costs of the iraq war

[P$Ü(||0]

here (http://gamesfiles.giga.de/redirect/relatedlink.php?rellink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.costofwar .com%2F)

i think its sick how much this fucking war costs

[shutupandshave]

Scary - fed the world for 6 years...

[P$Ü(||0]

how is the usa able to pay all this???

[shutupandshave]

From what I can tell - they cant afford it - they're borrowing to do it, but I am not completely sure. Perhaps some of the economics experts like Karma can tell me?

[/<yle]

Actually, it costs not that much. Our entire budget is in the trillions, this makes up a small chunk of it.

[The Dark Messenger]

7 years, now.

Great way to benifit the world, Bush.

[tom]

The USA has a GDP of $11 trillion, so this is costing the US about 1.3% of that.

Quite a pretty penny indeed, but nothing that we "can't afford".

[MVB]

And there you have it.

[Magus]

Stealth: GDP calculated how exactly? My friend's dad is an economist, and he says that there are about 30 commonly used equations to determine GDP. Which is why you can get people saying Bush is terrific on the economy, and that Bush is the worst president ever in that field. You cant look at the numbers, because which numbers do you look at?

I'm not saying if you look at it differently the costs will overshadow our GDP or anything like that, just saying that numbers arent absolute.

[Justice]

Just look at the casualties.

I'm not talking about just American casualties. At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed or injured during the war.

cheers, and
-=</|awesomeparty|\>=-

[MVB]

I doubt those figures indicate casualties due to American action. How do you then explain the relatively large Iraqi support for the American presence, and for their past actions? Check other thread for that one.

[tom]

Stealth: GDP calculated how exactly? My friend's dad is an economist, and he says that there are about 30 commonly used equations to determine GDP. Which is why you can get people saying Bush is terrific on the economy, and that Bush is the worst president ever in that field. You cant look at the numbers, because which numbers do you look at?

I'm not saying if you look at it differently the costs will overshadow our GDP or anything like that, just saying that numbers arent absolute.

w/e you get the drift of it

[JADezimar]

What I want to c is how many were killed in the pasts from sadaams actions alone. PPl say the current war brought more death than sadaam. IM interested in knowing if thats true. Either way that dont correct the issue that most iraqies feel there better off now.

[Justice]

Civilians killed by the U.S. in the operation range from 14,500 - 16,500, according to www.iraqbodycount.net

cheers, and
-=</|awesomeparty|\>=-

[/<yle]

Just look at the casualties.

I'm not talking about just American casualties. At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed or injured during the war.



thats a LOT higher than the 18000 the IBC puts forth, you liberal slime

[Justice]

killed OR injured.

cheers, and
-=</|awesomeparty|\>=-

[MVB]

Does that site define "military intervention?" That could just as easily mean the military intervention of terrorists/militants.

[/<yle]

It also includes people who died because of "inadiquate medical service". So that could be an old man having a heartattack.

[Ummon]

Besides in one day Saddam killed 15000 Kurds, so I don't get how someone could even imagine to make comparisons.

[/<yle]

Are you refering to the 88' incident (which was one of the better doccumented ones)? he Gassed many villages in his reign... kinda funny how he dident have anyone left to detract from him, they were either dead or in prison.

[Karmashock]

We also have a growth rate of 3.4 percent...

do the calculus...

The US will have a 40 trillion dollar economy in ten years...
China's pulling something like 9 percent... which is crazy... but they're coming up from nothing... that should slow once they get close to us...
Europe can't do better then 2.5... go socialism...

just to do a compare and contrast here...
Assuming china had our capital but their growth (9 percent... which, again... is nuts)... they would have have 1,367,400,000,000,000 dollars...

while Europe with a general growth of 2.5 percent would have 28 trillion...


compound interest is a bitch... it's why no one should spend anything when you're young... invest to get the thing going... the compound interest gets going and goes wild.


here is clearer picture...
over a hundred years... the US would increase it's wealth by 2731.74 percent.
China would pull in (assuming 9 percent, which isn't in anyway logical... but just for the fun of it...) 552804.08 percent.
Europe would pull come in with 1081.37


economics are fun...

[JADezimar]

Those are scary figures. I dont live in europe so I dont know the full lifestyle. But On average the normal joe smoe lives better though right? Its not easy to get a degree and a good job in the states without going into debt that dreaded word :p

[shutupandshave]

Better is all about perception.

I wouldn't say the average European lives better or worse than the average American.

[LardGibs]

I believe, but don't know that, Europeans live better, because:

1) the grass is always greener

2) in the USA we buy the tools of our own enslavement in the economy, namely personal transportation, and collegiate education.

I'm not yet convinced that private insurance for healthcare=bad due to market forces improving outcomes for me personally but that's why I didn't put it as a reason one way or the other.

[JADezimar]

o0

Yep thats 2 major problems I have with our economy. The debt we have to go into, just to have a good job and make it to and from. Im having severe car problems right now. And if We want to fix this Its likely im gonna have to go work some really crappy job. And then well need to buy 2 cars. Not to mention Me and my wife like it as is I take care of the house so she dont have to and im free to do anyting with her anytime she wants to.

[Karmashock]

the US system demands you to justify yourself... it's fair.

[LardGibs]

It's anything but fair. Consider the following scenario.

$50-100,000 debt load for 4 year baccalaureate degree in science or engineering=major bank potential
$15-25,000 for a car
$4000/yr health insurance.

An engineer from India on a H1B goes home to buy cheap clothes, get free healthcare, and went to school for free.

Fucker works for $30K, 60 hours a week, and takes home more than a homegrown engineer.

