Here is your question for the evening: Where would you rather live?
This isn't about politics or beautiful beaches, only pure economic security. Among large countries, the US is near the top in median disposable income (i.e., income after taxes). On the other hand, residents of other countries often have access to benefits that we don't, like childcare and long-term care for the elderly. Sometimes these things are free, sometimes they're only partly subsidized. Government pensions tend to be better elsewhere, but overall retiree income is higher in the US.
Overall, Americans make a lot of money, but other rich countries offer more benefits to parents than we do (pre-K, childcare, maternity leave, etc.). In your 20s and 30s you might be economically better off in France or Germany, for example, but once you're in your 40s and beyond, chances are good that you're better off here. That said, you might be more secure in places where losing your job doesn't mean that you also lose access to healthcare.
So what's your choice?
If you're white or Asian you are probably even better off than the averages indicate. If you're black or non-European Hispanic you are probably worse off than the average for many of the other countries.
Are you just now figuring out averages?
I would bet that a similar analysis is true with most/perhaps all the countries on the chart. I know, for example, blacks have lower per capita incomes in Canada and people of Turkish heritage have lower incomes in Germany....etc
CANADA! I always wanted to be a lumberjack.
Well it is rather a silly question.
He's a lumberjack and he's OK!
I'd rather not live in Western Canada, mother nature is not happy with BC and Alberta. Ontario seems to be a better provenance to live in, maybe New Brunswick or Nova Scotia too.
The Maritimes are lovely. Montreal is a great place, too.
One corner of BC (the heavily populated corner, but still just a corner) received an excessive amount of rain; this was a once in a century or so event. Extreme weather happens everywhere, once in a while.
But in the summer there were the god awful heat waves, wildfires and the poor town that burned down right after breaking the all time highest temp ever recorded in all of Canada.
+117 degrees in Portland
I was talking to an investment counselor when he noted my liquidity--no debt, no mortgage, a secure pension--and the thought flashed into my head "I could live in France."
But you'd have to deal with the French...
But, --if you don't speak the language you will have no idea what they're saying.
Problem solved.
Obvisously Canada (some bias maybe apparent), but seriously many europeon countries would be more secure and certain especially if you look at crime rates, healthcare accessability, food quality, public transportation and desposable income after government benifits.
What is the definition of a large country? Because there are countries who have lots of land, lots of people or both.
Pretty clearly Kevin is referring to population. The more serious labeling problem, though, is his lack of "high income" or "rich" to describe countries. There are many, many countries that are larger than most on these list, and even a couple that are larger than any!
Australia does not have a large population.
Vietnam is one of the 10 largest countries by population, if memory serves.
I might actually put them ahead of Turkey, Poland, & the UK, in terms of liveability.
Canada - 38M
Australia - 26M
Both small by world standards, but both relatively wealthy.
It does among wealthy countries. Which was my point: Kevin left off the modifier “wealthy.”
In area, there is only one country larger than Canada. In population, there are two countries larger than the US.
Unfortunately, unless you're Canadian, moving to Canada to retire is nearly impossible since you'll be a tax burden, unless your kids move there and can prove they can support you. In fact, without such sponsorship it's difficult to become a permanent resident if you're over 45 or so.
Not that difficult if you have assets. My parents became landed immigrants and retired to Nova Scotia.
As I recall at one point if you had over a million dollars in assets you were bringing into Canada they would let you in - that attracted wealthy Asians to come to Vancouver, particularly Hong Kongers in 1990s.
My folks definitely didn't have that much. I'd say less than a third of that in liquid assets, plus they owned a house (and could prove pension income).
That's not true. Canada doesn't even have sponsorship for public assistance, that's the UK you're thinking of.
AUS capital cities are pretty awesome. The average person has a pretty decent quality of life. They have weird politics (imo) and many ppl are unreformed alcoholics. But, i guess I could tolerate it!
I live close to Canada. Have been there many times. I could do Halifax or Victoria but no GTA.
Germany is my answer. Well, I would move to Holland (lived there 4 or so years) but it's not on the list.
Australia is on the path to USA politics. It's got a long ways to go but it's heading that way.
