GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Yeah, that place out 'there'. Anything not really Cambodia related should go here.
User avatar
wackyjacky
Expatriate
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:40 pm
Karma: 1

GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Postby wackyjacky » Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:50 am

Well this should start a shitstorm. At least it beats out Mississippi & the poor are better off. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/gov ... ssissippi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ........."If Britain were to join the United States, it would be the second-poorest state, behind Alabama and ahead of Mississippi. Here's a link to the British prospective: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/sur ... ca-4115105" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The ranking, determined by Fraser Nelson, an editor of The Spectator magazine, was made by dividing the gross domestic product of each state by its population, and it took into account purchasing power parity for cost of living. Several other European countries were also included in the ranking.

Ranking by GDP per capita instead of just GDP means that states with mega-economies such as California, which has the top GDP in the United States (its GDP is also larger than most countries’), was knocked down to 14th place among the states when divided by its more than 38 million residents. Alaska comes in first, with a GDP of more than $59 billion divided by a population of 735,000.

Norway was the top European country on the list, between Massachusetts and New Jersey. Nelson wrote that the United Kingdom’s low ranking showed Britain had “no reason to feel smug” about recent events in Ferguson, Mo.:

“The United States may be a great place to be rich, we like to think, but they treat their deprived appallingly over there. We tend to watch reports from poorer American states with a shudder, thankful that our country is run along different, more compassionate lines.

But if Britain were to somehow leave the European union and become the 51st state of America, we would actually be one of the poor states. If you take our economic output, adjust for living costs and slot it into the US league table then the United Kingdom emerges as the second-poorest state in the union. We’re poorer than much-maligned Kansas and Alabama and well below Missouri, the scene of all the unrest in recent weeks. Only Mississippi has lower economic output per head than the UK; strip out the South East and Britain would rank bottom. We certainly have our problems; we’re just better at concealing them.”
User avatar
wackyjacky
Expatriate
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:40 pm
Karma: 1

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Postby wackyjacky » Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:33 pm

Wow, no reaction from our US bashing British friends. I guess they're happy for at least being more productive than the fine citizens of Mississippi. I guess I'll try the other forum.
Soi Dog
Expatriate
Posts: 2236
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:53 am
Karma: 4

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Postby Soi Dog » Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:50 pm

I like the part about "we haven't had any Ferguson type riots in the UK, lately". I guess 2011 was another lifetime ago.

To say that the UK is "more equal" because the wealth gap between the very richest and the very poorest is less is only true because the US does have more mega-wealthy individuals...almost all of whom have earned every penny themselves. How many rich people in the UK wealth have inherited their wealth? Half their parliament is based on inherited wealth and privilege.
User avatar
Secret Squirrel
Expatriate
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:22 pm
Karma: 0
Great Britain

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Postby Secret Squirrel » Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:58 pm

Classic lies, damned lies and statistics. If you look at the original article which was in the Spectator it shamelessly states the source as Wikipedia! If you need to know anything about this publication consider Boris Johnson used to be Editor.
Because the actual GDP figures did not give the desired result they were manipulated by PPP. You could manipulate them different ways to generate pretty much any result you desire.
Statistics can show when used selectively that Scotland have the greatest football team the world has ever seen. Actual evidence on the other hand presents a slightly more depressing tale. (See unofficial Football world champions)
http://www.ufwc.co.uk/rankings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4186
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Karma: 7
United States of America

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Postby OrangeDragon » Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:22 am

One point is awarded for a title match win, no points are awarded for a draw or loss. Teams are ranked numerically then alphabetically. Point totals have been combined for sides that have officially played under different names and are recognised as doing so by FIFA, these being Germany and West Germany, Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia, Northern Ireland and Ireland, Russia and USSR, Serbia and Yugoslavia, and Curacao and Dutch Antilles.
how is that data manipulated then? what was the exact part where they pulled the wool over readers' eyes?

had it been some sort of convoluted percentage based on total games played vs wins vs draws/etc... then you might be on to something... but that's a pretty straight forward statistic. only gripe might be that it doesn't show them by points scored, but 1 point over the other team is really all it takes to make a win.
User avatar
wackyjacky
Expatriate
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:40 pm
Karma: 1

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Postby wackyjacky » Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:42 am

Both the articles are from British newspapers.
User avatar
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4186
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Karma: 7
United States of America

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Postby OrangeDragon » Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:10 am

Also not sure what it is about the original data you dislike so much. GDP Per Capita is generally they most common display of the data, because it's the most relevant. For example, a country with 10x as many people and the same total GDP will be a much poorer country. The per-capita illustrates this.
Soi Dog
Expatriate
Posts: 2236
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:53 am
Karma: 4

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Postby Soi Dog » Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:20 am

That article uses PPP (purchasing power parity) which best sums up the relative living standard of a country compared to others. $30,000 per year income in Cambodia might be more than adequate to live on for many people. But it's a different story to earn $30,000 per year some place where the median cost of housing alone is $36,000 per year (ie San Francisco, London or Manhattan). The same goes for GDP per capita. The numbers mean nothing without context.
User avatar
wackyjacky
Expatriate
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:40 pm
Karma: 1

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Postby wackyjacky » Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:07 am

Soi Dog wrote:That article uses PPP (purchasing power parity) which best sums up the relative living standard of a country compared to others. $30,000 per year income in Cambodia might be more than adequate to live on for many people. But it's a different story to earn $30,000 per year some place where the median cost of housing alone is $36,000 per year (ie San Francisco, London or Manhattan). The same goes for GDP per capita. The numbers mean nothing without context.
Really ? ........"The ranking, determined by Fraser Nelson, an editor of The Spectator magazine, was made by dividing the gross domestic product of each state by its population, and it took into account purchasing power parity FOR COST OF LIVING. "
User avatar
Secret Squirrel
Expatriate
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:22 pm
Karma: 0
Great Britain

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Postby Secret Squirrel » Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:04 pm

OrangeDragon wrote:
One point is awarded for a title match win, no points are awarded for a draw or loss. Teams are ranked numerically then alphabetically. Point totals have been combined for sides that have officially played under different names and are recognised as doing so by FIFA, these being Germany and West Germany, Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia, Northern Ireland and Ireland, Russia and USSR, Serbia and Yugoslavia, and Curacao and Dutch Antilles.
how is that data manipulated then? what was the exact part where they pulled the wool over readers' eyes?

had it been some sort of convoluted percentage based on total games played vs wins vs draws/etc... then you might be on to something... but that's a pretty straight forward statistic. only gripe might be that it doesn't show them by points scored, but 1 point over the other team is really all it takes to make a win.
The data was not manipulated. That is the whole point. They have used real data, selectively chosen by themselves to generate a result that bears little relation to what any sane person would consider reality. That is statistics. A different use of the data on the same topic could show a very different result depending how you chose to use it.


  • Advertisement
Booking.com

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “The Rest Of The World”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: boozyoldman and 61 guests