Similarly, if you live in a smaller country with good public transportation, you can consider buying a home, instead of navigating this very tricky 10-12 year period where you are renting, making car payments, paying student loans, getting outsourced, downsized, outplaced, and unemployed before you can try and build some equity instead of debt.

Let me break it down to the trailer park equivalent for you.
Fat bitch lives at home, has no money. Fat bitch can't pay the $300-600 for a driver's education course. Game over, another 'burden on society' for the simple lack of that relatively small amount.

[JADezimar]

Yep In Ways I feel Like A fat bitch.

[Ummon]

In Italy it goes as such:

1) Health care is totally free, unless you are rich and healthy, in which case you pay.

This means: One has a cancer? He is treated for free. Whatever his income, insurance, etc.

2) School costs nothing and is quite good in some cases. University costs an average of 2500 $ per year.

3) When you get old you receive a monthly wage from the state, but this has been taken away from your salary when you were working, without asking you, and you can't do anything about that.

4) You pay 70% percent of your income to the state, more or less. On the other hand many do not pay taxes using a variety of tricks, and it's generally those who have access to a lot of money who do so.

[shutupandshave]

70% taxes are pretty high

I remember reading that in the 70's the UK labour government put a 110% tax on the very very wealthy... which basically stated that they had to pay 110% of their declared earnings.

The idea being that none of them declared their earnings.

Most of them went to live in the states.

[JADezimar]

Ya but free medical, Free college so you have a chance at being an equal or wealthy without debt. Etc etc is good for the eonomy. The high high taxes 70% is quite rough but I think even canada's taxes are xtremely high. Point being Living istelf will costs less. Atleast this gives the average shmoe less worries and what ifs to think about. If Johny which makes 6 bucks an hour as burger kings 3 yr old boy comes down with cancer in the state..... That boy is gonna be left to rot.

[tom]

I hear Italy is facing some serious Social Security issues, with half the population qualifying in upcoming years.

You euros need to get to reproducin'.

[shutupandshave]

UK tax is about 40%, and we have free-healthcare and a pension.

People are working for longer before having kids nowadays I think.

[Ummon]

The only real problem is this:

Communists use social security as an electoral tool. They have allowed people to retire at 50 years. A lot of people.

I know some of these, they generally do another work on which they evade taxes, and receive their social security wages too.

Common behaviour in the south is also faking to be an invalid with the help of complacent medical reports to receive further advantages.

Since the birth rate is not going to raise significantly, we're just raising the time when one can retire from his job. But communists oppose this too.

[shutupandshave]

The Italian government isn't Communist is it?
What kind of communist presence is there in Italy?
(I have no idea)

[Ummon]

The Italian governement has been communist-led for 6 of the last 11 years.

Ex-communists are 24% and communists 8% circa of the electorate.

[Karmashock]

all of your taxes are higher then ours... and our are about 50 percent once you add up the federal, state, and city taxes.

You also make 10,000 dollars less then we do on average BEFORE taxes...


you can't cheat supply and demand... nothing is free...

[P$Ü(||0]

wooow my first thread with more than 4 replies

[shutupandshave]

That's a lot of years. I never realised there was so much "left" in Italy.

Karma,
The US wage average is 36,000 dollars (20,000). The UK average salary is about 25,000 (it was 19k 3 years ago). You US doesn't earn 10,000 more than the UK.
We've addressed this mis-conception of yours already in the past.

[Karmashock]

CIA World Fact book.
US 37,800 (In US dollars)
UK 27,700 (In US dollars)

There is no argument.

[MVB]

Plus US taxes if you are making 37,800 add up to only about 15-20%, depending on your state. I don't know what ass you pulled 50% out of, Karma, but I can tell you as someone who has earned between 25-200,000 yearly in various years over the past 5, it's nowhere near 50% until you're making over 250k.
So even if suas is more accurate than the CIA World Factbook, and it's 20 vs 25, Americans still make more after taxes, 16k US vs 15k GB going on Suas's #'s and 40% for UK, 20% for US.

BTW, in the US *most* full-time jobs cover your insurance and what-not with benefits, b/c federal law in most states requires it. So as long as you HAVE a job, healthcare and what-not is basically free, and you pay some of that percent tax to social security, so basically are paying for your retirement as well.

[shutupandshave]

MVB, yes the US does have more NET.

Sorry Karma, I had to do that....
When we all quoted the CIA factbook at you, regarding the GOVERNMENT type of the UK you wouldn't accept it. I just wanted to see you quote it straight back at me.
OH THE IRONY. You walked straight into that.

[Karmashock]

Karma, but I can tell you as someone who has earned between 25-200,000 yearly in various years over the past 5, it's nowhere near 50% until you're making over 250k.
I'm talking about ALL the taxes... In cali you can pay 50 percent really easy after you add the STATE and CITY taxes... including sales tax etc…

If you add all the taxes an American pays all combined, they can easily equal half of our income... Phone taxes, gas taxes, etc.

they add up really quickly...

Anyway, you're completely right if you're talking about just federal taxes.
==================================
As to Suas, I didn't walk into anything... you said something stupid and I countered you with numbers...

The other debate doesn't matter because it wasn't a numbers debate...

The only irony here is that you aren't admitting that you were wrong... I thought you said you did that?...

Waiting.

[MVB]

I'm talking about ALL taxes in the state of Virginia, and Hawaii (which is much pricier than Cali) ... you're wrong about 50%, even if you count food taxes.

