Reicher und ärmer als der Durchschnitt

Which is closest to the world average?

this is incredibly inaccurate

This is one of the Wikipedia lists, I believe IMF numbers. But who knows it wouldn’t be mapporn if it had sources.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita)

Reminder that average isn’t median, there are more countries below average than above average due to global wealth disparity, some wealthy countries like the US and Western European countries pulling the average up.

Interesting but there are better metrics for this, average or median income adjusted to purchasing power or GDP per capita adjusted to purchasing power. Possibly taking the informal economy into account, the World Bank for example has a Informal economy database with data for 157 countries.

Although GDP itself (even adjusted to PPP) fails to accurately show the level of financial well-being or “richness“ in several countries, for example Ireland and Luxembourg. But those 2 would be green here anyway

EN ARGENTINA SE LA LLEVAN TODA LOS AMIGOS DEL JAVI PORQUE LOS LABURANTES NO VEMOS UN PESO

Y desde que asumio, menos.

The first sign that GDP data is misleading: No specification if it’s nominal or PPP.

lol Russia

Do this but remove the top 1% and bottom 1% from the factor and let’s see the results

Nonsense. Everything is just much more expensive in „rich“ countries. You have to compare what you can buy with that money.

GDP per capita doesn’t mean richer or poorer.

„There will be no economic collapse as long as the income gap/cap is limited to up to 10 times the minimum wage. BRB, economist.“

2. „If the minimal wage- for example $50 an hour- equates to $100K per year (enough for a single mom to pay rent, support two college children, and cover all bills), then at 10 times that rate, $500 an hour, the income would be $1 million the draw limit; any income over that would be taxed at 91%.“

Example: “ … From the History: when rich was taxed 91% above threshold (USA 1940-1960 + some other countries) a remarkable phenomenon occurred:

New Jobs were created, providing full-time workers with enough income to support a homemaker wife, five children attending college or university, a mortgage, two car loans, all taxes and bills paid, and still having enough left over for a two-week vacation, sometimes abroad- much like the scenario depicted in the movie Home Alone.

As a result, the wealthy began reinvesting in new businesses, offering fair wages to employees.

However, when these high tax rates on the rich were eliminated or breached, the cycle reversed: citizens became poorer, and some of the wealthy grew even richer.

Money is like rainwater. Dams were built, boosting nearby farms year-round. When the dams collapsed, 98% of farms went bankrupt . When the dam holding back the river (such as wealth taxes 91%) is high, everyone has enough water (money). But when that dam is breached, the poor get even poorer, while the rich- become even richer. Think!

P.S. In 1963 the minimum wage was $1.25 = five 25-cent coins made of 90% silver, which are now valued at $76 TODAY! ( imagine a $76 minimal wage today with a rich bracket at 91% taxation! and you will get 1950-1960 economy)

(in 1963 $7.25 in silver dollars/quarters would be $580 today)

It is easy to see in Europe, especially in the Balkans, which countries are in the EU. The countries that were part of Yugoslavia until the 1990s are divided into those that are in the EU (the richer part of the average) and those outside the EU (the poorer part of the world), even though Bulgaria was until recently poorer than Serbia and other Yugoslav countries.

Argentina richer?

Southern Cone supremacy, as always 🍷🗻

straight bs

So there’s no average countries? I find that hard to believe there isn’t at least one or two

50% of Argentinians are below the poverty line. Trash map

GDP is not income nor wealth.

Sneaked in argentina as if we won’t notice.

Haha did not care for Nepal