White male midwestern/mid-Atlantic retiree here, who's spent a lot of time in Canada. If language wasn't an issue and cost and quality of living were the keys, a few years ago I might have said Poland because it would have been an inexpensive place to live a European lifestyle. But the politics there has become too poisonous.
Politics and language are inescapable. I might be able to handle France; UK seems too insular and self-absorbed now, maybe outside of Scotland. So culturally it would have to be Canada or Australia. And if things deteriorate seriously enough here I might want to get serious about it, even though as weirdnoise rightly points out it's really hard to get in legally for more than 180 days a year. I think Australia might be less hard but being in the Antipodes there might not work so well in the long run.
However, it can be too easy for Americans who are culturally Anglo to be fooled by appearances. On the surface Ontario seems so much like America that it'd be a snap to live there as long as you can handle getting snowed on. But I've been there enough to recognize that Anglophone Canadians and Americans are culturally different in very deep ways that can take a lot of getting used to and that emerge more powerfully as you're there longer and the familiarity wears off. You'll recognize right away that Quebeckers and Franco-Ontarians are different, but if you're culturally Anglo in America you can fool yourself easily with Anglophone Canadians. They aren't Americans.
That said, in many ways it can be nicer to live there than here. If money didn't matter Vancouver would probably be my first choice, and maybe southwestern Ontario outside the GTA for a second.
Canadians are different because, living with so many moose, they realize they're not the top predator species.
No two peoples are identical, but I've spent tons of time in Canada (lots of family, and parents retired there) and for my money Canadians aren't very different from blue state Americans. No, "not very different" doesn't mean "identical" but I'd say a (typical) San Franciscan or Bostonian has a world view (and a general vibe) more in common with a (typical) Torontorian than with a (typical) Arkansan or Wyomingite. Plus, Canadians themselves shouldn't necessarily be painted with overly broad brushstrokes, either. Newfoundlanders are different from Quebecers, who are in turn different from Ontarians, who tend to be quite different from Albertans...and so on.
I think Jasper is correct. I've been to Canada a bunch of times but only to Ontario and Quebec. For the most part English Canada is not more different than the differences between say a resident of New York and a resident of Maryland, each providence is different but each state is different as well. Mostly Canadian identity takes the form of being "not American".
One Canadian summed it up by saying that Americans are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while Canadians expect only peace, order and good government.
Yes, Alberta/Saskatchewan are pretty similar to maniacs in the midwest.
Ford Nation is doing its best to make Ontario a protectorate of the Ameritrumpian Popular Republic.
Going with Canada, Australia or France.
Don't suppose you could subtract median health care expenses?
I've found numbers for health care consumption, but not out of pocket expenses....
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/
Ok....out of pocket values here for US families:
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/tracking-the-rise-in-premium-contributions-and-cost-sharing-for-families-with-large-employer-coverage/
For the most part I’m OK with staying in the USA. If Trump becomes dictator I think either Freestate California or Canada.
We're all set here in CA to leave the US. Our flag has "California Republic" already on it. Being a native Californian, I have always felt that we are in fact separate from most of the country. It's really on OR and WA that feel similar to me.
But would still get your water from the Colorado River?
I am an American expatriate who chose to live in Germany, and I do not regret it for a second. The health care is high quality, the infrastructure is one of the best despite moaning and groaning, and I feel I am getting the best retirement package for what I put into the system. Much better than what I would get out of US social security, and my private pension is also doing okay.
The culture can be different, as Germans think it's more polite to be honest than to smile and ask saccharine sweet "Hi, how are you?" all the time. But the food, the wine, the beer! And now, slowly but surely, actual Mexican cuisine is coming to Munich!
Nope. Not returning to the States any time soon.
Yeah, I think I'd say it was Germany too (UKer here.) Ironically, that's probably because they've had their fascist period and learned their lessons. So although there are still 'far right' lunatics, the system makes sure that they have their place in parliament but not in government (which was the mistake they made last time.)
