Skip to main content

The UK is NOT richer than the USA

I see that something is being made of a new statistic that purports to show that Britain is richer than America for the first time in over a century.

Well, as Disraeli might have said there are"lies, damn lies and statistics"

In fact the reality of the difference in wealth between the two countries should reflect the relative purchasing power of the Dollar versus the Pound. There are several ways of measuring the difference in purchasing power, and one of the best is the Economist "Big Mac index". The Big Mac is a standard basket of different goods: bread, meat etc. The price of the hamburger is easily measured and can be compared between different currencies. If one normalises the prices, then we can obtain a crude measure of purchasing power parity.

When we do this between the US and the UK, we find that the Big Mac is 18% more expensive in the UK than in the US, in other words, we could say that Sterling is 18% overvalued versus the Dollar. So, far from British lifestyles exceeding those of America, in fact we could say that we are roughly 18% poorer. So the statistic that GDP per capita in the UK is GBP 23.500, while in the US it is "only" GBP 23,250 is meaningless. If you make the statistic at purchasing power parity, in fact the Americans are indeed still richer. So, while George W. Bush continues to blunder around he has yet to reach that particular nadir... at least so far.


Tristan said…
For quite a lot of goods its easiest to just do a straight comparison £1 = $1 when it comes to spending power I've found.
Anonymous said…
How do things compare if one's diet eschews Big (a wheeze of a description that) Macs in favour of fine fresh food and - particularly important this - copious amounts of red wine, dodgy substances and hard spirits? In other words, would P.J. O' R. be better off here or there?

And that analysis has not taken in to account the tax take. Your Big Mac is bought out of net income, whereas the GDP index (although not related at all to earnings) is closest to gross income.

Therefore my £23500 should really be about £11000 and the Yanks keep a more significant £17400. Which, in addition to the PPP correction gives them the fairly obvious (e.g. why we were all flying to New York to buy Christmas presents rather than the other way around - especially as much of our tax is VAT) advantage in living standards.
Anonymous said…
The Brits pay more tax but worth remembering somes things are free or nearly free in the UK; like healthcare and museums and maybe lots of other things I don't know about ... the more you look into it, the more complicated it gets!
Anonymous said…
When I worked over in the UK I paid the normal rate of 20% but they have VAT on some goods

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo