by Tom Kando
I
just looked up (again) per capita GDP in various countries.  This is 
well-known stuff. Everyone knows that most of the rich countries are in
Europe and North America, and that the 
poorest countries are  in Africa.
I don’t want to retread this familiar ground.
I
want to show you the fallacy of measuring national well-being through this
indicator - per capita GDP. First, here is a table that ranks some of the
world’s 197 countries by mean/average per capita annual GDP
countries: Total: 197 
 | 
  
amount 
 | 
  
continent 
 | 
 
1. Qatar 
 | 
  
96,083 
 | 
  
Middle East city state 
 | 
 
2-7: Liechtenstein,
  Luxembourg, Monaco, Singapore, Norway, Brunei 
 | 
  
69,637 
 | 
  
City-states in Europe
  and  Asia 
 | 
 
8. U.S. 
 | 
  
50,790 
 | 
  
North America 
 | 
 
9. Switzerland 
 | 
  
48,144 
 | 
  
Europe 
 | 
 
10. Australia 
 | 
  
43,284 
 | 
  
South Pacific 
 | 
 
12. Canada 
 | 
  
42,750 
 | 
  
North America 
 | 
 
14. Netherlands 
 | 
  
42,542 
 | 
  
Europe 
 | 
 
21. Germany 
 | 
  
39,157 
 | 
  
Europe 
 | 
 
26. U.K. 
 | 
  
36,990 
 | 
  
Europe 
 | 
 
27. Japan 
 | 
  
35,978 
 | 
  
Asia 
 | 
 
28. France 
 | 
  
35,833 
 | 
  
Europe 
 | 
 
29. European Union 
 | 
  
33,399 
 | 
  
Europe 
 | 
 
31. South Korea 
 | 
  
31,850 
 | 
  
Asia 
 | 
 
35. Italy 
 | 
  
31,174 
 | 
  
Europe 
 | 
 
53. Hungary 
 | 
  
20,539 
 | 
  
Europe 
 | 
 
55. Russia 
 | 
  
19,673 
 | 
  
Europe 
 | 
 
70. Mexico 
 | 
  
15,898 
 | 
  
Latin America 
 | 
 
81. World 
 | 
  
12,292 
 | 
  |
84. Brazil 
 | 
  
11,919 
 | 
  
Latin America 
 | 
 
87. South Africa 
 | 
  
11,440 
 | 
  
Africa 
 | 
 
100. China 
 | 
  
9,196 
 | 
  
Asia 
 | 
 
141. India 
 | 
  
3,873 
 | 
  
Asia 
 | 
 
168. North Korea 
 | 
  
1,800 
 | 
  
Asia 
 | 
 
197. Congo, Dem. Rep. 
 | 
  
396 
 | 
  
Africa 
 | 
 
But
as I started out saying, per capita GDP is a pretty meaningless measure, and I
will explain why. First, a few definitions:
1.
GDP  means Gross
Domestic Product. It is the TOTAL amount of wealth produced (and
consumed)  by a country in a year. For
example, America produces about $16 trillion of wealth in one year. It is true
that in many   countries total production
and consumption are not equal. But let’s not get bogged down. The world as a
whole, of course,  produces and consumes
exactly the same amount. 
2.
“Per
capita  GDP”  is the 
mean, or  average: “Mean, ” per capita”
and  “average” are synonymous: America’s
per capita (or mean) GDP is the country’s TOTAL GDP ($16 trillion)  divided by 
the population (316 million). As the table shows, that figure is
currently nearly $51,000.
3.
The mean is a “measure of central tendency.” Another  measure of central tendency is the Median:
This measure refers to the middle  value in a frequency distribution. Half the
population is above it, and half is below. 
158 million Americans make more 
than the  median, and 158 million
make less. This figure happens to be about $29,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
When
it comes to income, the median is a better measure of central tendency than the
mean. The reason that Americans’ average GDP is $51,000 while their
median GDP is only $29,000 is that such distributions  are  skewed:
There are many more poor people than rich people. 
Take for example a class of 100
college students. Their mean/average is $25K and a distribution of all
individual  incomes  reveals that the median is also roughly  $25K. Now add ONE millionaire to this class
(the professor, haha): the class’ total income goes up to $3.5 million.
Dividing this by 101 yields an average/mean 
of $34,653, which is $9,653 higher than it would be if the millionaire
hadn’t joined the class! On the other hand, what has happened to the median?
Since there is only one more person  in
the class, you still have to draw the line which separates the top 50 from the
bottom 50 incomes, and that line is still pretty much at $25K, or just a little
bit above. So now, the mean/average is more than nine and a half thousand
dollars higher than the median.
And
that’s how it is with the national income and GDP:  Because of the staggering incomes of a
relatively few  1%-ers, the total  and the average look a lot rosier than
the  median.
Incidentally,
the fact that the U.S. ranks 8th in the world in  mean GDP 
