3 ms·
You seem to imply that higher GDP of a country is relevant for quality of life of its citizen. Knowing the US and Europe, I was also wondering what this high GD
by fh973 12y ago
You seem to imply that higher GDP of a country is relevant for quality of life of its citizen. Knowing the US and Europe, I was also wondering what this high GDP is about, because it surely does not translate to material wealth.
Googling reveals: GDP includes military expenses, bloated health care expenses, bloated education costs, ... I guess that explains the relation.
- Dewie 12y agoGDP per capita doesn't say anything about the wealth of the median person, either. Maybe in this case, GDP per capita should be coupled with the gini coefficient, which in the US' case is high (less equality) for a first world country.
- adventured 12y agoWhy is equality more important than, say, how poor your average citizens are? Most of Europe is exceptionally poor by American standards. I would rather the average person earn $45,000 per year, with wide inequality due to a lot of rich people, than have the average person earn $8,000 or $14,000 per year like a dozen poor European countries that may have a better gini number.
- Dewie 12y agoI was comparing the US to first world countries, not Europe as a whole. And no first world country is exceptionally poor compared to the US. Yes, the point in this case is actually to have fewer poor people - specifically a strong middle class. As supposed to, say, a vast percentage of poor workers and an exceptionally rich upper class. You'll have to be more specific, or else your post looks like a derailment from what was under discussion, namely US GDP per capita compared to other first world countries.
- adventured 12y agoWhich European countries do you consider first world?
- Dewie 12y agoWestern and Northern Europe, more or less, would be my guess. I'm not so sure about the Baltic states.