Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Britain Is Poorer Than Any US State (2014)

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 110 posts

Re: Britain Is Poorer Than Any US State (2014)

#91

Post by pluto9 »

dang wrote: post #89
pluto9 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an American, I consider a "right" to be something owed to you by other people. You can consider it whatever you like. You can consider the moon to be made of cheese. You're wrong, unless you have some basis for this statement. If so, let's hear it. > The "Bill of Rights" is "the Bill of things the government owes you". That is absolutely incorrect. It's the "Bill of things the government can't do" or the "Bill o…

You took this thread straight into flamewar. That's not what this site is for and we ban accounts that do it. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site as intended in the future, we'd appreciate it. That means steering away from ideological battle, not directly into it. It also means being civil in your comments.

Question: why is posting an inflammatory and fact-free statement like this:

> You wouldn't see these scenes in even the most deprived corners of Newcastle-upon-Tyne or the Rhondda Valley. The crowds the event attracts! This is what a developing country looks like.

...not "steering into ideological battle", but objecting to it is?

Re: Britain Is Poorer Than Any US State (2014)

#92

Post by dragonwriter »

paulddraper wrote: post #16
greesil wrote: post #10

GDP per capita per hour worked is a better metric to use when comparing countries. Most Western European countries have fewer hours worked per worker, but when they work have the same productivity. I'm not sure about the gini coefficient, but both of the numbers given seem low. The US's was over 0.42 from what I've read in other sources.

> GDP per capita per hour worked is a better metric to use when comparing countries. Comparing what? Wealth? Efficiency? Happiness? Athleticism? If you are comparing economic well-being, use GDP per capita. If you worked one hour today and $100 or eight hours and got $100, either way your richness/poorness is $100. If you are comparing efficiency or something, do the per hour thing.

> If you are comparing economic well-being, use GDP per capita.

If you want a simple unidimensional measure, either median personal income or median household income (each has pros and cons) per capita is a much better GDP per capita; GDP per capita tells you the ratio of aggregate output to population, but nothing about economic well-being of the people in the economy.

It wouldn't hurt to look at more than one number and consider, say, the 20th and 80th percentile as well as the median.

Re: Britain Is Poorer Than Any US State (2014)

#93

Post by dang »

pluto9 wrote: post #91
dang wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You took this thread straight into flamewar. That's not what this site is for and we ban accounts that do it. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site as intended in the future, we'd appreciate it. That means steering away from ideological battle, not directly into it. It also means being civil in your comments.

Question: why is posting an inflammatory and fact-free statement like this: > You wouldn't see these scenes in even the most deprived corners of Newcastle-upon-Tyne or the Rhondda Valley. The crowds the event attracts! This is what a developing country looks like. ...not "steering into ideological battle", but objecting to it is?

They were both steering into it, but it's a matter of degree. That comment was at least about something specific, and I wouldn't call it fact-free. It has a link to an interesting-sounding documentary, plus I assume the commenter knows something about Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Your comments went straight down a generic ideological tangent. That's the worst, most tedious stuff. Also, yours were snarky, which makes flamewars much worse. Also, you eventually got personal. All of these are markers of much worse flamewar than what the GP did.

Re: Britain Is Poorer Than Any US State (2014)

#94

Post by kadendogthing »

jim_bailie wrote: post #83
kadendogthing wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They actually don't do any of that. Can you link me to 1 article that matches all of your own criteria? Bonus points for that article withstanding the test of time.

Sure they do! I would just refer you to the CATO site to have your pick of thoughtful, well researched articles. Now you run off and have a read and come back with a link if you find a specific article that doesn't meet your specifications.

>I would just refer you to the CATO site to have your pick of thoughtful

Link 1.

Re: Britain Is Poorer Than Any US State (2014)

#96

Post by dragonwriter »

mikeash wrote: post #19

It sure doesn’t seem to be reflected in how people live. Is this just using the wrong measure for “poorer”?