but 4th in median GDP is nice: it suggests that  inequality, while pretty bad already and
still deteriorating,  is not as bad here
as it is in many other places. 
Furthermore, what really matters is not individual GDP , but household income.
Furthermore, what really matters is not individual GDP , but household income.
There
are about 120 million households in the U.S. (average size about 2.6
individuals). So average household GDP is $133,000. Wow! This is high, don’t you
think?  
We
just saw that median individual  GDP was
only 57% of mean GDP, so let’s say that median household is likewise 57% of
mean household, i.e. $76,000. Still quite a sum! And keep in mind that many
families are larger than 2.6 people.  My
own immediate family of procreation had four 
people, and many of my married friends have, likewise, a couple of kids.
Presumably, the GDP of families of four is even higher. 
It
clearly doesn’t make sense to equate GDP with income. Do most families of four
that you know make $204,000 per year (the mean) , or even $116,000 (the
median)?
So
I keep returning to my question: Where is that $16 trillion GDP? Dividing $16
trillion by 316 million people to see how most Americans are doing is nonsense.
A lot of the wealth – that statistical $51,000 which every American adult,
infant baby and retiree is supposed to enjoy -  
is somewhere else.
For
one thing, there are those 1%-ers who live in the stratosphere, whom  we never meet, whom we only know  via the media. Part of the $16 trillion GDP
are the vast stock market profits reaped by Wall Street paper shufflers and
their investing clients.
And
then there is the government: the federal budget alone is  $3.6 trillion. Multiply this by two  for all government  spending, and you get $7.2 trillion, or
nearly half the  GDP. I don’t know how
much of this ends up as public assistance and discretionary consumer spending
by  the people. Let’s say half. The
other  half is spent on stuff  like aircraft carriers, wars, foreign aid,
and also on very important  things  such as education, healthcare and
infrastructure, positive programs to be sure, but outside the people’s consumer
market. 
The
amazing realization is that most people around 
me – retired or still working professionals, people who take  cruises and travel to Europe, people who own
pretty nice suburban homes, people with advanced degrees  -are probably around the statistical median,
or the mean at best. But there are far more people  who can barely make ends meet. Which
indicates that there must also be 
obscenely wealthy people around. But we rarely see them. leave comment here
© Tom Kando 2013
© Tom Kando 2013
5 comments:
An excellent analysis, Tom! Most people cannot adequately interpret statistics and you set straight how 'facts' do not show the real picture. We need you to write a newspaper column with this kind of astute instructions for those of us whose math was studied over 40 years ago!
Nice, clear job.
RICH COUNTRY, POOR PEOPLE. Tom Kando points out the following in his blog:
“Per capita GDP” is the mean, or average: “Mean, ” per capita” and “average” are synonymous: America’s per capita (or mean) GDP is the country’s TOTAL GDP ($16 trillion) divided by the population (316 million). As the table shows, that figure is currently nearly $51,000.
The mean is a “measure of central tendency.” Another measure of central tendency is the Median: This measure refers to the middle value in a frequency distribution. Half the population is above it, and half is below. 158 million Americans make more than the median, and 158 million make less. This figure happens to be about $29,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
When it comes to income, the median is a better measure of central tendency than the mean. The reason that Americans’ average GDP is $51,000 while their median GDP is only $29,000 is that such distributions are skewed: There are many more poor people than rich people.
Thank you for your comments, you all.
The title of Barry's comment is brilliant. It sums up my entire post. Could have been the title of my article
Of course, we could increase both the mean and the median if we would just deport all the illegal aliens making less than the mean/median figures and provide and encourage free abortions to single pregnant women.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!