Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred-at-rantburg.com to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 I smell rats here. I think they are measuring gross income, based on GDP. However, if you look at net income, after taxes, I suspect there is hanky panky going on.
For example, counting *theoretical* government benefits as "income". That is, *theoretically*, all Englishmen have dental care, so that counts in their income.
Posted by Anonymoose 2008-01-07 08:37||
2008-01-07 08:37||
Front PageTop
#2 The calculations suggest that, measured by gross domestic product per capita,
That's very deceptive. What's the tax burden and disposable income after that 'per capita'?
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
— Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.
— Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
— Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
— Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
— Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
— Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.
Even better news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced, especially among children. Child poverty in the U.S. is caused largely by low levels of parental work and by the absence of fathers from the home. While work and two-parent families are the surest ladders out of poverty, the welfare system continues to reward idleness while failing to provide support to keep families in tact. The Specter of Poverty in America, Tuesday, September 21, 2004, By Robert Rector
Posted by Procopius2k 2008-01-07 08:46||
2008-01-07 08:46||
Front PageTop
#3 I suspect they account for the dollar weakening. But if you account in house sizing, cars, electronic equipments and Britsih, err, food, yuck, I fear Britain is still far behind.
Posted by JFM">JFM
2008-01-07 08:56||
2008-01-07 08:56||
Front PageTop
#4 Oh, really. Maybe the Brits finances look better right now due to falling dollar vs. Euro, but don't tell me a society where Muzz have open call for prayers bleating five times daily in seven major cities and are now demanding same in Oxford, of all places, is a healthy and prosperous society. They are in extreme danger of losing their entire nation from internal rot. I just heard that Brits are sucking up property in Manhattan in record proportion due to exchange advantage and it is responsible for escalating values there while realty nationwide is falling. Are the wealthy already setting up safe havens so that they can bail out on their less well off compatriots after they have allowed this rot to occur ?
Posted by Woozle Elmeter 2907 2008-01-07 08:57||
2008-01-07 08:57||
Front PageTop
#5 Can they actually whistle past the graveyard through those rotten teeth?
#8 Did they account for the 12-20m "undocumented" aliens in the US, and if so, how? Did they account for our subsidy for their defen(c)(s)e, and if so, how? I suspect our defense budget allocated to UK purposes likely approaches or exceeds the cost of their health care system - do they get credit for that, or do we?
Finally, given that whole taxation without representation thing, should the US taxpayer (i.e. ME) have a vote in British elections?
Just a few questions.
Posted by Chusong Grundy6409 2008-01-07 11:49||
2008-01-07 11:49||
Front PageTop
#9 I think there's a good chance the British salaries have (barely) outstripped US ones, but British standards of living definitely have not. Consider, for instance, that Brits can pay for the roundtrip air ticket to NYC by buying day-to-day sundries at K Mart - such is the difference between prices in the UK and NYC (one of the more expensive places to buy such things). There's also the fact that you pay twice as much in the UK for meals that have portions that are half as large as the NYC portions. I suspect it's basically a thicket of EU protectionism, domestic regulation and tariffs that causes salaries and living costs to be so high. Since Brits aren't actually more productive than Americans, this will definitely put a crimp on their attractiveness as an investment destination for new plants and offices.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
38.107.191.87
193501540
