Using the average in an unequal society like Mississippi to compare against the more egalitarian France distorts things badly.
The mode for French income is about USD$22,000/yr, in Mississippi is closer to USD$15,000/yr and on top of that Frenchman pays virtually zero out-of-pocket for healthcare, university, or childcare, and benefits from robust public transit and mandatory 5-week paid holidays. If you are a normie, there is absolutely no doubt where you are better off.
The post is just another example someone on twitter using lies, damned lies, and statistic to do some good old Yankee flag waving.
This seems to be about actual consumption that has not been adjusted for government subsidies. If country A subsidizes services such as education, childcare, and healthcare more than country B, household spending is going to be lower there. A better comparison would either ignore spending in commonly subsidized categories or include government subsidies in household spending.
A quick reality check: Norway would be one of the wealthiest US states, both by nominal figures and after adjusting for purchasing power. If your comparison says something else, you are probably doing something wrong.
Interesting chart, but how is consumption measured? Dollars or stuff? Everything costs way more in the US.
"International dollars" are calculated with a common basket of goods and service, collected by the World Bank.
Measured in overpriced US dollars.
No one would willingly live in Mississippi over France or Italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Lasker
Using the average in an unequal society like Mississippi to compare against the more egalitarian France distorts things badly.
The mode for French income is about USD$22,000/yr, in Mississippi is closer to USD$15,000/yr and on top of that Frenchman pays virtually zero out-of-pocket for healthcare, university, or childcare, and benefits from robust public transit and mandatory 5-week paid holidays. If you are a normie, there is absolutely no doubt where you are better off.
The post is just another example someone on twitter using lies, damned lies, and statistic to do some good old Yankee flag waving.
This seems to be about actual consumption that has not been adjusted for government subsidies. If country A subsidizes services such as education, childcare, and healthcare more than country B, household spending is going to be lower there. A better comparison would either ignore spending in commonly subsidized categories or include government subsidies in household spending.
A quick reality check: Norway would be one of the wealthiest US states, both by nominal figures and after adjusting for purchasing power. If your comparison says something else, you are probably doing something wrong.