How is this even possible? You can't get up 0.3 on something like this just from oil, right?

How is this even possible? You can't get up 0.3 on something like this just from oil, right?

Other urls found in this thread:

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/05/through-an-american-lens-western-europes-middle-classes-appear-smaller/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

any number besides GDP is worthless

>his country has almost russian level of incomebinequality but thats ok because they have billionaires
Made me think

>he believes in unobjective numbers
cmon france, youre better than this

...

>unobjective numbers
Is this a meme

>his country has almost french levels of inequality
ftfy

...

barren shitholes have to utilize human capital to sustain economic growth, what a revelation

lad, i can make a function that makes any country look like the best country in the world. The only number that has a respectable interpretation is GDP

i can see why you would be pissed off at my statement

India almost has the same GDP as France. Without any other stat, how is that information useful ?

its useful when you combine GDP and GDP per capita. A high GDP and GDP per capita is good. A low number on either of these means its a shit country

>The only number that has a respectable interpretation is GDP
you need population for GDP per capita, one of those "non-respectable" numbers

> muh income inequality
found the fagot

>you need population for GDP per capita
population isnt a nuanced number. The point i was making is that there are many statistics that we created to estimate how countries are doing versus other countries. One of them was GDP, and this was the only one that has a respectable interpretation. Population doesnt really have an interpretation, as its interpretation is given and not nuanced. i probably should have explain this better

>have 100 Euro more per year
>die 5 years earlier
>better country

>How is this even possible
governments putting money into education, services and infrastructure instead of a corrupt healthcare system and military

>>have 100 Euro more per year
>>die 5 years earlier
>>better country
that could be due to choices the citizens make

everything other than geography and climate is due to choices the citizens make or made

You absolute retard.
The only metric that matters at all is median wealth and wages.

This illusion of trickle down is a farce to get you to enrich the top even more.

Only reason the US isn't an Africa tier shithole were the riots for worker rights, unions and wages same with rest of Western Europe where workers gained power if you want to go against this and be a capitalist get the wages of a country with low wages, such as india, 10 cents an hour.

youre grasping at straws here lad

>You absolute retard.
>The only metric that matters at all is median wealth and wages.
the correlation between median income and GDP/capita is very high. we are basically saying the same thing

I actually don't

nobody said economists couldnt disagree lad. dont get too focused on a single economist, as it can close off your thinking

quit the lad bullshit you cringy fuck. worse than a brit saying dude

>quit the lad bullshit you cringy fuck.
sorry, kind of a reflex at this point
>worse than a brit saying dude
whats wrong with a brit saying dude? brits are bros

What other aspect of quality of life isn't determined by the actions of the people?

foreign politics.

come on now, i know you understood what i meant.

who determines foreign politics if not the people?

>Norway
muh oil
>Iceland
too smol
>Australia
muh minerals
>Netherlands
based
>Switzerland
based

>population isnt a nuanced number

>do the population measurements account for illegal/undocumented immigrants?
>do citizens living long term and earning wages abroad count?
etc

>who determines foreign politics if not the people?
It's the cats, they rule the world. Even Brits are asking the cats on what should they do.

GDP is too volatile and too easily manipulated for anything other than comparison between already well-off countries where other metrics generally tell a better picture

tfw the congo is better than you

>GDP is too volatile
no its not, its fairly stable, and grows at a fairly smooth rate for developed countries (and even for many 2nd world countries)
>too easily manipulated
i disagree. when youre dealing in trillions of dollars, its difficult to manipulate it to a large extent. only countries with less reliable statistics can manipulate it, but its easy to tell when manipulation is going on, and then you can usually apply a discount to the statistic as a quick correction

>>do the population measurements account for illegal/undocumented immigrants?
this is balanced out with GDP, as GDP doesnt capture the shadow economy, and population doesnt capture illegals
>>do citizens living long term and earning wages abroad count?
no. this also cancels out with GDP. if we were to include citizens abroad, we would use GNP per citizenship, or a similar calculation. In most cases, GDP and GNP are similar enough so that both statistics would be close

>other metrics generally tell a better picture
Like what

HDI is unironically a meme index. It is bounded between 0 and 1 and no amount of income can ever contribute more than 1/3 to the HDI. The classic argument is a nation of immortals with infinite wealth but no education would have lower HDI than Vietnam.

OECD's Better Life Index does it better, though the real best measure is just median income.

How are we so high?

