5 ms·

>The per capita part literally covers the amount of people in an economy. But like I said, it doesn't cover inequality. >Switzerland? High GDP per capita obje

>The per capita part literally covers the amount of people in an economy. But like I said, it doesn't cover inequality. >Switzerland? High GDP per capita objectively nice place to live. Japan? High GDP per capita, objectively nice. Norway? Sweden? Netherlands? All high GDP per capita all nice. And how many workers there can afford to buy a home? What use is a high GDP/capita if a lot of people can't afford to live decently as most of that wealth only concentrates in few hands and your salary melts away every month on the high-CoL with no chance of purchasing assets?

dismalaf 8d ago
> But like I said, it doesn't cover inequality. Again, like I wrote, you need to prove that inequality is inherently bad. Or that home ownership is inherently good. You ever live in a 3rd world country? I saw families who "owned" homes that were 4 walls, 300 sq ft with a tin roof that covered the top, but had no electricity, plumbing and wasn't even sealed from small animals getting in. Is that wealth?
- PorciiVorbesc 3d ago
  >Or that home ownership is inherently good Home ownership is always better than no home ownership, 3rd world country or first world country. Owning an asset is better than owning nothing. >You ever live in a 3rd world country? What does that have to do with home ownership in first world countries? That's some bad faith moving the goalposts whataboutism. >Is that wealth? Where they live, by those standards, yes, it's wealth, and it's better than having zero wealth and needing to pay rent.