You hear that phrase from time to time. Usually it's used to suggest that the USA is the best place to live. The place where you're most likely to be making better money than anywhere else. The place where as a regular person you'll still make a whole lot of money.
After all, the GDP per capita in the USA is about $8000 higher than in Canada (which makes a good reference). ~$38000 to ~$30000 (both rounded up). $8000 per person per year sounds like a lot of money.
Trouble is, the GDP per capita for the bottom 99% of the population in the USA is actually lower than the GDP per capita of the bottom 99% of Canadians. You could cite taxes as a reason that the USA is cheaper, but on average the USA taxes about 6% less (31% opposed to 37%) but health care expenditures cost twice as much, and at 13% of the GDP in the USA, health care alone can make up for all the extra taxation and then some (not that we need to get into health care, I'm just trying to head off the 'higher taxes' debate since it's not actually significant here given what those taxes buy).
Not that I'm claiming the USA is a bad place to live. Just that I'd always assumed (and been told or had it be implied) that living in the USA your chances as a 'regular' person of making good money were higher than in Canada. And yet unless you happen to be in the top 1% of the population in terms of income, you're actually likely to make more money in Canada. It's amusing, and a little irksome, that I'd been labouring under such an illusion (and that so many people apparently still do).
Thoughts? (this isn't meant to be a US vs Canada debate, just an observation/discussion about the false idea that people seem to have that most Americans are wealthier than most people in other Western nations--Canada just being the easiest example to cite given that I have a wealth of information on Canada available to me:)
"Wealthiest Nation in the World"
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
"Wealthiest Nation in the World"
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
[quote="Makh";p="437256"]Kanada is like a small copy of USA. :)[/quote]
*stabs*
Incidentally, it occurs to me (after some further reading) that this is likely in large part due to the recent polarisation of wealth in the USA. For instance, between 1975 and 1992 the % of national wealth owned by the top 1% went from 22% to 42%. It's not nearly so drastic in Canada (though it's still there), which could account for why we hear that the USA is richer and better for the average person, and we know that there is much more wealth there, and yet it's actually easier for most people to make money in Canada.
(another question: between 1975 and 1992 did the top 1% of the population in the USA suddenly become twice as smart, productive, and effective, that they deserve to have twice as much of the GDP?)
*stabs*
Incidentally, it occurs to me (after some further reading) that this is likely in large part due to the recent polarisation of wealth in the USA. For instance, between 1975 and 1992 the % of national wealth owned by the top 1% went from 22% to 42%. It's not nearly so drastic in Canada (though it's still there), which could account for why we hear that the USA is richer and better for the average person, and we know that there is much more wealth there, and yet it's actually easier for most people to make money in Canada.
(another question: between 1975 and 1992 did the top 1% of the population in the USA suddenly become twice as smart, productive, and effective, that they deserve to have twice as much of the GDP?)
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
[quote="Azurain";p="437261"](another question: between 1975 and 1992 did the top 1% of the population in the USA suddenly become twice as smart, productive, and effective, that they deserve to have twice as much of the GDP?)[/quote]
The problem is the same here since 1991. You have an insanely rich class and a large poor class. Richs are richer von Tag zu Tag and they keep everything for themselves.
Never trust a Russian billionaire.
The problem is the same here since 1991. You have an insanely rich class and a large poor class. Richs are richer von Tag zu Tag and they keep everything for themselves.
Never trust a Russian billionaire.
-
Bigity
- Redshirt
- Posts: 6091
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 7:34 pm
- Real Name: Stu
- Gender: Male
- Location: West Texas
I'd imagine that the potential for wealth is greater in the U.S.
What does deserve have to do with money? This isn't a socialist country. If people with money choose to use it to make more money, what's the problem?
You seem to condemn people who make money, but do you think that poor people don't want to make money? I guess that makes them just as bad
In the U.S., you are free to settle for a minimum wage, 8-hour a day job slinging tacos, or you can take advantage of the myriad of oppurtunities to better yourself, which isn't just about money.
Some people are poor because of circumstances outside of thier control, but some people are poor because they are lazy and don't care to change it. It doesn't make people with money evil, or mean.
And I will be damned if I pretend I'm from another country, when overseas in Europe or whatnot. America has just as much to be proud of as any nation, ever.
What does deserve have to do with money? This isn't a socialist country. If people with money choose to use it to make more money, what's the problem?
You seem to condemn people who make money, but do you think that poor people don't want to make money? I guess that makes them just as bad
In the U.S., you are free to settle for a minimum wage, 8-hour a day job slinging tacos, or you can take advantage of the myriad of oppurtunities to better yourself, which isn't just about money.
Some people are poor because of circumstances outside of thier control, but some people are poor because they are lazy and don't care to change it. It doesn't make people with money evil, or mean.
And I will be damned if I pretend I'm from another country, when overseas in Europe or whatnot. America has just as much to be proud of as any nation, ever.
