Absolute poverty: USA versus EU

[Ultraworld]

Hi,

It's is well known in the EU that the GDP of the USA is much higher than the GDPs of the old 15 EU countries (except probably luxembourg). However most people in europe think that is at the cost of a lot of very poor people in the USA. People who are much poorer than the poor people in the EU(15). This idea is supported by the (leftwinged) media in the EU.

Ive never seen any stats showing the poor people in the EU(15) are better of than the poor in the USA. I only found misleading relative poverty stats showing there are less relative poor people in China and Easten Europe than in the USA.

On my search on the web I caught this interesting publication:
http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/
There is a bit about absolute poverty but he main part is about the avarage income showing european states would rank among the poorest USA states. Another brief conclusion of the poor EU states
http://mapage.noos.fr/yangjuan/euro/usvseu/gdppercapita.htm

So my question is do you know any good absolute poverty stats who compare the USA with european countries/sweden (the dutch still think sweden is the richest country in the world)? I vagely remember a pulication about comparisons between the poorest american ethnic group (blacks aren't it) with avarege swedes showing the blacks are as rich as the avarage swede.

I don't exactly know how those absolute poverty stats would look but I would think about comparing the PPP (after taxation of course) from the poorest 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of people in the USA to the poorest 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of people in the EU(15). This could be state by state (52 against 15) or by country (USA vs the old 15 EU countries).

I think economic growth (USA) is the best remedy for poverty instead of welfare (EU), I wonder wether the stats support that idea.

Ultraworld

 

[bigfatron]

this is very hard to do - how do you factor in aspects like healthcare, or housing support, or subsidised schooling?

the UK stands part way between the US adn continental european model - I quite like this approach but it might not work for everyone. Whatever, I'm damned sure you can't 'prove' whcih works better with GDP stats!

 

[h4ppy]

This thread is interesting but since I know it will eventually degenerate into Marla and luiz throwing acronyms at each other I'm just going to stay out of it.

 

[Winner]

Hi,

It's is well known in the EU that the GDP of the USA is much higher than the GDPs of the old 15 EU countries (except probably luxembourg). However most people in europe think that is at the cost of a lot of very poor people in the USA. People who are much poorer than the poor people in the EU(15). This idea is supported by the (leftwinged) media in the EU.

Ive never seen any stats showing the poor people in the EU(15) are better of than the poor in the USA. I only found misleading relative poverty stats showing there are less relative poor people in China and Easten Europe than in the USA.

On my search on the web I caught this interesting publication:
http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/
There is a bit about absolute poverty but he main part is about the avarage income showing european states would rank among the poorest USA states. Another brief conclusion of the poor EU states
http://mapage.noos.fr/yangjuan/euro/usvseu/gdppercapita.htm

So my question is do you know any good absolute poverty stats who compare the USA with european countries/sweden (the dutch still think sweden is the richest country in the world)? I vagely remember a pulication about comparisons between the poorest american ethnic group (blacks aren't it) with avarege swedes showing the blacks are as rich as the avarage swede.

I don't exactly know how those absolute poverty stats would look but I would think about comparing the PPP (after taxation of course) from the poorest 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of people in the USA to the poorest 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of people in the EU(15). This could be state by state (52 against 15) or by country (USA vs the old 15 EU countries).

I think economic growth (USA) is the best remedy for poverty instead of welfare (EU), I wonder wether the stats support that idea.

Ultraworld

You heretic! The lefties will tear you apart for this

 

[Grisu]

what exactly do you understand as "absolute poverty"? how do you suggest that it's measured? as bigfatron said, it's incredibly difficult to compare since there are so many factors playing into it.

but I agree, relieable figures about this would sure be interesting...but in the end it doesn't really matter how rich/poor you are, but how you feel about it, and this is completely subjective....

 

[Ultraworld]

this is very hard to do - how do you factor in aspects like healthcare, or housing support, or subsidised schooling?

the UK stands part way between the US adn continental european model - I quite like this approach but it might not work for everyone. Whatever, I'm damned sure you can't 'prove' whcih works better with GDP stats!

• subsidies are subject of a lot of regulations. You will only get them if you spent them the way the civil servant likes OR if you belong to a specific income group (you could be excluded from subsidies if you earn 1 euro too much)
• governent services are of low quality, are not the chioce of the free wil

This justifies they won't be counted.

 

[carlosMM]

forget those comparisons you are looking for!


Why?



well, comparing the US to Europe without figuring in the different NEEDS of people living there, is relatively useless. You CAN, for example, live and work well in large parts of Europe without a car (which costs money, obviosuly), but this is extremely unusual in the US.
Same goes for housing - the prices are totally different, thus comparing wages of GDP tells quite little.

 

[carlosMM]

• 
  This justifies they won't be counted.

• 
  
  uh, so your PERSONAL idea of what regulations lead to (your first point) justifies totally ignoring them - despite the fact that they SPECIFICALLY address the problem of poverty?
  
  

 

[farting bob]

A few links.
A table of GDP per capita. US is 8th, and all 7 above it are in the EU i think.
But looking at it with PPP the US is 3rd, still behind luxembourg and norway (i didnt realise nroway was that rich myself.)
However, Since USA is more privatised than places like Britain, more of their money is spent on education, healthcare etc. Theres no real way to find out how 'poor' 1 country is compared to another exactly. things cost different prices, different taxes and different benefits.

