenson Huangs Russia has plenty of oligarchs, yet their GDP per capita is way lower than the US'. Also keep in mind, poor people in the US are richer than the average in most countries... Inequality itself isn't bad if it still brings up the bottom to a decent standard of living. Most of the EU is poorer than the poorest US state, for example.

PorciiVorbesc 27d ago
>The per capita part literally covers the amount of people in an economy. But like I said, it doesn't cover inequality. >Switzerland? High GDP per capita objectively nice place to live. Japan? High GDP per capita, objectively nice. Norway? Sweden? Netherlands? All high GDP per capita all nice. And how many workers there can afford to buy a home? What use is a high GDP/capita if a lot of people can't afford to live decently as most of that wealth only concentrates in few hands and your salary melts away every month on the high-CoL with no chance of purchasing assets?
- dismalaf 26d ago
  > But like I said, it doesn't cover inequality. Again, like I wrote, you need to prove that inequality is inherently bad. Or that home ownership is inherently good. You ever live in a 3rd world country? I saw families who "owned" homes that were 4 walls, 300 sq ft with a tin roof that covered the top, but had no electricity, plumbing and wasn't even sealed from small animals getting in. Is that wealth?
  - PorciiVorbesc 21d ago
    >Or that home ownership is inherently good Home ownership is always better than no home ownership, 3rd world country or first world country. Owning an asset is better than owning nothing. >You ever live in a 3rd world country? What does that have to do with home ownership in first world countries? That's some bad faith moving the goalposts whataboutism. >Is that wealth? Where they live, by those standards, yes, it's wealth, and it's better than having zero wealth and needing to pay rent.