[LardGibs]

BTW, in the US *most* full-time jobs cover your insurance and what-not with benefits, b/c federal law in most states requires it. So as long as you HAVE a job, healthcare and what-not is basically free, and you pay some of that percent tax to social security, so basically are paying for your retirement as well.where the fuck have you been, in college or something? :rofl:

co-pay is the order of the day, the only benny is that the significant fraction the employee has to co pay is pretax income. not to mention that they're trashy HMO plans usually.

buisnesses, especially small ones, are dropping health benefits ASAP, and increasing employee's fraction of support for that as fast and as far as they can go.


HEALTH BENEFITS
Our health plan covers most major medical expenses. The company contributes to the cost of health benefits and we offer affordable Associate plans. There is no limit for most health coverage. 60% of our Associates tell us they joined Wal-Mart because of our benefits. We also offer:



Dental Coverage
Company-Paid and/or Dependent & Optional Life Insurance
Business Travel Accident Insurance
Long- and Short-Term Disability
Illness Protection Plan

[MVB]

I have to admit I totally forgot about Co-Pay ... I don't get sick all that often. When I was in the hospital in Hawaii, I could barely move I was so fucked up, so I didn't do any of the medical paying or what-not; my best friend did it for me, as he was one of the guys that pulled me out.

[shutupandshave]

Karma, how can I trust a source that you said is innacurate? So the CIA website is only correct regarding numbers - and not regarding which type of government a country has?

I got my figures from a UK website, you got yours from a US website that you have in the past stated to be inaccurate. We both agree on the average US salary, and you are disagreeing with me (A brit) about the UK salary (taken from British sources).

Edit: The average THREE years ago was 34200 (£19000).

Does the "purchasing power" figure account for the differences in taxes perhaps? Exactly how is this figure generated?

[Karmashock]

I'm talking about ALL taxes in the state of Virginia, and Hawaii (which is much pricier than Cali) ... you're wrong about 50%, even if you count food taxes.
Hmm... I guess I'm wrong... still... they're a lot higher then people realize...
===================================
Karma, how can I trust a source that you said is innacurate? So the CIA website is only correct regarding numbers - and not regarding which type of government a country has?
I never said they were inaccurate. I never said that britain wasn't a consitutional monarchy.

I got my figures from a UK website, you got yours from a US website that you have in the past stated to be inaccurate. We both agree on the average US salary, and you are disagreeing with me (A brit) about the UK salary (taken from British sources).

Edit: The average THREE years ago was 34200 (£19000).

Does the "purchasing power" figure account for the differences in taxes perhaps? Exactly how is this figure generated?
I would guess we just ask the UK for their information. Cite your source.

[shutupandshave]

I never said that britain wasn't a consitutional monarchy.
Yes Karma, yes you did. You said many times that the UK WAS a republic. The people disagreeing with you even agreed that the UK could be seen to have some tendencies of a republic, however you continued to insist that the UK "WAS" a republic.

he median annual pay for women increased by 5.3 per cent in 2004 to £18,531. Median annual earnings for full-time employees for the 2002-03 tax year stood at £22,060, up 4.2 per cent on the previous year. Males earned £24,236, up 3.8 per cent.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285
£18,531 = $33355.8
£22,060 = $39708
£24,236 = $43624.8

Average pay = $39708

And as we discover - I didn't admit I was wrong - because I wasn't.
"There is no argument."
"The only irony here is that you aren't admitting that you were wrong... I thought you said you did that?..."

It's very hard for people to admit they're wrong when you make comments like that. Just lucky I wasn't wrong I guess. I can understand why people would not want to admit they WERE wrong though.

[Karmashock]

Yes Karma, yes you did. You said many times that the UK WAS a republic. The people disagreeing with you even agreed that the UK could be seen to have some tendencies of a republic, however you continued to insist that the UK "WAS" a republic.
I said that it was both... no wonder it was so hard talking to you then... you weren't paying attention.


http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285
£18,531 = $33355.8
£22,060 = $39708
£24,236 = $43624.8

Average pay = $39708
These numbers are median, mine were mean.

Take a statistics course and call me in the morning.

The US doesn't take the median of individual income. It's not a statistic we compile... we do it for families though... If you can show me the household income in England, then your numbers will be relevant.

Until then, they don't matter much.

[shutupandshave]

I said that it was both... no wonder it was so hard talking to you then... you weren't paying attention.
No, you said your professor told you that the UK was a republic, and so therefore it is. If you said it was both it was after I had got bored with arguing with a brick wall. Whilst I was taking part... you said, many many times that the UK was a Republic.

Where does it say your figures were the mean?

[Karmashock]

sad... just sad... you can't let it go can you?

go back resurrect the old thread if that's all you know how to talk about.

You will clearly see where I said it was both...

Like we're humans... AND primates.

As to the figures, read the CIA page, it clearly states what they are. It's the US GDP divided by the population.

Therefore, americans generate 10,000 more wealth per person, then people in the UK do... on AVERAGE... or mean.

[JADezimar]

Well IN a way saus Everyone calls the states a democracy but in all truth its not a democracy o0. Alot of governments I honestly feel the UK included all portray traits of other Types of governments not just the one they call themselves or are classified as.

[shutupandshave]

I dont see it on that page.

Incidently - why quote the GDP - shouldn't you be quoting average earnings...which is what your statement said...

[Karmashock]

There are buttons on the sides of every term... click on them and you'll get a glossary with handy explanations.
GDP - per capita This entry shows GDP on a purchasing power parity basis divided by population as of 1 July for the same year.
there you go.

