The lower the Gini coefficient, the better day-to-day proxy it makes?
(I saw a claim here on HN the other day that the state of mississippi has a higher GDP/capita than europe in general; while I don't know if that be true [my corner of western europe being over twice on that scale], the two potential explanations [based on my memories of a neighbouring state] which sprung to mind were: (a) the benefit of the general productivity of mississippi may be concentrated [and perhaps not even among those living there], or (b) GDP/capita is a better indicator for finance than prosperity)
Not particularly; it's not even _supposed_ to be a measure of wellbeing/standard of living. It's at best a measure of economic activity, but it's kind of problematic even for that, especially in an increasingly globalised economy.
It can be heavily skewed. The UK and Ireland are two examples. Ireland's GDP per capita is heavily skewed by the Big corporations that are registered there for low tax purposes. And the UK's GDP is heavily skewed by London's financial sector.
Its a very rough indicator. Silicon Valley and the poorest county in Mississippi are in deep contrast to each other. California has one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world. Mississippi has the lowest in the USA.
Comments
Is GDP per capita a measure of anything real for day-to-day life?
The lower the Gini coefficient, the better day-to-day proxy it makes?
(I saw a claim here on HN the other day that the state of mississippi has a higher GDP/capita than europe in general; while I don't know if that be true [my corner of western europe being over twice on that scale], the two potential explanations [based on my memories of a neighbouring state] which sprung to mind were: (a) the benefit of the general productivity of mississippi may be concentrated [and perhaps not even among those living there], or (b) GDP/capita is a better indicator for finance than prosperity)
Its the UK, minus London, that has a similar GPD per capita as Mississippi.
Not particularly; it's not even _supposed_ to be a measure of wellbeing/standard of living. It's at best a measure of economic activity, but it's kind of problematic even for that, especially in an increasingly globalised economy.
It's a measure of global agency.
It can be heavily skewed. The UK and Ireland are two examples. Ireland's GDP per capita is heavily skewed by the Big corporations that are registered there for low tax purposes. And the UK's GDP is heavily skewed by London's financial sector.
Its a very rough indicator. Silicon Valley and the poorest county in Mississippi are in deep contrast to each other. California has one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world. Mississippi has the lowest in the USA.