-1 Alternative for Deutschland
Yes, but that's why I specifically referred to them. It's very important that the 10% lunatic bloc has representation in parliament to ensure that their views don't either (a) go underground or (b) metastasize into something worse.
You do that by having a proportional system that ensures that they do not take over the sane parties or get into a position where they can dictate to the sane parties.
The UK and the US are still trapped in the binary past and we're (both) paying for it big time.
(That's not to say that other countries with more proportional systems aren't going through their own convulsions - like Poland and Hungary. It's not working out so smoothly for them though.)
It's also not a surprise to horseshoe theorists that the strongest remaining fascists in Germany predominate in the former East.
No one should want to be Nigerian in Leipzig, either.
Querdeken or whatever the German Qers spell it as is growing real fast.
Loved Munich. Met quite a few, real humans, there. I, too, noticed and appreciate the honesty of the residents.
To varying degrees, most Europeans are like that. From Didi's residential restaurant in Mestre that had no menu, the food being whatever the cook felt like cooking to a main street tea place on a third floor in Glasgow where old women enjoyed tea and company at two PM or so.
I envy your lifestyle.
Which bar would I rather drink in, the one where Elon Musk has just walked in or the one where he hasn't?
Depends. Is he buying?
American living in Germany here.
It is hard to break down "better off" by age.
In Germany in your 20's, 30's , you are likely to have: -minimal student debt, -access to affordable child care, -less need to spend money on a car. You are also likely to have graduated a year or two later, paid more in health insurance, and earned less money in your first job.
In your 50's, 60's, you are likely to have: -paid less for health insurance, -no financial insecurity due to medical bills, -no insurmountable need to save or pay for your children's university education. You will also have earned less over a longer period of time, and will be less likely to own your home. However, the protection that they give renters actually discourages homeownership.
Finally-- when you die-- you will not have to empty out your bank account because of medical bills. However, any money that you do pass on will be taxed at a much higher rate than the US-- unless you can bury it in a business interest.
Social insurance means just that-- you are insured from life's uncertainties and extremes. In the US-- you have to self-insure against those extremes. Not in Europe.
A friend of mine's wife slipped and fell off uncovered boarding stairs (three levels) onto the tarmac, during a snowstorm. Witnesses (doctors and nurses) thought she was dead. Three minutes an ambulance showed and took her to a hospital five minutes from the airport. After almost three days in ICU and against doctor's wishes, she exited the hospital. My friend was there and was bracing for a large medical bill. Turned out to be some 35 euros, around 35 bucks, total.
The best large country to live in has got to be either Nigeria or Pakistan.
I've given serious thought to retiring in Indonesia. Bali is incredible -- so much so that the island is overrun with expats and that's driving up home prices. Jakarta is a hot mess but there are plenty of other nice towns in the archipelago. Malaysia is another possibility. My major concern is political instability in those countries, although they may be more stable than the US in ten years or so.
Move to Banda Aceh & start a Poly-Mexican fusion restaurant with inhouse banda music.
I livedin Malaysia for three years and the food, people and living costs are great but I found the weather (unrelenting heat and huminity like Houston summer year-round) and systematic corruption got to me. Another consideration is that both Malaysia and Indionesia are a long way from Noth America and that means you won't see your family and friends nearly as much or as often. That may be a good or bad thing, opinions differ.
While the term "best" is subjective - we are missing the overall point
The U.S. ranks #2 in disposable income but the other countries many of whom are close to us in disposable income provide so much more in benefits to their people.
So all that "stuff" they offer their population did not result in excessive taxation.
Yes, but they don’t have a ginormous military gobbling up almost a trillion dollars a year that entertains the public by waging endless wars on their behalf.
Freedom isn’t free…
/s
Austin-
Very true.
And with the advent of missile and space technology we could always end our overseas deployment bases in England, France and wherever and CUT our military spending.
But the peace dividend is a myth............
No peace dividend! It's time for Cold War II with China.
Someone's got to be top dog, Europe's head is firmly in their ass and we are STILL better than China.
Are we comparing Canada or Australia to Mississippi and Louisiana?