Rank Order - GDP - per capita
1
Luxembourg $ 55,100 2003 est.
2
Norway $ 37,800 2003 est.
3
United States $ 37,800 2003 est.
4
Bermuda $ 36,000 2003 est.
5
Cayman Islands $ 35,000 2002 est.
6
San Marino $ 34,600 2001 est.
7
Switzerland $ 32,700 2003 est.
8
Denmark $ 31,100 2003 est.
9
Iceland $ 30,900 2003 est.
10
Austria $ 30,000 2003 est.
11
Canada $ 29,800 2003 est.
12
Ireland $ 29,600 2003 est.
13
Belgium $ 29,100 2003 est.
14
Australia $ 29,000 2003 est.
15
Hong Kong $ 28,800 2003 est.
16
Netherlands $ 28,600 2003 est.
17
Japan $ 28,200 2003 est.
18
Aruba $ 28,000 2002 est.
19
United Kingdom $ 27,700 2003 est.
All this means is that the US and Norway are the two more productive countries per capita in the world. Luxemburg is a tax shelter with a population of three, so I'm not counting them... :P


I want to know more about Norway now… *goes back to cia factbooks for more triva*

[shutupandshave]

So going back to earnings, which is different to what the GDP is...

http://stats.bls.gov/cps/home.htm#annual

You'll find that the US average earnings are also measured as a Median.

[Karmashock]

the data isn't expresses in the same terms... I could probably derive it... it would take time... furthermore, most are just regional surveys.


We tend to do it by the household... what the census board wants to know is how "families" are doing...

[shutupandshave]

Yes most are regional surveys, however the median national averages are the median national averages.

Anyway, to recap - I agree that the GDP of the US is $10,000 more than the UK. I dont agree that US average earnings are $10,000 more than they are in the UK, and have found evidence to prove that (US median earnings are $620, compared with the UK median earnings of also around that). We've also discovered that the US does chart it's earnings by median, in exactly the same way the UK does.

Agreed?

Edit:ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat39.txt

[Karmashock]

of course... all of that is true.

[MVB]

Would it be fair, taking all that, plus the fact that US taxes are generally lower, to come to the conclusion that the average person in the US does in fact, after all is said and done, pocket more money yearly than the average person in the UK, but still probably at a roughly similar level?

[Karmashock]

not without more information...

my numbers didn't take taxes into consideration and neither did Suas's...

[shutupandshave]

of course... all of that is true.
So when you say that people in the US earn on average $10,000 more than people in the UK you meant that the GDP was higher, and that in fact people in the UK earn about the same as people in the US?

[Karmashock]

I was talking averages...

the GDP/population should give you the nation's per person profit... on average.

Soooo... actually, my numbers are right on. If only because the US has more rich people or the UK has more poor people as a percentage of their total population.


Remember... median... mean.

[shutupandshave]

But what you said, was that people in the US earnt more than people in the UK by $10,000 - which is not true?
You also said that the US did not do median averages of earnings, which also wasn't true, agreed?

I guess what the average earnings things boils down to is this. If I said to you "what do you make a year" do you give your earnings, or do you give your GDP? In the UK, what you "make" per year is seen to be your earnings. Perhaps in the US that's not true, and is not a phrase that's used over there to denote earnings, but in fact GDP per head...so perhaps it is a language difference. I would be interested to know if "what do you make a year" in the US is used to denote earnings or GDP, and if someone says "I make 40,000 a year" you immediately assume it's their GDP and not their earnings.

I still find it odd that the the GDP of the UK is so much lower than it's average earnings. Perhaps the GDP is based on incorrect/out of date information...perhaps there's something I am not taking into effect.

[Karmashock]

We do... on average... we likely take the extra income in stocks or other investments.

The US produces 10,000 dollars more profit per person then the UK. The UK produces the 19th most per person. The money goes somewhere... I'll give you this... My assumption was that foreigners don't own a significant portion of our economy... if that were the case and our economy were owned almost entirely by our own people then the average US income would be at least that figure... However, if the US were owned in large part by outsiders and the people in the UK owned a lot of investments in other countries, THEN the figure could be reversed.


The ten thousand dollar difference is in productivity or value created.

Also take into consideration that American workers take fewer vacations, have shorter vacations, work long hours, work more days a week, work earilier in life, and retire later.

The average American will work more in their life time then the average UK citizen by quite a bit. If we weren't compensated for it at some point, it would be a shame.

This didn't used to be the case. We used to be layed back like the people in the UK. But the Japanese started kicking our asses and we had two choices at that point. We could either protect our economy from foreigners or become competitive with them. We chose to compete... That has meant going higher tech and working longer hours.

[MVB]

Perhaps the data on average earnings is out-dated/whatever suas. You seem to prefer the generally dismal looks on the US as more likely to be correct, but take the generally optimistic looks on the UK as more likely to be correct ... I suppose, however, that this should be your way of thinking, since you are a Brit. If you thought the worst of your country and the best of others, you'd not be much of a citizen.

[Karmashock]

the numbers are old... they're from 2003 :lol:

The update dates are clearly presented next to every number. ;)

[tom]

Also take into consideration that American workers take fewer vacations, have shorter vacations, work long hours, work more days a week, work earilier in life, and retire later.

The average American will work more in their life time then the average UK citizen by quite a bit. If we weren't compensated for it at some point, it would be a shame.

And THEY call US fat and lazy. ;)

[LardGibs]

If you thought the worst of your country and the best of others, you'd not be much of a citizen.
As opposed to being a statist puppet?

[Karmashock]

And THEY call US fat and lazy. ;)
They certainly can't call us lazy. No one can. We work more then just about anyone.

