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.

Comments

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?

Wheatley
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

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...