Although I'm approaching retirement age, I don't think I could leave the country to live elsewhere. My wife has roots in Eastern Europe, but her homeland has become a post-Soviet hellhole of alcoholism and suicide. So even though she speaks what used to be the language, it would suck.
There's so much variation within the U.S. that I prefer to keep my sights on opportunities to retire here. I hear that Asheville, NC is quite livable, and you can attend college classes free in NC.
After the Republiqan Restoration, that free tuition will be for Liberty & Bob Jones distance learning.
The Catholicized SCOTUS is going to legalize public funding of private, religious schools.
Wisconsin beat us to it thirty years ago under Tommy "Stick it to 'em" Thompson.
Stood next to him once. Not as tall as my armpit.
Maybe he was so pickled in alcohol he shrank.
Thought about this a lot already these past 5-10 years, and I'm still here, so...
Moving costs, I guess. And I don't mean like furniture. I mean the social, economic, emotional, etc., costs of uprooting and going somewhere else. They're vast.
Your question triggers two concepts for me:
1) The status quo bias. Basically, people are resistant to change. Meaning even if I believe my life might be better in say Canada, rather than the US, because I live in the US its harder for me to move.
2) Revealed preference. What people do, rather than what they say, signals their true desire.
35% of Latin America wants to immigrate with the vast majority desiring to come to the US
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/341678/million-migrate.aspx
16% of Americans told Gallup they wanted to leave the US when Trump was elected. Yet less than 1/4 of 1% actually left the US
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245789/record-numbers-americans-leave.aspx
My read on the numbers. Unless you believe that status quo bias is huge, then the revealed preference of most Americans is to live in the US.
16% of Americans told Gallup they wanted to leave the US when Trump was elected. Yet less than 1/4 of 1% actually left the US
I agree with you about revealed preference. But on this one datapoint, I'm not sure how much it tells us, for the simple fact that it's hard to emigrate. It takes planning. Money. Youth. The proper education credentials. Or some combination of these. Or luck, as in family ties (I'm waiting for my Irish/EU citizenship to be processed...thank you Grammy!). I do think the Trump years probably saw an increase in US emigration, although God only knows how covid has impacted that trend (probably not favorably). I do believe more Americans will leave if Trump gets back in. Though most Americans, sadly, will be stuck.
Jasper - I agree that its hard to leave (status quo bias). With that said, GENERALLY, is easier for the wealthy to leave (lots of reasons). Yet, only a very small percentage of even wealthy Americans move to another country. Note, I have worked and lived in six countries.
My point, while many Americans will complain most don't actually want to leave the country.
99% of all people will die within 100 miles of where they were born.
Monty - while your number SOUNDS interesting, I was not able to find that data on Google. Do you happen to have third party data to support your claim?
middle....
Why not do a switch? Put those 16% of Americans, about 54 million of them in Latin America and have THEM vote out the despots and dictators. Once thats done maybe immigration into the U.S. would subside.
Problem is we need those immigrants to do the work Americans believe is below them or just too hard...............
Confederados Solutions.
... or too poorly paid.
I thought Trump would be as awful as President as he was as a businessman, and he was. But I’ll be damned if I’ll leave this country to the cult. If that asshole is re-elected in 2024, I’ll still feel the same. I’m determined to outlive the other old white guys that vote their fears; I’ll keep voting my hopes for equal justice and a dignified life for all - a good society.
Good on it.
Like the Michael Bolton situation in Office Space.
+100 Keep up the hope and the fight!
I feel like Bob Dole, who doesn't get enough shit for being the only living GQP presidential nominee to attend El Jefe's coronation in Cleveland 2016 & actually whipped votes for the Man of Maralago & clearly supported the January 6, 2021, March on Washington given his silence after, dying is a good jumping off point for a renewal of America's purpose & return to small d democracy.
The man from Russell, KS, was a double dealing, ADM compromised crank, who should have taken more shit earlier for his convenient divorce from his middleaged wife & remarriage to a significantly younger woman.
What I am saying is Bob Dole took a beating from George H.W. Bush in the 1988 GQP primary, but he was no innocent. (Nor was H-Dub.)
Bob Dole was a bag of poison spit, the ur-Mitch McConnell.
Yup.
Sub "loss of right arm dexterity" for "polio" & "Southern belle" for "Asian tiger", & Rob & Addison are basically the same story.
A family member living in Europe (London now, Ireland soon) tells me that she sees TV ads for charities fighting poverty and hunger in the impoverished and food-deprived country of ... the United States of America (surprise!).
The idea of American exceptionalism may depend on where you live. Here, it means the US is the bestest country that ever was. There, it means third-world-equivalent.
I would say that picking countries as "best to live in" and "best economically" are two different things. How can you possibly tell what's the best country to live in and not consider culture, safety, politics, and many other factors?
That said, most people would say the best country to live in is the country where they were born. There are lots of ways to rationalize that, and a fair degree of ignorance and bias in making that choice. Unless the situation at home is dire, or the opportunity elsewhere is great, most people choose not to relocate.
I don't think there's a simple way to measure it, but migration patterns probably tell part of the story. Even then, where people migrate to and where they think is the best country to live in are not the same.
I remember when it was news -- for a minute, given the Gish Gallop presidency of El Jefe Maximo -- that Doctors without Borders released physicians to the US to assist with the onset of the American response to the Intentional Wuhan Lableak Weaponized Fake Chinavirus Plandemic.
First time MSF had to assist a supposedly developed nation.
Whence the source? This site (https://www.statista.com/statistics/725764/oecd-household-disposable-income-per-capita/) has the US far in front. As does Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income#Mean_equivalized_disposable_household_income_(PPP)_$).
In any case, the restriction to large countries limits the would-be emigré, for example the Republic of Ireland and New Zealand (~$32K each) are prime targets for working-age people with useful skills. (Emigration is much more difficult for retirees.)
Well, as a dual citizen, I would definitely return to Canada if the election goes "right" with the tfg. I couldn't take another four with it. Unfortunately, I have a lovely home here and couldn't replace it for over a million in Canada. Something to think about. .
Hi this is your Swedish friend
Not even a well informed person like Mr Drum gets this !
It’s about what you get for your money. It doesn’t help how much cash you are having if you are robbed blind by the 1% , if you are paying insanely for things your peers are “buying” cheaper elsewhere
The biggest win of your Republicans (and “moderate”-right wing Democrats) was when they fooled Americans into believing all tax is theft never to be of any use for ordinary citizens.
When I am giving information on my Sweden is the usual answer:
Americans would never pay xx% in tax ( usually a vastly exaggerated figure)… and by doing so are they confirming my statement above.
The interesting question isn’t the % , it’s what you get for the money.
A family of average income in (tiny) Sweden is much better of than their peers in USA and a low income family isn’t comparable whatsoever.
This is a list of some things you are lacking and most cannot afford
It may sound jingoistic but that wasn’t really my purpose and this list could have been from a number of other European countries.
... and I must have forgotten a lot of benefits you also are lacking
Paid parental leave 480 days ,
If a child younger than 12 is sick a parent stays home, 100% of salary
Subsidized childcare
Cash money disbursed if you are having kids
If you are sick 80% of salary (it’s an upper limit)
Unlimited healthcare, fees totally negligible.
Prescription drugs maximum $270/year
Free dental care until 24 years of age then subsidized
At least five weeks paid vacation/year
Livable pensions guaranteed (total sum dependent on income)
Guaranteed nursing home with your own room en suit and kitchenette (charge dependent on income)
All education free of charge and a small salary if you are over 16
Student loans provided by the government on reasonable terms
Isn’t this going to end up in national bankruptcy ?
Before the pandemic was our net national debt less than 30% of GDP
.... but Sweden is still having more billionaires per capita than USA and if you want to live the American dream you better move to one of those pesky Nordic countries because that dream is dead in America, statistically, but your chances are good over here
Don't forget socialist hell Norway!
https://youtu.be/Mi3JQa1ynDw
Few (if any) of the expats I've ever met have ever moved to another country for primarily financial reasons, although it might be more common in other social circles than the ones I revolve in. (Another expat in Germany here, BTW.) For most it usually starts with a student exchange (my case) or a temporary assignment, and then life just takes its serendipitous course, which sometimes leads one to staying put in a foreign land (love, good job, work/life balance, travel possibilities).
But if we do as Kevin asks and look at it from a strictly financial perspective, I suspect that chart fails to account for a number of costs in the US which either don't exist in other countries or only to a much smaller extent. Just a few examples in relation to Germany which I think significantly affect the comparison:
1) Health insurance requires no deductibles nor co-pays.
2) The extensive public-transportation systems and compactness of cities mean a typical family requires far fewer cars.
3) Neither large accumulations of savings nor debt are required to fund higher education or vocational training.
4) Numerous other benefits like paid family leave (for both parents).
There are some intangibles which I think also have significant value, even if that value is difficult to quantify:
1) Large amounts of paid vacation mandated by the government, regardless of the kind of job one has.
2) Longer lifespan.
Not sure about large countries, but I'm looking at possibly retiring in Malta. It has a good health care plan that Americans can buy into for a low price, the official language is English so everyone speaks it, and it's an island which means I probably would not need anything more than a Vespa to get around.
I was in Malta for a couple of months once. Too much stone, not enough green.
Frankly, nobody with an IQ above 75 would base such a decision on economics only.
When you put quality of life into the equation than Europe is ahead in so many areas: Milder climate (the hot places are less hot than in the US, the arid places less arid, the cold places less cold), fewer weather related disasters, fewer power outages, more reliable infrastructure, decent to excellent mass transit system almost across the continent, better food (except in Scandinavia and the English speaking countries), shorter distances to travel etc. etc.
I don't want to come across as thinking everything about my part of the world is excellent (it's not), but I must confess to being surprised by complaints about Scandinavian food. I'd be interested in why.
I'd argue most first world countries have good food readily available in general because of all the international influences (and Sweden in particular is extremely international with an abundance of immigrants bringing lots of interesting cuisines). At least as long as you stay close to a reasonably sized city you would have no problem finding just about anything you'd like to eat, anywhere in Scandinavia.
There is a “grass is always greener” phenomenon here, and, honestly, I’m not judging it. That sort of mindset is all too human: we ultimately come to focus on the drawbacks of wherever we actually are, and we start to think of other places in idealized terms. But there will always be problems wherever we go, and they often won’t really be apparent until the initial glow of whatever new place we find ourselves in wears off.
Speaking for myself, spending a fair amount of time in various spots throughout Asia wound up greatly boosting my appreciation for the West in general. Those trips were, to be clear, wonderful experiences in fascinating places, but the many problems I encountered there (multiple illnesses, chokingly polluted air, insanely stifling heat, massive overpopulation with ridiculous crowds on streets and transit, shockingly tragic poverty, environmental degradation on a dystopian scale, etc) gave me new eyes for Western countries. Viewed from a certain perspective, in fact, there’s much less distance between many of the countries on Kevin’s list than may at first appear to be the case. Yes, I realize he mentions some Asian countries; in fact, I’ve been in both of the Asian countries he mentions. And many places in Japan felt similar to time spent in NYC (except for the language issues). So, spots like that are not the ones I’m talking about.
I've lived in Taiwan for thirty years. There's bad traffic in large cities, there are days when the pollution can be bad (nowhere near Beijing or Delhi levels) and it is certainly be overcrowded.
OTOH, there's cheap and modern national health care. I live in a small rural city which is poorer than the rest of the island, but it's minutes (by bicycle!) from the beach.
Consider comparing discretionary income.
Something seems wrong with Kevin's chart. I have searched on Google for any such chart showing Canada above the USA and cannot find any such on any measure.
For example, usa 34154 and Canada 32150 for oecd and 2016 median disposable household income ppp, converted from oecd nominal to ppp using world bank ppp conversion.
Kevin's numbers for 2018 and supposedly for individual median income would seem consistent with this if you reverse Canada and USA. Not believable that things changed in two years that much. And are Kevin's numbers really individual and not household ? They seem too high for individual.
Or maybe this chart came from some specific time and used some specific unusual method and kevin tried to search all to find one table that did not have USA at top.