No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave. -- Calvin Coolidge
Today's liberals wish to disarm us so they can run their evil and oppressive agenda on us. The fight against crime is just a convenient excuse to further their agenda. I don't know about you, but if you hear that Williams' guns have been taken, you'll know Williams is dead. -- Walter Williams, Professor of Economics, George Mason University
Today's liberals wish to disarm us so they can run their evil and oppressive agenda on us. The fight against crime is just a convenient excuse to further their agenda. I don't know about you, but if you hear that Williams' guns have been taken, you'll know Williams is dead. -- Walter Williams, Professor of Economics, George Mason University
-
StruckingFuggle
- Redshirt
- Posts: 22166
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx
Uhm, Bigity, you can't say, "deserve has nothing to do with money" and then basically say the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor.
Hm. If you actually can, I'd like to know where you're getting your cake from, because I like the idea of eating it and keeping it, too.
But where did Az "condemn people who make money"? I looked back and I don't see a condemnation - it looks more like you're putting text into his posts. (Straw man, almost)
Hm. If you actually can, I'd like to know where you're getting your cake from, because I like the idea of eating it and keeping it, too.
But where did Az "condemn people who make money"? I looked back and I don't see a condemnation - it looks more like you're putting text into his posts. (Straw man, almost)
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
-
WolfDreamer
- Redshirt
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:42 pm
I think Bigity meant deserve in the sense of people having a born right to it; as opposed to haing earned it.
To address what you were saying Azurain I think we also need to look at the average income of a US household which is $43,500. Personal income to me would seem to be more relevant to quality of life then GDP. GDP takes into account just what we produce; not what we actually recieve or possess.
To address what you were saying Azurain I think we also need to look at the average income of a US household which is $43,500. Personal income to me would seem to be more relevant to quality of life then GDP. GDP takes into account just what we produce; not what we actually recieve or possess.
To answer this question Azurain I would say that it isn't that they became better but rather things obstructing them were removed. I know your not trying to knock rich people here but this really does seem like a slam on the rich. Contrary to popular liberal bias rich people do EARN their money; it is easy to watch a multi-millionare go broke if he doesn't understand how to properly use his money. The rich earn their money by investing it; hence providing jobs and income. They don't suddenly have twice as much of the GDP; they create more GDP and more wealth. Wealth and the economy are NOT a zero sum game(another question: between 1975 and 1992 did the top 1% of the population in the USA suddenly become twice as smart, productive, and effective, that they deserve to have twice as much of the GDP?)
I'm not claiming that rich people don't work to earn their money, but... does a CEO of a major company really work 179 times as well as his average employee? Even when he only worked, apparently, 41 times as well as his average employee two decades ago?
What about the fact that upper management receives pay hikes regardless of the economic state the company is in? It's true: in the US major corporations award bonuses to upper management in a manner that is entirely unrelated to corporate success. In fact, if anything, there's a reverse corellation.
Why has the average American worker's income remained static over the past decade while the average CEO's has doubled, even though American productivity has gone up? Hell, why does the average American worker make less money than the average Canadian worker despite having higher productivity and living in such an apparently wealthier society?
What about the fact that upper management receives pay hikes regardless of the economic state the company is in? It's true: in the US major corporations award bonuses to upper management in a manner that is entirely unrelated to corporate success. In fact, if anything, there's a reverse corellation.
Why has the average American worker's income remained static over the past decade while the average CEO's has doubled, even though American productivity has gone up? Hell, why does the average American worker make less money than the average Canadian worker despite having higher productivity and living in such an apparently wealthier society?
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
-
Spongiform
- Redshirt
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Jersey
Re: "Wealthiest Nation in the World"
[quote="Azurain";p="437253"]You hear that phrase from time to time. Usually it's used to suggest that the USA is the best place to live. The place where you're most likely to be making better money than anywhere else. The place where as a regular person you'll still make a whole lot of money.
After all, the GDP per capita in the USA is about $8000 higher than in Canada (which makes a good reference). ~$38000 to ~$30000 (both rounded up). $8000 per person per year sounds like a lot of money.
Trouble is, the GDP per capita for the bottom 99% of the population in the USA is actually lower than the GDP per capita of the bottom 99% of Canadians. You could cite taxes as a reason that the USA is cheaper, but on average the USA taxes about 6% less (31% opposed to 37%) but health care expenditures cost twice as much, and at 13% of the GDP in the USA, health care alone can make up for all the extra taxation and then some (not that we need to get into health care, I'm just trying to head off the 'higher taxes' debate since it's not actually significant here given what those taxes buy).
Not that I'm claiming the USA is a bad place to live. Just that I'd always assumed (and been told or had it be implied) that living in the USA your chances as a 'regular' person of making good money were higher than in Canada. And yet unless you happen to be in the top 1% of the population in terms of income, you're actually likely to make more money in Canada. It's amusing, and a little irksome, that I'd been labouring under such an illusion (and that so many people apparently still do).
Thoughts? (this isn't meant to be a US vs Canada debate, just an observation/discussion about the false idea that people seem to have that most Americans are wealthier than most people in other Western nations--Canada just being the easiest example to cite given that I have a wealth of information on Canada available to me:)[/quote]
Shut up, liberal! America is the greatest country in the world! No aspect of any other country or region in the world is better than any part of America! When this country was founded 1,000 years ago, George Washington knew it would be the BEST!
