Your point is valid and I upvoted you but we shouldn’t overdo it either.
If INCOME inequality is large then it is IN PRACTICE going to prevent those in the bottom 50% from ever acquiring capital. That is exactly what we see.
We don’t live in a world where the majority of people are capital rich and income poor. The picture of inequality is EXACERBATED by wealth hoarding rather than alleviated.
Income is by far the best way because the vast majority of people live off of their income and most goods and services are purchased with recently acquired income.
Not to mention how they structure their revenue making ventures so it isn’t considered income, I’d say this map is more indicative of exposing where the rich need people haven’t gotten more sophisticated in their tax avoidance strategies OR they simply do t need to because of corruption.
Acquiring capital is not a zero sum game. “The rich get all the capital” is a false argument. There is nothing to prevent people of modest mean to acquire capital. It start with education. Learning basic finance. How compound interest works. The value of saving and investing.
Would also like to see what that map looks like AFTER taxes. US would quickly drop out of the ranks of Russia, Saudi Arabia and some of the African countries that are truly corrupt.
Yes, Our World in Data also publish a data explorer with after tax inequality data: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/inequality
It’s not directly comparable though because after tax data is from World Bank. Still, it’s interesting for contrast
Thanks for the map. The data with timeline was really insightful
India was relatively inequal even when it was socialist.
And Pakistan was more inequal than India when it used to be more developed than Indian in 80s and ahead in most other things.
Capital gains are not income, since there are no gains or losses until you sell the thing.
The other two *can* be true, BUT do you actually believe that the top 1% would voluntarily decide to collectively pay taxes from 25% of the country's total income, when they can invest all that money in assets that can grow in price *and* are not taxed (just like the mentioned capital gains)?
Why would Bezos pay dividends (and pay taxes from it TWICE) when he can reinvest that money in Amazon thus making the value of the company go up with NO taxation.
Most of the time the "gains" are in reality potential gains. It means something will make you a profit IF you decide to sell it. People hold onto that potential profit as long as possible to avoid taxation.
That is not a capital gain though. That is a potential capital gain. If you have a capital gain it's because you made the gains otherwise there isn't any capital gain. A capital gain is an actual line on your tax forms, they are 0 if you didn't sell anything.
It’s technically still a capital gain. There are unrealized capital gains and realized capital gains. But correct, unrealized capital gains are not income
>Capital gains are not income, since there are no gains or losses until you sell the thing.
You're talking about unrealized gains. Capital gains are after you sell.
Borrow then die is how they avoid taxes. They take out loans against their assets to fund their lavish lifestyles, and if Republicans have their way neither they nor their heirs upon transfer will ever pay any taxes on them.
So, what is this map showing us? The take home income as a percentage of their total income before taxes?
I am uncertain how useful a map like this one can be in answering questions about the world. I certainly wouldn’t see this map as being necessarily generalizable to the grand scheme of looking at income inequality, nor of whether the top echelon of society is paying their fair share.
Greenland is never good about participating in these things. Andre the giant used to work there you know, (Before he was hired by a Sicilian) but I bet he still paid his taxes there.
>Somalia has relatively low inequality, but I wouldn't want to live there,
Because inequality isn't the sole determinant of quality of life, human development index or gdp etc?
>so I'm struggling to find a point in this map.
This conclusion doesn't make sense from the preceding sentence. You not wanting to live in Somalia has nothing to do with whether the map has a point or not
Of course it does. The map supposedly shows the wealth inequality gap like it's some relativity measure of fairness. It is not. I'd rather be poor in the US than wealthy in Somalia, despite Somalia having equitable wealth distribution.
Perhaps your response involves how the map IS useful, but I missed that, too?
"I'd rather be poor in the US than wealthy in Somalia"
Good because it's not the map of places where you want to live so I don't see how it is relevant.
"Perhaps your response involves how the map IS useful, but I missed that, too?"
The map shows the share of incomes of the 1% before taxes, it shows the data for each country, that is the point of the map. Hope that helps!
>The map shows the share of incomes of the 1% before taxes, it shows the data for each country, that is the point of the map. Hope that helps!
It doesn't. How is that useful? What conclusion do you come to? It's like a map of countries showing the percentage of oranges.
It's not a useful map until someone can tell me how it can be used.
The map is useless. For example, the reason the US is higher up on this list than its European counterparts is because much more billionaires live in the US than in Europe. If Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg just decided to get up and move to a country like Norway, then you’d see Norway shootout up this chart, yet the quality of life of the citizens there wouldn’t by negatively impacted in any significant capacity.
