• 1bluepixel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    The author takes PPP (Purchase Power Parity) per capita of the UK as a whole versus individual U.S. states. So what does it mean that Mississippi on average has a higher PPP than the UK? Two things:

    1. The UK gets dragged down by it’s poorer regions; and
    2. The U.S. has enough ultra-rich people to drag its PPP up despite a large swathe of its population being poor.

    Another way to look at it is, if wealth distribution was fair in the U.S., even people in Mississippi would be better off than the average Brit.

    • lasagna@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 years ago

      That’s the problem with averages vs medians. It completely overlooks wealth gap.

      Here is an example. Moderna CEO made something like $500 million last year. If Moderna had 1000 employees, that would mean the company’s average employee pay is $500,000. And that’s before even adding their pay to this average.

      • Tar_alcaran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 years ago

        Exactly. The median wealth of me, my partner and Bill gates is basically zero. The average wealth in billions of dollars.

    • Teppic@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yep, there is a good reason the median average is usually used when looking at incomes.

    • delicious_tvarog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      The PPP adjustment is going to inflate the values in low cost of living states/nations; cost of living correlates pretty well with average income (i.e. don’t travel to Switzerland unless you like spending money), which means all those eastern European countries and southern states with lower average incomes are going to get a leg up on central/western Europe.

      We’re approaching BadEconomics territory

      • sab@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Yes, like that! The British royals often have around $30 million at their disposal. It’s completely fucked, nobody needs that much money.

        Good thing you don’t have anything like that in the US.

        One billion is a thousand million, in case anyone forgot.