Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please read the link that you provided properly. GDP per capita is calculated by taking a measure of all sources of income in the aggregate (such as GDP or Gross national income) and dividing it by the total population. Then please continue to read the linked terms such as 'Gross national income' to see what they actually mean - it isn't a measure of personal income, even though you may naively believe it to be. It is not measuring the wages of all people in the country and averaging them, which is entirely possible and we have access to such data thanks to the OECD. Perhaps you would care to look at the three graphs that I posted on the previous page to see the median income in all OECD countries, as well as the median income for the top income earners, and bottom income earners - yes, we are talking about income EARNED by people WORKING, and not gross domestic product, private investment or government consumption, which is not relevant to how much people are earning.
Just in case you decided to skip over my post, here it is. It's fairly standard stuff - GDP per capita is gross domestic product per person. Gross domestic product divided by the population. This includes all goods and services produced within a country, at the end of the year. It differs from private income. It has no bearing or relevance to how much I am earning, or how much you are earning, or how much anyone else is earning. Yes, GDP per capita has some correlation with the wealth of a nation, because wealthy nations are far more productive relative to their size than poorer nations. It doesn't mean the average person in Luxembourg is earning over $100,000 a year. It doesn't mean the average person in Norway is earning $99,000 a year.
Of course, the United States still ranks highly regardless, but looking at GDP per capita alone to gauge how wealthy or well-off people are in certain countries is misleading. Even looking at personal income is misleading as certain nations will have massive disparities between the very wealthy and very poor, which is very relevant to how well-off a country is - if they have a massive amount of people earning very low incomes or living in squalor, then it is going to affect how well-off that country is, regardless of GDP per capita, median income, or whatever else.
sadgirl80 uses GDP (PPP) for the European countries and nominal GDP for the US. The PPP (purchasing power parity) is always lower than the nominal GDP per capita. As I said, it's like comparing gross salary with net salary.
The IMF sets USA's GDP (PPP) at $49,922, and the "bottom" rich countries on the OP's list (Finland, France and Germany) at $36,395, $35,548 and $39,028 respectively.
If you don't want to use PPP, you must also take the nominal GDP for those countries, which are:
$46,098 Finland
$41,141 France
$41,513 Germany
Bumps up every country, and Finland with no global industries has a nominal GDP compared to Rhode Island. The median income pre tax was $43,961 for Finland in 2012, for an average of 1672 hours worked.
In the US was $51,914 in 2010 (higher than in 2011) for an average of 1790 hours worked.
This means an average wage of $29/hour in the US and $26.3/hour in Finland. A slight edge to the US, but remember, all full-time employees in Finland have the right to a five week paid holiday a year, 100% pay on sick-leave, or even if your child is sick and you have to stay at home. I don't know about the US, but in Finland workplaces that require higher education usually give a half hour lunch break with full pay as a token of goodwill.
Many companies implement the "one-and-a-half" rule for overtime in the US, in Finland it's only the two first hours overtime a day, then it's double pay. And in most places working on a Saturday it's one-and-a-half and double on Sunday.
Not to count aaaaaallll the other benefits the trade unions have achieved for the workers during the last 100 years. If I'm not wrong, some employers don't like if you join a trade union in the US, though you have the right.
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, that's 5.5€ folks. How many would work for that salary? At least in this country it is called slave labor, which is of course illegal. The Nordic countries don't have a minimum wage, but the trade unions have agreed upon a minimum salary depending on the profession. Today the absolute minimum is around $12 an hour in Finland. And if you earn only that, you'll pay around 13% of taxes, which is 2% less than in the US!
If there's something the US possibly can't beat any European country, is the situation and rights of the worker. The salaries may be on average higher in the US, but the employers treat you like cattle. And the funny part is, you let them, because everything else would be communism.
Since Labor Day has just passed, I thought it would be meaningful to share something regarding...Labor.
I've noticed quite a bit of what I'll describe as Europhilia, displayed by members in CD as well as in other American message boards in general. I always wonder what's the cause of this syndrome of Europhilia,.. is it just a simplistic case of white Americans who still sub-consciously view "Old Europe" (to quote an infamous US Defense Secretary), the continent as their ancestral homeland and as a result nurse some illogical attachment to it? That could be a reason, but one of the main reasons in my opinion, is also lack of knowledge and exposure to the actual subject.
Most of the Americans I have come across who have Europhilia have not actually been there, or have been there on nothing beyond a 17 day vacation.
[blah blah blah, etc etc]
Do you really think any of this data is going to change the Americans who have a romantic view of their 'roots' or 'motherland'? Nope. Their romantic views of the charm, ancient sites, historic buildings, 'exotic' food and accents and cultures, the landscape, seascapes, have absolutely nothing to do with GDP or who has a bigger military.