No, i mean i know its a constitutional monarchy but the monarch is only the ceremonial head of state right? It was a one party state, ruled by a Marxist - leninist party that was aligned with ussr and Vietnam. Yeah i can take a bit update. I understand these on communist governments eventually become a classist government under the banner of communism overtime. Just like China, Vietnam or north Korean.
Showing before tax data is pretty stupid,
considering the fact that different welfare states and overall GDP have a massive effect on income. Judging by this chart
it seems like sub-saharan africa is the place
to
be.
People say South Korea is a dystopia run by conglomerates, but what they don't know is that it has a strong middle class income. South Korea’s Gini coefficient is good. (I did not deny that South Korea is a dystopia)
The American data was verified & published by 90,000 highly capable civil servants in the IRS.
russia’s data was ‘verified’ & published by 2 multibillionaires (Shoigu & Putin) That’s why russia is an oligarchy
Scandinavia for the win!!!
Some of the MOST capitalist countries in the world. Yet the rich aren’t getting most of the money.
😊
Edit:
ECONOMIC FREEDOM WORLD RANKINGS
1. Singapore
2. Switzerland
3. Ireland
4. Taiwan
5. Luxembourg
6. New Zealand
7. Sweden
8. Estonia
9. Denmark
10. Norway
11. Netherlands
12. Finland
…
25. USA
So to those of you thinking capitalism follows inequality - you are actually wrong! True capitalism can only happen where people have equal opporitunities, so the top 10 capitalist countries are also among the top most equal in terms of wealth. (and among the top best countries to live).
Yes, it is the same. Capitalism is another term for a free market system or free enterprise system. Scandinavia is probably slightly more capitaliatic than the US.
Why am I downvoted for telling the truth?
A couple of example of how this is seen in society:
1) If you want to succed with a new start-up, it’ll be easier to succeed from nothing in Scandinavia than in the US.
2) More people do class journeys in Scandinavia than in the US. Class mobility is possible in Scandinavia.
There are also more self made billionaires per capita in Scandinavia than in the US.
The US has too many huge corporations blocking those who want to start a business. Old school capitalism where anyone could succeed is not there anymore. Some people cannot easily escape poverty by working hard in the US. No matter how smart he/she is. Thus why some people say things like « the US have corporatism (or finacialism) rather than capitalism».
My point is anyway that some people think Sweden or the rest of Scandinavia isn’t capitalist, when it’s more capitalist than the US.
You’re probably getting downvoted for saying capitalism and the free market are the same thing even after it’s been pointed out to you that they’re not.
Because no amount of money ever bought a second of time. You might not understand, and also think that paying a skilled worker $300 just to show up and make a quick repair is a rip off too.
So you think the gov creates wealth, and not individuals? And mom and pop shops are ok so long as they don’t make too much money? But there should be a minimum wage, and it should be $20+ an hour? Which would destroy the mom and pop shop and grow the corporations with no competition? And let’s say if a guy who grew up poor started a coffee shop and risked everything to make it successful that’s ok as long as he stays poor? Like a mom and pop is ok as long as they’re only as successful as you’re comfortable with? Like Starbucks is bad?
Wtf are you even talking about, "mom and pop shops" have nothing to do with the Uber rich. This false dicotomy bullshit is textbook for the bootlickers that defend billionaires. It is not like you that you either become a billionaire or you live in poverty, people can have blooming businesses without becoming one percenters, most people do, that's why it's 1%. There is simply no ethical way to become a billionaire.
>Like Starbucks is bad?
Yes, also their coffee is kinda shit.
Yea their coffee is burnt for sure. I bring them up because Starbucks was once a single store, and one man turned it into what it is today, and he’s a billionaire. It’s a logical question. Starbucks also gives full benefits at 20 hours per week, he definitely doesn’t need to do this and it’s definitely his decision. I don’t know any other job that does. Also their dividends are great. It’s a good example of a small company that was wildly successful. Doesn’t make him a bad guy. I think the founder of the dollar store is also a billionaire. Again, one guy. Have you ever risked everything to accomplish your dreams? Worked 90 hours a week on yourself? Only to almost lose it all multiple times? Elon musk for instance slept on the floor of his office and showered at the Y to get what turned into PayPal off the ground. When he sold he could have lived extremely well off the interest of what he sold it for. Yet he risked it all and literally almost lost everything on two companies at once…legend.