Yes, GDP per capita is a measure of aggregate output relevant to population, not wealth (which is a stock and not a flow) and not living standards (which are a flow, but not the same flow). Even with PPP adjustment it doesn't measure common living standards, because it doesn't distinguish between broad and narrow distribution.

Median income measures are better for standard of living comparisons.

Re: Britain Is Poorer Than Any US State (2014)

#97

Post by LyndsySimon »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #31

There's a documentary on Netflix about physicians setting up shop on a race track to offer treatment to the poor and indigent in Bristol, TN: https://www.newsweek.com/remote-area-medical-shows-what-amer... You wouldn't see these scenes in even the most deprived corners of Newcastle-upon-Tyne or the Rhondda Valley. The crowds the event attracts! This is what a developing country looks like.

Those are "my people" - I live in Arkansas, but my family migrated from Scotland to Virginia, through Kentucky and Tennessee, to Arkansas and southern Missouri.

Yes, there's a pressing need for better access to medical care, but I wouldn't mistake that for being "like a developing country". That area has a culture that's entirely different than most anywhere else, and the people are... well, "prideful" fits better than any other descriptor that comes to mind.

Re: Britain Is Poorer Than Any US State (2014)

#98

Post by pluto9 »

dang wrote: post #93
pluto9 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question: why is posting an inflammatory and fact-free statement like this: > You wouldn't see these scenes in even the most deprived corners of Newcastle-upon-Tyne or the Rhondda Valley. The crowds the event attracts! This is what a developing country looks like. ...not "steering into ideological battle", but objecting to it is?

They were both steering into it, but it's a matter of degree. That comment was at least about something specific, and I wouldn't call it fact-free. It has a link to an interesting-sounding documentary, plus I assume the commenter knows something about Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Your comments went straight down a generic ideological tangent. That's the worst, most tedious stuff. Also, yours were snarky, which makes flamewar…

It's not the documentary I object to, it's the baseless assertion that things like that never happen in the UK (maybe they don't, but some evidence would be nice), and that a single incident in rural Tenessee (which I know something about, as I also do about developing countries, having been to several) is enough to judge the entire country.

I'm not sure what you're calling "generic ideology"--my comments about the definition of a "right"? Most of our founding documents are based on that understanding of rights. Agree with that definition or not, that's how the founders defined it and that definition still frames much our national debates. I don't see how that's an ideological statement.

Yeah, I admit I got snarky. That was because I tried to calmy explain my position, and the response I got for my troubles was that I must be acting in bad faith and/or be morally lacking simply for holding the views that I hold, regardless of my rational arguments for them. Frankly I don't understand HN's fixation with "snark" as if it's the only kind of rudeness that's capable of derailing a conversation.

I get tired of seeing so many threads turned into opportunities to demonstrate how backwards the United States supposedly is. Every forum has a political leaning, and HN's is fairly strongly left. That's fine, but it's irritating to see you mods claim to be objective but then suppress things like "snark" and "ideology" on only, or at least mostly, one side of the debate.

Re: Britain Is Poorer Than Any US State (2014)

#99

Post by dragonwriter »

jim_bailie wrote: post #59
kadendogthing wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you read anything from CATO?

I'm also curious why you wouldn't read anything from CATO.

Because it's an ideological propaganda mill that is only helpful (in terms of necessary time investment for any given level of confidence) in arriving at the truth on any issue, compared to ignoring them completely, when dealing with their admissions that are contrary to their overt bias, which are infrequent enough that reading their output is a net loss.

That said, it's still better than Heritage.

Re: Britain Is Poorer Than Any US State (2014)

#100

Post by brightball »

kadendogthing wrote: post #94
jim_bailie wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure they do! I would just refer you to the CATO site to have your pick of thoughtful, well researched articles. Now you run off and have a read and come back with a link if you find a specific article that doesn't meet your specifications.

>I would just refer you to the CATO site to have your pick of thoughtful Link 1.

Here. Top of the page.

https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/tax-re...

I look forward to hearing what’s missing from this extremely detailed, 98 citation article.

Post reply on HN