DISCLAIMER FOR THE HUMOR IMPAIRED: That was sarcasm so thick you could have got your imported, $500 Nike shoe stuck in it.
After all, the GDP per capita in the USA is about $8000 higher than in Canada (which makes a good reference). ~$38000 to ~$30000 (both rounded up). $8000 per person per year sounds like a lot of money.
Trouble is, the GDP per capita for the bottom 99% of the population in the USA is actually lower than the GDP per capita of the bottom 99% of Canadians. You could cite taxes as a reason that the USA is cheaper, but on average the USA taxes about 6% less (31% opposed to 37%) but health care expenditures cost twice as much, and at 13% of the GDP in the USA, health care alone can make up for all the extra taxation and then some (not that we need to get into health care, I'm just trying to head off the 'higher taxes' debate since it's not actually significant here given what those taxes buy).
Not that I'm claiming the USA is a bad place to live. Just that I'd always assumed (and been told or had it be implied) that living in the USA your chances as a 'regular' person of making good money were higher than in Canada. And yet unless you happen to be in the top 1% of the population in terms of income, you're actually likely to make more money in Canada. It's amusing, and a little irksome, that I'd been labouring under such an illusion (and that so many people apparently still do).
Thoughts? (this isn't meant to be a US vs Canada debate, just an observation/discussion about the false idea that people seem to have that most Americans are wealthier than most people in other Western nations--Canada just being the easiest example to cite given that I have a wealth of information on Canada available to me:)[/quote]
Shut up, liberal! America is the greatest country in the world! No aspect of any other country or region in the world is better than any part of America! When this country was founded 1,000 years ago, George Washington knew it would be the BEST!
DISCLAIMER FOR THE HUMOR IMPAIRED: That was sarcasm so thick you could have got your imported, $500 Nike shoe stuck in it.
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
[quote="WolfDreamer";p="437425"]
Thank you for pointing that out. Additionally, digging up the same old lame argument about how those darn company presidents make too much money is hardly the basis for a new economic theory...
Remember, you're usually only going to be paid what it'd cost to replace you. If you stand at an assembly line and screw the head on a doll or something, you can't argue that you should become independently wealthy due to the company's product being nothing without you there to screw the head on the doll, and suggesting that you have immeasurable value and worth to the company. Why? Because they can pick up any other shmuck off the street to do it, too, and probably for less than you're paid now. And if that person sucks at their job and royally fucks up, what's the damage? A few doll heads need to be reattached correctly, maybe even at the loss of a few dolls. But if the CEO royally fucks up, the entire company goes under, sending ALL assembly line shmucks home with no paycheck whatsoever. Obviously, this is a very simplified example of a much more complex field of study, but seriously, stfu about it already.
Personal income to me would seem to be more relevant to quality of life then GDP. GDP takes into account just what we produce; not what we actually recieve or possess. ....They don't suddenly have twice as much of the GDP; they create more GDP and more wealth. Wealth and the economy are NOT a zero sum game[/quote]they deserve to have twice as much of the GDP?
Thank you for pointing that out. Additionally, digging up the same old lame argument about how those darn company presidents make too much money is hardly the basis for a new economic theory...
Remember, you're usually only going to be paid what it'd cost to replace you. If you stand at an assembly line and screw the head on a doll or something, you can't argue that you should become independently wealthy due to the company's product being nothing without you there to screw the head on the doll, and suggesting that you have immeasurable value and worth to the company. Why? Because they can pick up any other shmuck off the street to do it, too, and probably for less than you're paid now. And if that person sucks at their job and royally fucks up, what's the damage? A few doll heads need to be reattached correctly, maybe even at the loss of a few dolls. But if the CEO royally fucks up, the entire company goes under, sending ALL assembly line shmucks home with no paycheck whatsoever. Obviously, this is a very simplified example of a much more complex field of study, but seriously, stfu about it already.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
Average household income... I'm not sure how it's calculated. However, if it takes into account the top 1% then it's entirely irrelevant to what I'm talking about here. I'll see if I can find stats, but it's hard enough finding much concrete about the bottom 99% in terms of GDP/capita and such.Thank you for pointing that out. Additionally, digging up the same old lame argument about how those darn company presidents make too much money is hardly the basis for a new economic theory...
Not trying to create a new economic theory. I've never even taken a course on economics (though it is a subject of interest to me, somewhat, and I have researched it to a degree... and classical education isn't necessarily a de facto requirement for new theories, and can even be an impediment, but I ramble...). What I am doing is pointing out a commonly held misperception.
Also, on "those darn company presidents" ... I'd not even argue too much that making 40 times what your average employee makes is too excessive. Or even 200 times as much, if it were static. But when it increases in proportion so substantially over a period of time where most employee's wages remained static and production went up... something's probably not right.
(I was edit-ninjaed. I guess since you decided to tell me to just 'stfu' there must not be a problem at all. Your eloquence and factual accuracy has swayed me. I will never again post about obvious and glaring social injustices and corporate corruption; after all, such things don't really exist. It's just liberal fantasy and propoganda, just like everything else you disagree with, Deacon.)
Last edited by Azurain on Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [bot] and 1 guest