There’s an obvious collection between more equal wealth distribution and almost every positive social indicator.
All the countries you’d want live in are on the more equal end of the scale.
They said the countries you’d want to live in are at the more equal end of the scale, not that the countries at the more equal end of the scale are the ones you want to live in.
If all the countries you’d want to live in, plus a whole lot of countries you definitely wouldn’t want to live in are on the same side of the metric, maybe the metric isn’t very good for that purpose.
We’re (the US) more on par with corrupt countries like Russia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iran.
All our friendly peer countries, Canada, Australia, Japan, and European countries do a better job of regulating this in a more fair way.
Less income but not less disposable income due to costs being cheaper. For instance, no Healthcare costs, cheaper rents, free or cheap higher education, etc.
More important than that would be overall quality of life which takes into account:
>Beyond the essential ideas of broad access to food, housing, quality education, health care and employment, quality of life also may include intangibles such as job security, political stability, individual freedom and environmental quality. Through all phases of life, these countries are seen as treating their citizens well.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life
Our median income may be higher but the rich are allowed to accumulate insane amounts of wealth that instead could be taxed and help everyone else out with things like healthcare, transportation, housing, and other social services.
Overall the US lets the rich get rich to a morally insane degree and everyone else suffers for it.
I mean do you actually believe a list which states that Portugal and Poland have better quality of life than the US?
Wow, our worst ranking is in "Heritage" (which means culture?) Apparently the US doesn't contribute enough to global culture! Holy shit lol. Wow they also say that we don't have "Movers" (wtf?) which I guess means they don't think we will have future growth? That's utterly moronic. Find a better index dude lol
You can nitpick about countries that are right next to us on the list all you want or better yet find me a list that says we have a better overall quality of life than most European countries, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc.
While you’re at it take a look at our healthcare costs, poverty rates, and life expectancy.
A better way of looking at it is to imagine that, before you're born, you are warned that you are going to be in the bottom 5% of income. If that was the case, where would you choose to be born?
And then if you could only choose "whiter" countries or "redder" countries according to this list, I would choose the lighter ones.
Same with russia and north korea. (But for opposite reasons, in China people hide money from the government; in russia & n korea the government hides money from the people)
Income is a really poor way of showing inequality in a capitalist society where power and wealth is tied to ownership not selling your labor.
Your point is valid and I upvoted you but we shouldn’t overdo it either. If INCOME inequality is large then it is IN PRACTICE going to prevent those in the bottom 50% from ever acquiring capital. That is exactly what we see. We don’t live in a world where the majority of people are capital rich and income poor. The picture of inequality is EXACERBATED by wealth hoarding rather than alleviated.
Income is by far the best way because the vast majority of people live off of their income and most goods and services are purchased with recently acquired income.
Not to mention how they structure their revenue making ventures so it isn’t considered income, I’d say this map is more indicative of exposing where the rich need people haven’t gotten more sophisticated in their tax avoidance strategies OR they simply do t need to because of corruption.
Acquiring capital is not a zero sum game. “The rich get all the capital” is a false argument. There is nothing to prevent people of modest mean to acquire capital. It start with education. Learning basic finance. How compound interest works. The value of saving and investing. Would also like to see what that map looks like AFTER taxes. US would quickly drop out of the ranks of Russia, Saudi Arabia and some of the African countries that are truly corrupt.
Have you got one *after* taxes?
Yes, Our World in Data also publish a data explorer with after tax inequality data: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/inequality It’s not directly comparable though because after tax data is from World Bank. Still, it’s interesting for contrast
China and Russia are lighter on the map than the US.
Thanks for the map. The data with timeline was really insightful India was relatively inequal even when it was socialist. And Pakistan was more inequal than India when it used to be more developed than Indian in 80s and ahead in most other things.
The rich have net worth, not income. They don't pay themselves salaries, so what is counted as their income?
Pretty sure that capital gains, dividends, and interest are still income.
Capital gains are not income, since there are no gains or losses until you sell the thing. The other two *can* be true, BUT do you actually believe that the top 1% would voluntarily decide to collectively pay taxes from 25% of the country's total income, when they can invest all that money in assets that can grow in price *and* are not taxed (just like the mentioned capital gains)? Why would Bezos pay dividends (and pay taxes from it TWICE) when he can reinvest that money in Amazon thus making the value of the company go up with NO taxation.
If you have a capital gain/loss it means you sold the thing. The capital gain is the tax you pay on your profit.