Fat is another story... the only loop hole in that for us is that the people that are fat in this country are primarily minorities... the rest of the population is pretty similar England at the very least...
As opposed to being a statist puppet?
are you a libertarian?

[LardGibs]

are you a libertarian?
nah, lapsed Randite. I believe in the necessity of public goods which means I have more of a pro-government stance than most libertarians. I suckle from the teat of the military industrial complex and am biased thusly. I would really like to see government be less wasteful and corrupt tho.

[tom]

I think corruption and waste is a universal concern, be you democrat, republican, or confused libertarian. ;)

[Karmashock]

I'd generally like the feds to do little more then preserve and protect the union... but I'm at peace with the fact that if that is to happen... it will happen slowly...

[shutupandshave]

Another thing I never realised Karma - is that you pay tax according to the GDP - why is this?

You said "You also make 10,000 dollars less then we do on average BEFORE taxes..." so I am assuming (as you said you were talking about the GDP, and not salary or wages - even though I specifically talked about salary and wages).

I think it's time to admit you are wrong.

Yes the GDP of someone in the US is 10,000 more than in the UK - but we were not talking about that - we were talking about WAGES (hence the comment about the tax on them).

If you didn't think we were talking about wages/salary/money in the bank that's fine - but everyone else in the conversation was...as I am sure they can confirm when they ask you. I am sorry to go on about this, but you made such a (insulting) point about me admitting I was wrong, as well as commenting about me needing to take reading comprehension classes, and statistics classes...and it turned out that I was right all along.

When you've answered this, I would very much like to see your statistics that claim how many hours per day the average American works, and the average Englishman, also that americans take fewer, shorter, and work more days a week?

[Karmashock]

Well there is 10,000 more profit in our systme per person then there is in yours. We also have more rich people in our society then you do in yours.


Furthermore, we still have no statistics. Yours and mine, out side of hte cia fact book... are not compatible. US statistics are generally regional and family based. Yours seem to be national and individually based.

Furthermore, the cost of living is higher in England then it is in the US which is not accounted for in the exchange rates.

I still believe that if everything is accounted for Americans will be found to make significantly more money. We do produce 10,000 dollars more profit per person and our cost of living is lower... so it really just stands to reason.

[shutupandshave]

The official stats I found on the US website WERE median, and they WERE per person.
I linked you.

I have already agreed that the GDP was 10,000 higher, and I never disputed that. We are talking however about WAGES/SALARY which was the original point in the discussion and was the point that I disagreed with.

[JADezimar]

I dont think either of you understand what eachother is saying let alone your points. Why hell between the 2 of yours confusion im confused :confused:

:ass: to both of ya o0

[shutupandshave]

I understand exactly what Karma is saying about the US earning more per capita, but that is a different figure to what someone earns as a wage, and we were talking about wages, not GDP.

[Karmashock]

The official stats I found on the US website WERE median, and they WERE per person.
I linked you.

I have already agreed that the GDP was 10,000 higher, and I never disputed that. We are talking however about WAGES/SALARY which was the original point in the discussion and was the point that I disagreed with.
I forgot about that one... was thinking of your first comparison...

Anyway, I still would like to see how your 'cost' of living fits into this... I mean... American money and British money have different values on the international market... but our goods and services also cost different things inside of our countries.

Example:
The Mexican peso is a pretty poor currency and the average Mexican worker doesn't get paid much... though more then you'd think. Still, the peso goes farther in Mexico then it does in the US... and a US dollar goes farther in Mexico then it does in the US...

The point I’m making here is that we are comparing two wages with international exchange rates when those figures don't dictate the cost of goods or services in our given economies. You could import things from the US at that cost, however that doesn’t take tariffs or shipping into consideration. Ultimately it isn’t practical to assume that a person could theoretically sustain themselves entirely off of foreign (in this case US or English goods… if you were in the other country) entirely.

Your comparison assumes that an apple in the England costs the same as an apple in the US. That is unlikely… we’re a big agricultural country and export far more food then we import. I’m sure England grows a great deal of it’s own food, but regardless produce is more expensive there… and the fact that the US agricultural practices are geared towards production only exasperates that fact.

Another example:
People that live in NY city are all paid more then people that live in the rural part of NY, not because they do more work or they deserve it... but because it costs more for people to live and feed themselves there. If you could get a job in NY city and live in Iowa, you’d have a much higher standard of living.


My guess is that the English pound goes farther in America then it does in England. As a result you can't compare the two wages with the international exchange rate. You would have to take a survey of English goods and services to see what they could buy and average that... Then take a survey of how far the American dollar would go in America and average that.

You would see who could buy more stuff with their native currency in their own country and then translate the figures like that.


I can't think of any logical reason why that wouldn't put the US in the lead. I know a pound doesn't go as far in England as it does in the US... and your international exchange rate figures demonstrated that the US and England are very similar via numbers that are logically going to favor the more strongly valued currency.


Savvy?

I don’t know if any of this is making sense… I tend to post when my brain is fried from reports and what’s left of my more core analytical abilities tends to be burned out. Which is why I then start playing some mindless game where I hack people to pieces… after a couple hours of that… I can think again…

[Karmashock]

Oh, I just remembered what this is called… Purchasing-power Parity… I’m slow… I right now… I can’t help it… I’ll look for those conversions later… they tend to be regional so we may be out of luck… I’ll look for it.

[shutupandshave]

No
the fact was, you said someone in the US earnt more than someone in the UK. I said that was not true. The argument has nothing to do with the cost of living, with purchasing power and especially not taxes. It has nothing to do with the GDP, and it has nothing to do with the difference between the mean and the median.

