Agreed--though progressives deny it.
source: Carpe Diem
The chart above displays GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita in 2008 using data from the CIA World Factbook (data available here) for various European countries, the European Union as a group, Japan, and the U.S. The chart also shows an estimate of GDP per capita for America's poorest state of Mississippi ($34,968), adjusted for purchasing power by applying a factor of .7439 to U.S. per capita GDP adjusted for PPP of $47,000, based on Mississippi's unadjusted GDP per capita compared to the U.S. average (data here).
On a PPP basis, all European countries in the graph except the U.K. have per capita GDP below America's poorest state. In other words, if Italy, France, or Germany left the European Union and joined the U.S., they would be the poorest of the U.S. states, and the same would apply to the European Union as a group, and the same would apply to Japan.
(via ShrinkWrapped)
4 comments:
I do concur that there are issues to the situation that this analysis does not cover -- it does not, I believe, factor in the value of the government services which are common in the relevant Euro states. If those are factored in as a part of their "incomes", then their per capita income is above its listed value.
I believe the people in question could get much better bang for their buck than they are getting from their national governments -- but -- they probably only rank, not at the bottom but in the bottom 25% of US states... that's my guess.
:oD
Non EU countries such as Norway and Switzerland do better. Which actually, is a similar lesson, isn't it?
OBH, I half agree. There is a bit of apples and oranges going on. Government services in Europe would raise their numbers a bit. However, factoring in living space, food variety, etc. might push US numbers up as well. Even in Mississippi.
> However, factoring in living space, food variety, etc....
Yeah, but that just makes the point even more.
Kinda like comparing Euro infant mortality to US IM -- when the concept of a "born infant" is different for the purpose of data collection, the two have about as much in common as Green Jobs have in common with Real Jobs.
OBH is right that GDP excludes government income transfer payments (such as welfare or pensions). But it does include other government spending, such as when the government supplies goods or services (think healthcare). So, the comparison may not be as inapt as OBH suggests.
Post a Comment