You took the ONE TOP performing country in the list that is not in the trading bloc, (who refuses to join the EU by the way, precisely because of its wealth) and you juxtaposed it with three states with the lowest population in the whole country? Similarly I can say why isn't it as rich as NY, MA, VA and CO, which all have higher population?
Fact is USA still wins.
And my thread about hilarious Americans with Europhilia and the European countries being mostly poor compared to the US still stands.
Wins what??!! The prize for most arrogant? What point are you trying to prove?
GDP per capita isn't the best way to measure either personal wealth or quality of life. Also factor average income, purchasing power and, of course, the innumerable other aspects. In many ways life in Europe is better than the US, in other ways the US is better, they're just different.
Well said. They are different. Better in different ways. 48 years in US, 13 in UK. Happier in UK. Also have better health care and more money as a retiree, more stunning scenery, etc etc etc.
sadgirl80 uses GDP (PPP) for the European countries and nominal GDP for the US. The PPP (purchasing power parity) is always lower than the nominal GDP per capita. As I said, it's like comparing gross salary with net salary.
The IMF sets USA's GDP (PPP) at $49,922, and the "bottom" rich countries on the OP's list (Finland, France and Germany) at $36,395, $35,548 and $39,028 respectively.
If you don't want to use PPP, you must also take the nominal GDP for those countries, which are:
$46,098 Finland
$41,141 France
$41,513 Germany
Bumps up every country, and Finland with no global industries has a nominal GDP compared to Rhode Island. The median income pre tax was $43,961 for Finland in 2012, for an average of 1672 hours worked.
In the US was $51,914 in 2010 (higher than in 2011) for an average of 1790 hours worked.
This means an average wage of $29/hour in the US and $26.3/hour in Finland. A slight edge to the US, but remember, all full-time employees in Finland have the right to a five week paid holiday a year, 100% pay on sick-leave, or even if your child is sick and you have to stay at home. I don't know about the US, but in Finland workplaces that require higher education usually give a half hour lunch break with full pay as a token of goodwill.
Many companies implement the "one-and-a-half" rule for overtime in the US, in Finland it's only the two first hours overtime a day, then it's double pay. And in most places working on a Saturday it's one-and-a-half and double on Sunday.
Not to count aaaaaallll the other benefits the trade unions have achieved for the workers during the last 100 years. If I'm not wrong, some employers don't like if you join a trade union in the US, though you have the right.
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, that's 5.5€ folks. How many would work for that salary? At least in this country it is called slave labor, which is of course illegal. The Nordic countries don't have a minimum wage, but the trade unions have agreed upon a minimum salary depending on the profession. Today the absolute minimum is around $12 an hour in Finland. And if you earn only that, you'll pay around 13% of taxes, which is 2% less than in the US!
If there's something the US possibly can't beat any European country, is the situation and rights of the worker. The salaries may be on average higher in the US, but the employers treat you like cattle. And the funny part is, you let them, because everything else would be communism.
A rather sad article, illustrating quite harshly why Europe is so idolized. GDP as the be-all and end-all of a countrys success?
Also, why does his on source have much higher numbers for European coutries GDPs than his table?
Anyway, Europeans have much more vacation time (GDP per hour worked is very different), more disposable income, better health and healthcare, and far, far more freedom.
The measure of a coutry is how well it serves its citizens. GDP is not a useless measure in this regard, but in this case it falls short. It is fairly clear that the average European has a vastly better life than the average in Mississippi.
According to UK's Office for National Statistics the USA has higher disposable income than EVERY European country. Darn, that's inconvenient - please shut this thread down!
More data on the "truth about Europe". The World Economic Forum just released its annual Global Competetiveness Report:
Quote:
The report’s Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) places Switzerland at the top of the ranking for the fifth year running. Singapore and Finland remain in second and third positions respectively. Germany moves up two places (4th) and the United States reverses a four-year downward trend, climbing two places to fifth. Hong Kong SAR (7th) and Japan (9th) also close the gap on the most competitive economies, while Sweden (6th), the Netherlands (8th) and the United Kingdom (10th) fall.
Three European countries are ahead of the United States and - gasp - two of them are even part of the 'trading bloc' the OP refers to all the time. Switzerland and Norway, by the way, are not EU members but enjoy pretty much all the economic advantages of a full member, so it's nonsense to exclude them. 6 European countries in the top 10, not too bad, huh? Seems like the countries in Europe are doing a pretty good job when it comes to economic performance, despite the current crisis in some areas of the Eurozone.
Maybe both Europeans AND Americans should thank their lucky stars that they were born where they were born - there are FAR worse places you could have been unfortunate enough to have been born in to in this world other than either the US or Europe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The prize for most arrogant? What point are you trying to prove?