The dispute was over the fact that YOU said people in the US earnt 10,000 dollars more than people in the UK.

That is all I am contending, and when you admit you were wrong and apologise to me for calling me various names and making various insinuations about my comprehensive and economic ability (all of which could now be applied to you assuming no additional data appears)... I will be happy to move onto the subject in terms of cost of living and GDP.

[Karmashock]

No
the fact was, you said someone in the US earnt more than someone in the UK.
Well they certainly produced that much more so one would think they would deserve proportional compensation… :D

However, we were in fact talking about standard of living and Purchasing power parity is pretty significant and could easily put you 10,000 dollars below us over the course of a year.

After all, when you say we make roughly the same amount, what you are really saying is that we make the same in internationally exchanged values… which are not particularly relevant in this case unless we’re talking about vacationing.


it has nothing to do with the difference between the mean and the median.
Actually this is also very significant. That 10,000 dollars is going somewhere and I would guess that the mean would demonstrate that. After all a rather small percentage of Americans have significant stock investments and any profits of the corporations would collect in those hands.


As to abilities, I don’t respect the economic views of socialists any more then you would respect the environmental policy of a tannery. That is my bias and I’m unlikely to ever over come that for anyone.

[shutupandshave]

However, we were in fact talking about standard of living and Purchasing power parity is pretty significant and could easily put you 10,000 dollars below us over the course of a year.


I said this
The UK average salary is about 25,000 (it was 19k 3 years ago). You US doesn't earn 10,000 more than the UK.

That CLEARLY states that I am talking about salary.

You replied with

CIA World Fact book.
US 37,800 (In US dollars)
UK 27,700 (In US dollars)

You didn't even refer to it as GDP. You used it to respond to a statement about SALARY (as I clearly stated).

I have specified many times exactly what I am talking about (and did so RIGHT at the beginning of the discussion). I was talking about Salary, as were you when you made the comment "You also make 10,000 dollars less then we do on average BEFORE taxes...". The "before taxes" comment proves that.

[Karmashock]

You're missing my point.

You're converting US or UK currency with the international trade figures.

A US dollar does not equal a UK pound. So how do you compare them?

I'm saying that purchasing power parity is the only actual way to see what someone in the UK or US is getting paid relative to the other.

IF things cost about 20 percent more the UK then the US ABOVE the international trade figures, then I'll be right... English people will be getting paid less...


Do you see what I'm saying? I'm disputing the use of international trade figures because I don't think they're relevant outside of international trade. And yes, if I visited your country and converted my dollars into pounds, that would be international trade… it would be tourism at the very least.

Edit: It looks like I was right... I looked at the CIA fact book again...
GDP - per capita:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
purchasing power parity - $37,800 (2003 est.)
So you do in fact 10,000 dollars less as you can only buy 10,000 less with your money. If we knew all the information used to compile this we could reverse engineer the TRUE conversion between US domestic money and UK domestic money.


As always, economics are fun.

[shutupandshave]

no
It doesn't matter how expensive things are.

If you get 1 dollar a year and EVERYTHING is free your salary is 1 dollar a year.
If I get 1,000,000 dollars a year, and a years worth of food costs 2,000,000 dollars a year I earn 1,000,000 dollars a year.

I fully admit that you are better off than me however it doesn't change the fact that my salary/wage/theamountImake is more than you.

I will still be earning 1 million times more than you.

I have stated numerous before that I will be happy to discuss with you cost of living, and how that affects salaries when this wages issue is resolved.

You cleary stated that in the US - BEFORE taxes the average Amercian earns 10,000 dollars more than the average Brit.

I said that was not true. I was right. If you hadn't made a point of insulting me, I would have just put it down to one of the things you were wrong about - but never admitted too, and we would have moved on. But as you made such a point about me admitting I was wrong (when I wasn't), and insulting my intelligence (when it turned out that it was YOU that was incorrect) - I would like you to admit you were wrong. apologise for the comments that were made, and be happy that you can behave like an adult.

[JADezimar]

>.< You guyz are stubborn lolz.

[shutupandshave]

If your mothers name was jean, and I kept saying it was rachel YOU would be pretty stubborn too.

[JADezimar]

Only when you called her Rachael otherwise I wouldnt continually posts over and over again to correct someone :p

[shutupandshave]

If I said "her name was Rachel, and you're a fucking retard, that needs to learn some English (just look at the way you type) and you have no idea what you're talking about, and if you were clever you'd know that it was Rachel" you'd probably take offense.

[JADezimar]

woah buddy......... why are you getting so angry? im just playing around. And ya im a retard I dont understand that last posts. thx for being that way =(

[shutupandshave]

lol - you didn't understand I guess. But I didn't mean to be offensive. I was just speaking to you the way Karma speaks to me (even if he's wrong). I didn't mean to actually insult you (hence the quote marks round what I said).

For example, I found the average UK earnings (per week) and the average was measured using the "median" method. Karma replied that the US never uses the median as a measure and that I need to take maths lessons because I am stupid have no idea what I am talking about...to which I pointed to a link of the US official weekly earnings (which was a median). He then changed the subject to talk about the GDP instead of the earnings. He also said that those figures were the household income (and the link clearly states it's the individual earnings).

Basically JAD, Karma has tried to character assasinate me for the past few weeks, and has dug himself into a hole about many different issues. I have waited until the time is right, and have countered his arguments with hard fact and the truth. I have also been very clear when I have said something that is purely opinion, and that I dont have enough information to make a firm judgement on it.

Basically. He's insulted me about being wrong...and it's turned out he was wrong. Now he wont admit it and is going to start insulting me instead of proving he's right (because he cant).

