zlacker

>>Restle+(OP)
The methodology finally addresses a pet peeve of mine to adjust based on prices and hours worked: "we ranked 178 countries using three measures. The first is GDP per person at market exchange rates. It is simple and intuitive, and widely cited. But it ignores price differences between countries. The second measure adjusts incomes for these local costs (known as purchasing-power parity, or PPP). This offers a better guide to living standards but one that takes no account of leisure time: the share of people in work, and how long they work, varies by country. Our final yardstick accounts for both local prices and hours worked"

>>Restle+b
Can someone more versed in macro economics clarify to me, to what extent "price differences between countries." goes?

Like are we just comparing simple goods: grocery, white wares, cars, fuel/electricity etc the price of these things there. Or are we also considering things such as: need to save money for Healthcare, University, credit card transaction fee, housing cost (mortgage), required amount of fuel for basic functioning of everyday life?

The latter is basically stuff that is either cheap or free in certain places while astronomically high in other (US, but I guess housing price is everywhere if city).

I feel like layman AND economist doesn't truly account (or even understand) how different some countries have it on those metrics; A person in Tokyo or most capital cities in Europe can get away with ZERO fuel + car cost, while for Americans that's a death sentence. Same for Healthcare. So comparing those prices doesn't even make sense to begin with, but leaving it out is a major boost to places where salaries are high (US) but the (hidden) cost are not measured.

>>NalNez+FW
> The latter is basically stuff that is either cheap or free in certain places

Healthcare is absolutely not free anywhere. It maybe that the costs are indirect via government taxation and benefits are curtailed via rationing or simply unavailability of certain types of care.

>>Restle+cv1
Sure. But that again depends on calculation? If we are talking about "disposable income" in the average statistic (after tax) then ofc anywhere that does it through tax will have lower purchasing power because it's (easy to be) included. While places where it's mostly out of your pocket (or private) you can only really do an educated guess.

Ofc it's not free. But the point is that in the way you calculate, it can present as free. My question is to what extent do they calculate