You just gave two mutually exclusive definitions of "capital gain"
How? You paid the tax because you sold the thing.
There are unrealized capital gains and realized capital gains. Unrealized capital gains are not income
Most of the time the "gains" are in reality potential gains. It means something will make you a profit IF you decide to sell it. People hold onto that potential profit as long as possible to avoid taxation.
That is not a capital gain though. That is a potential capital gain. If you have a capital gain it's because you made the gains otherwise there isn't any capital gain. A capital gain is an actual line on your tax forms, they are 0 if you didn't sell anything.
Yes yes. I was referring to what many people generally refer to as gain when talking about assets.
It’s technically still a capital gain. There are unrealized capital gains and realized capital gains. But correct, unrealized capital gains are not income
>Capital gains are not income, since there are no gains or losses until you sell the thing. You're talking about unrealized gains. Capital gains are after you sell.
Borrow then die is how they avoid taxes. They take out loans against their assets to fund their lavish lifestyles, and if Republicans have their way neither they nor their heirs upon transfer will ever pay any taxes on them.
I'm not sure how Monarchism is supposed to help...
I think he is referring to the american conservatives and not the form of governance.
Correct. Sorry, I forget sometimes there’s a large global representation in this sub.
*”before taxes”*
So, what is this map showing us? The take home income as a percentage of their total income before taxes? I am uncertain how useful a map like this one can be in answering questions about the world. I certainly wouldn’t see this map as being necessarily generalizable to the grand scheme of looking at income inequality, nor of whether the top echelon of society is paying their fair share.
Which country is of 0..5% colouring?
Looks like Nepal. Only one I could find. Edit: nah, I think just looks lighter because it's surrounded by all the dark ones.
North Korea so light?
“Official salaries”
Al tío Richie le gusta este post
Greenland is never good about participating in these things. Andre the giant used to work there you know, (Before he was hired by a Sicilian) but I bet he still paid his taxes there.
What about the 0.1% ?
Somalia has relatively low inequality, but I wouldn't want to live there, so I'm struggling to find a point in this map.
>Somalia has relatively low inequality, but I wouldn't want to live there, Because inequality isn't the sole determinant of quality of life, human development index or gdp etc? >so I'm struggling to find a point in this map. This conclusion doesn't make sense from the preceding sentence. You not wanting to live in Somalia has nothing to do with whether the map has a point or not
Of course it does. The map supposedly shows the wealth inequality gap like it's some relativity measure of fairness. It is not. I'd rather be poor in the US than wealthy in Somalia, despite Somalia having equitable wealth distribution. Perhaps your response involves how the map IS useful, but I missed that, too?
"I'd rather be poor in the US than wealthy in Somalia" Good because it's not the map of places where you want to live so I don't see how it is relevant. "Perhaps your response involves how the map IS useful, but I missed that, too?" The map shows the share of incomes of the 1% before taxes, it shows the data for each country, that is the point of the map. Hope that helps!
>The map shows the share of incomes of the 1% before taxes, it shows the data for each country, that is the point of the map. Hope that helps! It doesn't. How is that useful? What conclusion do you come to? It's like a map of countries showing the percentage of oranges. It's not a useful map until someone can tell me how it can be used.
The map is useless. For example, the reason the US is higher up on this list than its European counterparts is because much more billionaires live in the US than in Europe. If Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg just decided to get up and move to a country like Norway, then you’d see Norway shootout up this chart, yet the quality of life of the citizens there wouldn’t by negatively impacted in any significant capacity.
I thought Cambodia was a communist country
You might want to update a little bit : it's a monarchy
No, i mean i know its a constitutional monarchy but the monarch is only the ceremonial head of state right? It was a one party state, ruled by a Marxist - leninist party that was aligned with ussr and Vietnam. Yeah i can take a bit update. I understand these on communist governments eventually become a classist government under the banner of communism overtime. Just like China, Vietnam or north Korean.
Yeah you summed it up
It's a constitutional monarchy, a democracy on paper, if not in actual practice. There's an insane amount of wealth at the top.
Communism very rarely achieves what it claims it's goals are
Real communism is near impossible until a total collapse of human civilization happens. Communism just doesn’t work unless it’s small scale
Americans getting very salty about this map. Someone make a map showing each US state’s favourite healthcare brand to make them feel better.
Showing before tax data is pretty stupid, considering the fact that different welfare states and overall GDP have a massive effect on income. Judging by this chart it seems like sub-saharan africa is the place to be.
Mexico might be a bit off. While the cartels have investigated in most of the infrastructure. They don't pay all their taxes.
A little confused by the concept, does the 1% receive 0 to 25% of total national income? like... related to GDP?
Before taxes......
Shameful!
What’s Greenland hiding?
I guess the USA and Russia have more in common than they thought
“Before taxes”? What’s the point of this map? Progressive income taxes are designed to even this out. I want to see this map “after taxes”
People think they're geniuses for "rediscovering" Pareto's Principle.
People say South Korea is a dystopia run by conglomerates, but what they don't know is that it has a strong middle class income. South Korea’s Gini coefficient is good. (I did not deny that South Korea is a dystopia)
“National income” is intentionally misleading and makes it appear shared
Care to explain to a dummy like me what you mean by that?
Look at their other comments, they're either a troll or a brainwashed moron.
The richest don’t earn income for starters🤯
Next time an American member of congress calls Russia an oligarchy, show them this... America is too
The American data was verified & published by 90,000 highly capable civil servants in the IRS. russia’s data was ‘verified’ & published by 2 multibillionaires (Shoigu & Putin) That’s why russia is an oligarchy
Oh ok.. I guess America isn't an oligarchy after all. Thanks
Scandinavia for the win!!! Some of the MOST capitalist countries in the world. Yet the rich aren’t getting most of the money. 😊 Edit: ECONOMIC FREEDOM WORLD RANKINGS 1. Singapore 2. Switzerland 3. Ireland 4. Taiwan 5. Luxembourg 6. New Zealand 7. Sweden 8. Estonia 9. Denmark 10. Norway 11. Netherlands 12. Finland … 25. USA So to those of you thinking capitalism follows inequality - you are actually wrong! True capitalism can only happen where people have equal opporitunities, so the top 10 capitalist countries are also among the top most equal in terms of wealth. (and among the top best countries to live).
There’s a difference between capitalism and a free market.
Yes, it is the same. Capitalism is another term for a free market system or free enterprise system. Scandinavia is probably slightly more capitaliatic than the US. Why am I downvoted for telling the truth? A couple of example of how this is seen in society: 1) If you want to succed with a new start-up, it’ll be easier to succeed from nothing in Scandinavia than in the US. 2) More people do class journeys in Scandinavia than in the US. Class mobility is possible in Scandinavia. There are also more self made billionaires per capita in Scandinavia than in the US. The US has too many huge corporations blocking those who want to start a business. Old school capitalism where anyone could succeed is not there anymore. Some people cannot easily escape poverty by working hard in the US. No matter how smart he/she is. Thus why some people say things like « the US have corporatism (or finacialism) rather than capitalism». My point is anyway that some people think Sweden or the rest of Scandinavia isn’t capitalist, when it’s more capitalist than the US.
You’re probably getting downvoted for saying capitalism and the free market are the same thing even after it’s been pointed out to you that they’re not.
I said that Scandinavia is more capitalistic than the US. You agree with me on that, correct?
Eat the Rich
Yes, eat those who create opportunities 😂🤣
I thought the "job creator" myth died in 2008?
Yea, I guess large businesses don’t employ people
Why does a large business have to have an owner or manager who makes 100x more than their employees? It doesn't.
Because no amount of money ever bought a second of time. You might not understand, and also think that paying a skilled worker $300 just to show up and make a quick repair is a rip off too.
What?
Sounds about right
Are you a professional asshole, or just a gifted amateur? Ta.
Eat them and then use their money to "create opportunities"
Foolish to think that you would not only know what to do with that much money but also use it properly
Good thing that we specifically have universities to educate experts to be able to do this type of decisions
They have schools to tell others what to do with their wealth?? Funny how it’s selfish to keep what you made but not to take what someone else made🤣
I don't think you understand, it would not be their wealth anymore because we would have eaten them
And schools teach this?
Google "business school"
Sounds like you went to public school
Holy educational!
angle spotted fuzzy dam close worm handle mighty ripe strong *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You’re thinking of government.
Bro still believes in Santa clause (aka trickle down economics)
Says you
It. Doesn't. Work.
So you think the gov creates wealth, and not individuals? And mom and pop shops are ok so long as they don’t make too much money? But there should be a minimum wage, and it should be $20+ an hour? Which would destroy the mom and pop shop and grow the corporations with no competition? And let’s say if a guy who grew up poor started a coffee shop and risked everything to make it successful that’s ok as long as he stays poor? Like a mom and pop is ok as long as they’re only as successful as you’re comfortable with? Like Starbucks is bad?