I actually wrote a paper on this for an Economics class last year. The main points are:

1. It uses years of education and current school enrollment(% of population) as a measure of education. This has obvious problems as it benefits nations with a large student population even if said education is extremely poor in quality. If quality of education is taken into account by for example factoring in PISA scores, certain nations would benefit tremendously whilst others would fall.

2. It uses life expectancy without any other health metrics. This is obviously very problematic. For example people in China have a long life expectancy but the country is plagued by health issues, and people would generally think you're crazy if you said people in China live better than people in, say, Massachusetts. Health is more than just how long your heart keeps beating, and in first world countries is quite dependent on lifestyle choices.

3. The income calculations use a logarithmic function making high income effectively pointless. A country with an average income of a million dollars will only be ranked slightly better than a country with an average income of $70,000. By these metrics a millionaire who lived to 80 is way worse off than a middle class person who lived to 85.

4. The UN uses the Atkinson Index to adjust for income inequality. This formula is heavily weighed towards the bottom 10% income and does not accurately represent income for the higher income groups. It also incorporates moral judgement within the formula, which is not scientific, even in the dismal science of economics.

The HDI, especially the income adjusted HDI, is a measurement of how closely a nation resembles Norway, not a measurement of actual human development.

>Switzerland
>based
you mean tax free cheater who produce anything but chocolates and high prices watches for chinks ?

>86210834

Scandis
Canada
Australia
Netherlands
Switzerland

These countries are ALWAYS in top 10s for every single good thing out there.

Are other countries even trying?

>makes you think

>population isnt a nuanced number.
So you're trying to say that the number of people the wealth is spread over isn't a nuanced number?
Okay then, would you rather work for a company that spends a million a year on employee wages spread over a million employees or a company that spends a million a year on employee wages spread over a thousand people?

>middle class
Yeah cool, let's just ignore the fact that a good 30% of your population is living below the middle class. What a fucking stupid demographic to focus on. It is the disparity between the working poor and rich that needs to be the focus, not the bulk who make up the upper and middle class who won't be alive in another 50 years.

Fucking hell mate.

>Australia
>muh minerals
You pig ignorant cunt. Mining makes up less than 10% of our GPD and has been falling for years. Australia is a service based economy, which is why the National Broadband Network overhaul fuckup was such a major economic blowout.

No you can't. But we're not just about oil. That's only what brainlets thinks.

It's easy to become middle class in the US.

Whether it is the middle, poor, or upper class.
Americans are doing better.

*barren land breeds übermench*

>Honduras has 3x the homicide rate of South Africa
>still higher than u
kak

This is on top of most mundane expenses like gas, and food being more expensive in europe than the US.

New HDI report when?

Last UN release was almost 1 year ago

>A country with an average income of a million dollars will only be ranked slightly better than a country with an average income of $70,000.
I don't understand this, it makes no sense. How about those countries that have much less than $70,000, like perhaps $30,000? How are they ranking compared to $70,000 nations?

>This formula is heavily weighed towards the bottom 10% income
Are you saying that how well off a country is has nothing to do with how well off the bottom 10%s are?

I don't know how they have calculated that, but a household in Norway makes an average of about a million norwegian kroners a year, which is something like $120,000
This infopicture is somehow not telling the reality.

where is france?
hahaha

This is disposable income. After tax. The numbers you may be giving out are before taxes.

This is pew research, so they are quite reliable.

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/05/through-an-american-lens-western-europes-middle-classes-appear-smaller/

Income inequality is pretty meaningless as long as the poverty rate is low.

so you're just offsetting things you would pay with taxes like healthcare to "disposable income"?
>inb4 muh plan is cheap
statistically no it isn't

Then it should be near of 80,000
I still don't understand. Somehow it must be calculating something that makes Norway out short. I wonder what kind of taxes they included. Like, I know sometimes Norway comes off as having so so high taxes, because they include our taxes on groceries and such, which is another 12% tax. But that is clearly not something you cut off from "disposable income". The income is what you have to spend, period. And the Income we have to spend should be around 80,000.

Pew isn't saying anything about quality of life.
They even admit in the article, that differences in quality of life are much narrower, when you consider that healthcare and other services are socialized, in Europe.

Simply, Americans have more disposable income in poor and middle income brackets. Whether they are going to use that money to pay healthcare or not is their own deal.

This is from 2011, if that matters.

meme!

yes so you're admitting the stat is completely useless then.
saying you have more "disposable income" because you can choose not to buy insurance or cover for emergencies is like saying you're richer rawdogging because you save out on buying condoms

It's not completely useless.
Because it breaks the myth that American brackets are all fucked and that our poor are starving while your poor have everything they need.

