|
|
|
|
|
by runnerup
1033 days ago
|
|
> GDP/capita (PPP) is what economists use to compare wealth. I agree this makes sense if you're comparing "What could a nation do with its wealth?", which is a question that economists are often tasked with. But it makes less sense to use GDP if you're comparing "What is the economic outcome of a typical individual in that society?" GDP (total, possibly adjusted for PPP) makes sense if you'd like to know roughly how much a nation could contribute in war materiel to an existential crisis. GDP (per capita, usually adjusted for PPP) makes sense if you'd like to know roughly how much infrastructure (schools/healthcare/etc) a nation could choose to build out for its citizens. For me though if I'm asking the question "how comfortable are hypothetical young adults going to be in a nation?" (how comfortable would my children be?) I still feel like median income, adjusted for purchasing power parity, makes a lot of sense towards answering that question. Otherwise, to "economists", is median income just a useless metric which offers no insight at all? Why do they spend so much effort tracking it for so many different geographies? This could be interpreted as an "appeal to authority" fallacy but I'd like to know -- if I'm using the metric wrong, how should I be using it? |
|