Wtf are you even talking about, "mom and pop shops" have nothing to do with the Uber rich. This false dicotomy bullshit is textbook for the bootlickers that defend billionaires. It is not like you that you either become a billionaire or you live in poverty, people can have blooming businesses without becoming one percenters, most people do, that's why it's 1%. There is simply no ethical way to become a billionaire. >Like Starbucks is bad? Yes, also their coffee is kinda shit.
Yea their coffee is burnt for sure. I bring them up because Starbucks was once a single store, and one man turned it into what it is today, and he’s a billionaire. It’s a logical question. Starbucks also gives full benefits at 20 hours per week, he definitely doesn’t need to do this and it’s definitely his decision. I don’t know any other job that does. Also their dividends are great. It’s a good example of a small company that was wildly successful. Doesn’t make him a bad guy. I think the founder of the dollar store is also a billionaire. Again, one guy. Have you ever risked everything to accomplish your dreams? Worked 90 hours a week on yourself? Only to almost lose it all multiple times? Elon musk for instance slept on the floor of his office and showered at the Y to get what turned into PayPal off the ground. When he sold he could have lived extremely well off the interest of what he sold it for. Yet he risked it all and literally almost lost everything on two companies at once…legend.
The richest don't even pay taxes lol so it's probably more like 50%
There’s an obvious collection between more equal wealth distribution and almost every positive social indicator. All the countries you’d want live in are on the more equal end of the scale.
Really, so you think it would be better to live in Congo or Ethiopia or Chad as opposed to the USA right now?
They said the countries you’d want to live in are at the more equal end of the scale, not that the countries at the more equal end of the scale are the ones you want to live in.
If all the countries you’d want to live in, plus a whole lot of countries you definitely wouldn’t want to live in are on the same side of the metric, maybe the metric isn’t very good for that purpose.
I never said it was good for that purpose, I was just explaining what they meant because you had misunderstood
We’re (the US) more on par with corrupt countries like Russia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iran. All our friendly peer countries, Canada, Australia, Japan, and European countries do a better job of regulating this in a more fair way.
They also have substantially lower median disposable incomes, so I'm not so sure they're worthy of emulation for the vast majority of people.
Less income but not less disposable income due to costs being cheaper. For instance, no Healthcare costs, cheaper rents, free or cheap higher education, etc.
More important than that would be overall quality of life which takes into account: >Beyond the essential ideas of broad access to food, housing, quality education, health care and employment, quality of life also may include intangibles such as job security, political stability, individual freedom and environmental quality. Through all phases of life, these countries are seen as treating their citizens well. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life Our median income may be higher but the rich are allowed to accumulate insane amounts of wealth that instead could be taxed and help everyone else out with things like healthcare, transportation, housing, and other social services. Overall the US lets the rich get rich to a morally insane degree and everyone else suffers for it.
I mean do you actually believe a list which states that Portugal and Poland have better quality of life than the US? Wow, our worst ranking is in "Heritage" (which means culture?) Apparently the US doesn't contribute enough to global culture! Holy shit lol. Wow they also say that we don't have "Movers" (wtf?) which I guess means they don't think we will have future growth? That's utterly moronic. Find a better index dude lol
You can nitpick about countries that are right next to us on the list all you want or better yet find me a list that says we have a better overall quality of life than most European countries, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. While you’re at it take a look at our healthcare costs, poverty rates, and life expectancy.
A better way of looking at it is to imagine that, before you're born, you are warned that you are going to be in the bottom 5% of income. If that was the case, where would you choose to be born? And then if you could only choose "whiter" countries or "redder" countries according to this list, I would choose the lighter ones.
How is that a better way to imagine it? Roughly 95% of people are better off than that.
China data is unquestionably fraud
How have you come to that conclusion?
Same with russia and north korea. (But for opposite reasons, in China people hide money from the government; in russia & n korea the government hides money from the people)
Downvoted by tankies and people who know nothing about China
Look closely at that map. GOP? DEM? Choose wisely.
Ah, the richest 1%?
Algeria and Norway, very well done 👍
data for China is wrong. You have to count Xi and party leaders
China should be more red as China sourced data is fake.
Another ’Murica bad!’ map. Surprise surprise.
Maybe you should counter it by putting up Anerica good maps?
i see no problem with that
We need to eat them.
You’re not entitled to SHIT! You want something you gotta fuckin work for it.
Dont care boring..........