"poor" Americans have much more disposable income than their european counterparts.
It also shows how skewed graphs like this one, and the famous inequality scores make the economic situation in american seem worse than it is.

Americans have more money than Europeans that they can choose to spend however they want. And Health insurances cost so much, making American middle class better off than the European middle class.

France has a very inequal society with a huge class divide, just like Br*tain and the USA.

Because they're lazy and we don't hand lazy people free money.

Yeah I guess, I just checked for 2010, like it says in the infographics. Comparing our after tax income back then, to USD during that time come as 71,067

I dunno, it must be doing something weird.

Inequality is a relative scale.
The poor in america are better off than they were 10 years ago, and so are the rich to a much greater degree.
This makes things look bad, as if Americans are turning poor.

Well, no. Americans are richer than ever. The rich are just making so much damn money, that it makes thing look skewed.

But at the end of the day. Everyone is making more.

also, the upper income brackets has grown more than the lower income bracket. It does polarize matters a bit.

OK i overstated it a little, it's not a useless stat, and sure it's probably accurate on the face of it. but it is a very conveniently chosen one that just magically happens to mesh with the difference in values between americans and the rest of the OECD. you have less taken by taxes and more discretionary income, americans would consider that a plus, but it's a very american value, it doesn't hold across the pond.
the average middle american household is still probably wealthier than a good part of western europe but the difference is nowhere near that stark, it's absurd to think otherwise.

hmmmmmmmm

to be fair the US spends a lot on education but its still absolutely atrocious

HMMMMMMMMMM

HmhMHMHMHmHMHMHMMMMMMM

They must've enjoyed watching each other eat bull crap. If they didn't why would they pay money to see it? So they got something of value to them.

I wouldn't say we have that much less taken by taxes. But we are in the lower side.

I would also say that the average poor in America and Europe aren't too far off.

The biggest problem America is our healthcare system. Take that away, and America's poor is doing just as good, or even better than Europe's poor.

Many medical bills are forgiven also, so it's not like poor people in the US have to pay medical bills to begin with.

I went to the hospital and got charged 1K, but never paid it. The hospital then offered me to only pay 200 bucks and the bill was paid. This happens very often. And Hospitals won't let you die. Things have also gotten better after Obamacare.

yeah dude.. lol

(((GDP)))

Income taxes here is 27-30%, but they have probably included taxes on services and groceries and such, that obviously will be taxed when our wage is used on something.

For various reasons not really, see current accounts for instance. That info is very important to determining the health of the economy

Brainlets don't know the difference between exports and GDP, then proceeds to post export map to """"prove"""" another user wrong.

This is usually done toward Norwegians too, to make us look like an arab country. Oil and gas make up a great deal of our exports, but "only" 20% of our GDP is due to oil and gas (and related) industries.

What I get from those stats is that Canada is a better america

>haha I'm not brainlet guys
>but "only" 20% of our GDP is due to oil and gas (and related) industries.
>only

this is why HDI metrics is such a meme, countries like Netherlands have more diversified economy and thus are better.
if one business falls and breaks, the effect on the overall economy within the region will be minimized. it is also provides nations with the ability for sustainable there is not a reliance on one particular type

*because there is not a reliance on one particular type

GDP is a meme stat and close to a golden calf of economics. It doesn't reflect debt, it doesn't reflect whether the work done was useful in any way. As somebody said, you can make the GDP higher by paying one guy to dig a hole and another to fill it up again.

>diversified economy and thus are better
That may be true depending on how you look at it, but it has nothing to do with stats meant to show how well off a people are. You have your own stats on economies for what you want to see, like how healthy or how stable, and so on a country's economy is.

>""""""""""""""""""""""Human Development"""""""""""""""""""""""" index
what are they trying to convey in the first place?

Bacically how well off and how educated people are, and such? Do you not think that it's an important goal to have the best living conditions possible in a country?

>Norway oil
This is a meme, most of the oil money isn't used but simply invested into other areas like real estate and equity in safe companies to secure the money isn't wasted when the oil industry inevitably falls. If it was only oil, how do you explain Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland all also being in the top? None of them have any meaningful oil industry.
>Switzerland
Muh banks. 60% of the world economy goes through their banks. It's a bigger part of their capita than oil is for us.

nice one

w-wow....

France is an amercian-tier shithole