If you look at page 2 of this thread, you will see that Karma says this
"You also make 10,000 dollars less then we do on average BEFORE taxes..."

He is now claiming he was talking about the GDP (a government figure for the amount of money the average person makes for the country - and NOT the salary of the person at all)...however GDP is never calculated BEFORE taxes so it cant be true.

Basically he made a mistake, which is cool. However after making the mistake he said things like this

There is no argument.
you said something stupid and I countered you with numbers (please note the numbers he countered me with were not average salary numbers, but GDP numbers)
The only irony here is that you aren't admitting that you were wrong... I thought you said you did that?...

Waiting.
The US doesn't take the median of individual income. - which was later proven as untrue.
Therefore, americans generate 10,000 more wealth per person, then people in the UK do... on AVERAGE... or mean. (now he starts changing the subject to pretend he was talking about the GDP all along - which is odd cos he was talking about BEFORE tax)
then he says...The US produces 10,000 dollars more profit per person then the UK. - which is very true, but it is not what he initially said. He said that the average person makes (in terms of salary) more than 10,000 more. A subtle change, but a very important attempt at deception.
The ten thousand dollar difference is in productivity or value created. - wait - but you said it was in earnings!?
Also take into consideration that American workers take fewer vacations, have shorter vacations, work long hours, work more days a week, work earilier in life, and retire later.

The average American will work more in their life time then the average UK citizen by quite a bit. If we weren't compensated for it at some point, it would be a shame. where the hell are those stats - I asked for them and they never appeared.
Well there is 10,000 more profit in our systme per person then there is in yours. We also have more rich people in our society then you do in yours. - sounds like a cock measuring contest now in another attempt to divert the simple fact that we were all talking about salary to begin with.
Then he claims my number are rubbish because US statistics are generally regional and family based. Yours seem to be national and individually based....however both the numbers I got were the median individual average (so not what he said at all)

I still believe that if everything is accounted for Americans will be found to make significantly more money. We do produce 10,000 dollars more profit per person and our cost of living is lower... so it really just stands to reason. that is probably true, but what he said was "US people earn more than UK people by 10,000 dollars". That is the issue - standard of living is not the debate.
Anyway, I still would like to see how your 'cost' of living fits into this - why we talk about the fact you were wrong - made fun of me because you thought I was wrong, and insulted me instead.

However, we were in fact talking about standard of living and Purchasing power parity is pretty significant and could easily put you 10,000 dollars below us over the course of a year.
no - no we were not. As stated right at the beginning (and as I continually stated all the time) we are talking about average salaray in both countries.

Hope this helps

[Karmashock]

you're not getting it...

YOu're giving me what people in the UK earn per year in POUNDS there are TWO ways of converting that into dollars or vice versa. One is via the international exchange rate. The other is through purchasing power parity.

Now if we were talking about international trade, then the international exchange rate would apply. We are however talking about what a person makes per year in their own country. To understand WHAT a pound is to an englishman and a dollar is to an American you MUST go through purchaseing power parity. It's the only logical economic way to do it. What is a pound to you? It's what you can buy.

The international exchange rate isn't what these things are worth to those that use them. The international exchange rate is how many of currency X will you give me for currency Y... which isn't relevent here.

The best I can figure, the PP is roughly 1.36 to the US's favor above and BEYOND the international exchange rate.

[shutupandshave]

We were not talking about purchasing power... we were talking about wages plain and simple.

My pound is worth 1.85 of your dollars. What I choose to do with my pound is entirely up to me... that is not what we were talking about.

You're trying to tell me now - that if people over the world discuss their salary, the initial numbers they give each other are "purchasing power adjusted".

LOL

[Karmashock]

YOU CAN"T CONVERT POUNDS INTO DOLLARS WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE FUCKING PURCHASING POWER IN A DOMESTIC MARKET YOU TOTALLLY FUCKING CLUELESS ASSHOLE!

PEOPLE IN THE UK AREN"T PAID IN DOLLARS AND PEOPLE IN THE US AREN"T PAID IN POUNDS! YOU CAN"T JUST TAKE THE FUCKING INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE RATE... IT’S MORE COMPLICATED!!

*calms down… mostly*


You have to combine the two figures. Subtract/add purchasing power parity from the international exchange rate (depending on which is your base unit). I don't know what that is at the moment, I haven't even looked for the figures. I think it's close to .3 though... then recalculate.


And yes, in economics circles numbers are always adjusted for purchasing power parity when comparing wages and income. That’s just basic. Ask anyone you like... only a layman would ignore it.

[shutupandshave]

I completely concede.

I went to my local pub last night, and asked a few people. They all said that whenever they discuss wages they always adjust it for the relative purchasing power of the area they live in. My mistake. I was especially surprised to find a guy named Les was aften called upon because he knew almost all the relative purchasing powers of different towns/cities in the area and so if anyone wanted to know how much someone else earnt - Les could do a 3 way comparison.

I am happy to be proven wrong. What do other people think?

If I said to them "I make 10,000 more than you before taxes" would they expect you to have taken into account the difference in prices between the two places you live.
Ask the Europeans here. I know what they'll say. You know what they'll say. It's taken you posts and posts of bull shit - which started off complaining that there were no individual income figures for the US, and when I showed you... you went off on a tangent and got further and further embroiled in Bull shit.... and now you are claiming that when two people discuss how much they earn - they're either 1) talking about GDP, or 2) talking about adjusted purchasing power parity figures.
Bull fucking shit. You need a dose of the real world.