And , before I get silly comments , yes I know it is ppp, I know it is median and I know it is disposable.
Seems lately a pattern of posting statistical data designed to be biased to try to push one point of view. Like for covid , once it looks like Europe might be looking worse than usa for current death rate ( and blue states worse than red) , just the time to switch and look at cumulative. Note I was pointing out months ago how it looked cumulative when everyone was moaning about how horrible red states and usa were doing relatively on current deaths. And was mocked by many saying have to look just at current.
And then kevin goes farther and starts inventing new methods of comparison which were totally asinine seeming to try to find any measure by which the usa and red states look worse. Note any statistical measure that adds two components, one of which is number at time one and second is change to time two , is totally ridiculous. If on same criteria, the net is just number at time two . If criteria are different, you get something related to number at time two but skewed in a stupid way . That invention by kevin could be used in a statistics class to illustrate what not to do.
I don't think KD is trying to use statistics to support his narrative; I think he's open to suggestions, which is why I suggested trying to compare discretionary income as opposed to disposable income.
Each stat has a different use for different purposes. Some require multiple data points to produce a cohesive narrative. Some data points are more difficult to come by, when wanting to weigh oranges against oranges.
I'd accept disposable income if it was paired with a quality of life survey and actuary tables across his cohorts. We'd get closer to describing the differences between disposable income and discretionary income, after all.
And by, "I don't think KD is trying to use statistics to support his narrative", what I mean is, he's not trying to cherry pick.
Then which is the case;
A) kevin cherry picked some statistic done in some unusual way that, contrary to vast majority and basically all I can find , show Canada above usa on an income measure
B) that kevin just happened for some reason to research exactly the one unusual statistical method that shows Canada above the USA. Just by coincidence.
C) that kevin just used a normal table and mistakenly switched Canada and the USA. I have no reason to think a simple error would be deliberate.
D) I am missing something and there is a good explanation why this is the more appropriate statistic and it is correct.
Months ago, I think I would have trusted kevin more and assumed it was one of the latter three . But recently kevin seems to be playing fast and loose with some statistics and I have lost that trust .
Starting with some of the silly posts about Afghanistan and number evacuated . Funny how no after posts acknowledging that it turned out all those " super great " numbers consisted mostly of just any Afghan who showed up at the airport and we left the huge majority of those we really were supposed to evacuate behind.
And then with the constant attempt to show inflation is not that bad. And the recent covid post with that invented statistic was just ridiculous.
The number for Canada doesn’t look implausible to my eyes. Last time I looked, per capita GDP in Canada was something like 85% of the US level. A more equal distribution of income plus lower taxes/lower healthcare deductions at the median could easily pump Canada’s disposable income figure above that of the United States (remember, most working age Americans these days get very sizable deductions taken from their salaries to fund the purchase of employer-provided health care). Mind you, such calculations probably do make countries with higher consumption taxes look better. In essence they are folding a sizable portion of the cost of the public sector into the price of goods and services. The corresponding number for the United States is smaller, and therefore America’s public revenue is more reliant on direct taxes (that directly reduce take home pay). In other words, prices are often higher relative to incomes in other rich countries; but the tax wedge, at least for the non-wealthy, usually isn’t (provided we’re taking into account health care deductions on the USA side of the ledger). Whether that’s an acceptable trade-off or not is a judgment call. In my view, and I gather in Kevin’s, the answer is “yes.”
Take the cost of Healthcare off the US number
(the other countries have that included in their taxes which have already been removed)
And the USA moves to near the bottom of that chart
I interpret this post as indicating “disposable” includes taking into account deductions for healthcare, otherwise this comparison really is meaningless (because it wouldn’t be “like to like”). In other words, other wealthy countries in general have public sector provision of healthcare coverage, whereas non-elderly Americans get healthcare coverage through their jobs. In both cases, this creates a smaller paycheck, whether you call that social insurance taxes or premiums. One huge difference, of course, is that losing one’s employment doesn’t typically translate into losing healthcare coverage in other high income countries. Kevin explicitly mentioned this.