The methodology finally addresses a pet peeve of mine to adjust based on prices and hours worked: "we ranked 178 countries using three measures. The first is GDP per person at market exchange rates. It is simple and intuitive, and widely cited. But it ignores price differences between countries. The second measure adjusts incomes for these local costs (known as purchasing-power parity, or PPP). This offers a better guide to living standards but one that takes no account of leisure time: the share of people in work, and how long they work, varies by country. Our final yardstick accounts for both local prices and hours worked"
Finally something by the economist that isnt "America great, EU doomed, America, murica, capitalism yay".
Didnt know Qatar scored so high on GDP per hours worked metric, but I guess they dont measure hours worked in construction as that one is largely immigrants working in unsafe conditions with confiscated passports. Source - the book Inside Qatar.
Highest income country would be a more accurate title here I think. My country (Ireland) has a high income now but has been poor for centuries, we lack many markers of wealthy countries like subways, extensive motorway networks etc. We are well on our way to being a rich country, but not there yet.
it should try. because it's using gdp per capita it's stating that it cares how the entire gdp is averaged out over the entire population. the more inequality there is the less useful or representative this averaging out is
I love how a publication called "The Economist" doesn't have the wherewithal to measure supposedly economic outliers like Ireland and Luxembourg and just throws its hands up in the air and doesn't try.
This doesn't take into account resources in the ground, otherwise it would need to show how rich the so-called "poor" countries locked into debt slavery and colonized infrastructure/governance the "rich" countries continue to impose on them.
If the measures ignore the sources of wealth discovered and not yet extracted, it doesn't accurately indicate what's happening. The whole story is left untold. Not reporting worth basing economic decisions on, except to hire better economists.
Singapore's rise is amazing. They don't have oil or other natural resources. Singapore adopted free-market capitalism, encouraged foreign direct investment and positioned itself as an attractive destination for multinational corporations. They invested heavily in technical and higher education, ensuring a highly skilled workforce. Singapore is consistently top-three in mathematics and science performance.
14 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 44.4 ms ] threadNot good, but better. Take it with a grain of salt.
Didnt know Qatar scored so high on GDP per hours worked metric, but I guess they dont measure hours worked in construction as that one is largely immigrants working in unsafe conditions with confiscated passports. Source - the book Inside Qatar.
it should try. because it's using gdp per capita it's stating that it cares how the entire gdp is averaged out over the entire population. the more inequality there is the less useful or representative this averaging out is
If the measures ignore the sources of wealth discovered and not yet extracted, it doesn't accurately indicate what's happening. The whole story is left untold. Not reporting worth basing economic decisions on, except to hire better economists.