 

[Ultraworld]

you are from swiss
Together with Ireland and Lux those are the only countries who oculd keep up with the USA

what exactly do you understand as "absolute poverty"? how do you suggest that it's measured? as bigfatron said, it's incredibly difficult to compare since there are so many factors playing into it.

->

I don't exactly know how those absolute poverty stats would look but I would think about comparing the PPP (after taxation of course) from the poorest 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of people in the USA to the poorest 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of people in the EU(15). This could be state by state (52 against 15) or by country (USA vs the old 15 EU countries).


Comparing afro-americans with sweden would do the trick too.

 

[Jorge]

Well, I have made the following calculations (data from the CIA factbook) comparing the USA with Sweden:

USA:
Population 295 millions
GDP 11750 billions
The poorer 10% of the population have 1,8% of the GDP (211 billions)
Hence, 29,5 millions of people have 211 billions, thus 7150 $ a year.

Sweden:
Population 9 million
GDP 255 billions
The poorer 10% of the population have 3,7% of the GDP (9 billions)
Hence, 0,9 millions of people have 9 billions, thus 10000 $ a year.

If we add that probably in Sweden there are more help from the goverment to poor people, plus free education (quality education), plus free health care, then the conclusion is that poor people live better in Sweden.

 

[Ultraworld]

forget those comparisons you are looking for!


Why?



well, comparing the US to Europe without figuring in the different NEEDS of people living there, is relatively useless. You CAN, for example, live and work well in large parts of Europe without a car (which costs money, obviosuly), but this is extremely unusual in the US.
Same goes for housing - the prices are totally different, thus comparing wages of GDP tells quite little.

I already suggested PPP comparisons

 

[Ultraworld]

uh, so your PERSONAL idea of what regulations lead to (your first point) justifies totally ignoring them - despite the fact that they SPECIFICALLY address the problem of poverty?

Stats are alwasy subject of personal opinions. The point is: do you hide it or are you fair and honest about it so people could decide for themself how muach value they adress to the stats.

 

[Grisu]

you are from swiss
Together with Ireland and Lux those are the only countries who oculd keep up with the USA

and this matters how?

->

I don't exactly know how those absolute poverty stats would look but I would think about comparing the PPP (after taxation of course) from the poorest 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of people in the USA to the poorest 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of people in the EU(15). This could be state by state (52 against 15) or by country (USA vs the old 15 EU countries).

oops, missed that paragraph. but I still think it's extremely difficult, even PPP don't reflect exactly whether you are poor or not, IMHO

 

[Ultraworld]

Well, I have made the following calculations (data from the CIA factbook) comparing the USA with Sweden:

USA:
Population 295 millions
GDP 11750 billions
The poorer 10% of the population have 1,8% of the GDP (211 billions)
Hence, 29,5 millions of people have 211 billions, thus 7150 $ a year.

Sweden:
Population 9 million
GDP 255 billions
The poorer 10% of the population have 3,7% of the GDP (9 billions)
Hence, 0,9 millions of people have 9 billions, thus 10000 $ a year.

If we add that probably in Sweden there are more help from the goverment to poor people, plus free education (quality education), plus free health care, then the conclusion is that poor people live better in Sweden.

->

Data on household income or consumption come from household surveys, the results adjusted for household size. Nations use different standards and procedures in collecting and adjusting the data. Surveys based on income will normally show a more unequal distribution than surveys based on consumption. The quality of surveys is improving with time, yet caution is still necessary in making inter-country comparisons.

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

 

[Jorge]

->


111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Well, it´s the only objective data I found (it´s better than nothing and just making a gess)

 

[Winner]

Also the term "average" is extremely misleading. For example "average" American could be in fact richer than 70% percent of US population. It depends on how the wealth is distributed in the society.

For example the average wage is always a lot higher than the wage of vast majority of working population.

 

[Ultraworld]

Timbro http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/ compares material prosperty.

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf
look at the table at page 16

USA is #1 at almost every subject (PC, Microwave, Clothes Dryer)

Dwelling space is compared too but they don't tell me what poor people are.

They take both data from Rector & Johnson (2004) so I might better look for that rapport:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm

 

[ComradeDavo]

In Soviet Russia there were less people in poverty than in the USA during the cold war, so I would not trust any 'average' figure used for the USA.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

What could be compared are for instance the living conditions of the long term unemployed or working poor people.
I don´t know exactly where to access this information, doesn´t some UN agency have an annual report on poverty around the world?
GPD is, imo a bad representation of poverty as income distribution and SS is more important for the living conditions of the poorest members of a society.

To give a start: I haven´t seen trailerparks or badly run down urban areas here in Austria yet. How common are these/ how many people live in such areas in the US? Health insurance is obligatory here and education is 100% free except Universities. The minimum amount of money everyone gets (it is called Notstandshilfe) is around €600 per month, there are extras for children and partial disabilities. I am not sure about % homeless people, there seem not to be official statistics about it.
Comparing the living conditions of the poorest, Austria is imo better off, but that is just an opinion.