Go down to a pub. Ask someone what they earn (don't set them up and give them any background...just ask them) - then if they tell you - ask them if they were the adjusted figures based on their location - compared with yours.

How about Lardgibs - when he said this "Fucker works for $30K" was he talking about adjusted - or was he talking about 30,000 dollars.

How about Ummon "University costs an average of 2500 $ per year." were they pre-calculated adjusted figures - or not.

Or JAD - "If Johny which makes 6 bucks an hour as burger kings" were you talking about 6 dollars, or 6 adjusted dollars to compensate for the slightly different prices.

MVB - were you talking about ADJUSTED earnings comparitively to the rest of the US (if your state is slightly more or less expensive) when you said "25-200,000" or were you just talking about dollars straight.

When I start getting "adjusted" dollars from the bureau de change, then we'll start talking in adjusted dollars. k?

[JADezimar]

When I straight up say a Wage, I dont include the purchasing power yes (when discusssing straight wages). But other times I often do clarify that for instance even thouh I work and make 7 bucks an hour at my burger king and my brother makes 5:35 at his, That my living is insanely higher.

Id rather make 200$ bucks less a month for my wifes bah, (money for living) And pay half the costs in rent. If we were wise we woulda went to the east coast. Where we can rent a house for 600$, Vs the 1 bedroom apartments here for 1050$. And she would only make 200$ dollars less. In my opinion were making more and were higher class if we had went to the east coast. IM not feeding you a line here saus I usually do figure purchasing power. (Ive all recently started discussing this when we bought a vehicle. than tried to get it smogged for california, well it was gonna costs us to fix smogging, Then we needed to replace rims tires on the car and have work done on cylinder drums. +a couple belts needed replaced. NOw the car didnt costs much money no biggie. But My wife did something one nite, with some loose wires shorted car out and didnt start after that. She goes to auto zone where she was at and they said they wouldnt tow the car. Well it got towed anyway. Now they want 300$ dollars in fees cuase it was gonna be stored over the weekend IN WHICH there closed. Plus if I cant get the vehicle to run by fixing something simple then its gonna costs money for every additional day or to get it towed to my apartment. Im thinking about leaving the damn thing in the impound. Anyone know if I will be the one reliable for for any charges or leaving it there ? Plus what would you do in this situation. This also again is a fine example of perversion by the zionists and corporate america of our laws. Towing companies are untouchable. I swear the next one I c hook up one of my cars ill probably be going to prison cuase ive had an utter enough of being screwed. 1 economic problem of mine just leads to the next. Now we have no runnable cars >.< You know why we had to buy this peice of crap? Cuase our other car we got rearended so hard that it tore the car up pasts driving condition. It was reliable and useful for what I payed for it. And The insurance company didnt reinburse us for shit of the car cuase it doesnt blue book HIGH!!!! ok i know this is useless and pointless rant. But i had to posts this bullshit.

But I do c where your coming from. When someone says I make 45k, And the next guy says I make 60k Neither of them mentioned Where they lived, costs of living or debt they were in.

[shutupandshave]

Indeed you do, which is exactly what I would do too.

However that ALL SO important thing was missing from Karma's statement. He merely said that the US makes 10,000 more that the UK before tax. Nothing about "when you factor in economic conditions".

[Karmashock]

You still don't get it... money is arbitrary... it's a NUMBER... what does it measure though?... Money is only good for what you can buy with it.

As to 'getting in touch', I'm as in touch as you are if not more. I live on the other side of the world... what do you know of my people?... from what I’ve heard, not very fucking much.

When you get into economics you realize that all the numbers are interrelated. Just as the laws of physics change under different conditions so do all the rules and variables in economics. Economics IS a science. It isn’t something that you can just change the rules of because you find them inconvenient. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light and mass increases. That is physics… space… time… energy… mass… everything in physics will change in response to other factors. The variables of economics are just as interrelated. What makes a dollar a dollar is based on a wide number of statistical facts that all interrelate with each other… Contrary to what most people seem to think we don’t need to be aware of these rules for them to exist. Once people understand that economics is more a field of discovery like physics and less a field of invention like philosophy… people tend to understand geometric significance of it’s findings.

There is nothing to be profited by disobeying the laws of economics just as there is nothing to be profited by disobeying the laws of physics… either route leads to ruin.

L&P, karmashock

[shutupandshave]

If you cant have a conversation in the same context that everyone else is having it in, then dont bother taking part.

As for your laws of physics comments, I am not going to go there. You'd argue that up was down if it meant that something incorrect you'd said was in some way validated.

[Karmashock]

I was in context... I should remember to use quotes so you can follow...
Go down to a pub. Ask someone what they earn (don't set them up and give them any background...just ask them) - then if they tell you - ask them if they were the adjusted figures based on their location - compared with yours.

How about Lardgibs - when he said this "Fucker works for $30K" was he talking about adjusted - or was he talking about 30,000 dollars.

How about Ummon "University costs an average of 2500 $ per year." were they pre-calculated adjusted figures - or not.

Or JAD - "If Johny which makes 6 bucks an hour as burger kings" were you talking about 6 dollars, or 6 adjusted dollars to compensate for the slightly different prices.

MVB - were you talking about ADJUSTED earnings comparitively to the rest of the US (if your state is slightly more or less expensive) when you said "25-200,000" or were you just talking about dollars straight.

When I start getting "adjusted" dollars from the bureau de change, then we'll start talking in adjusted dollars. k?

[shutupandshave]

I dont know why I speak to you. You own yourself over and over again without me having to add fuel the fire.

[Karmashock]

that would be about hte only way you could make a point... :)