GDP PPP per capita minus the top 10%

[Jacobtm]

When ranking countries by GDP PPP per capita, the United States is frequently right at the top. However, the United States also ranks higher than most rich countries for inequality. So if we're just ranking high in GDP PPP per capita because we have a ton of fabulously rich people, the statistic is meaningless.

But has anyone compiled GDP PPP per capita taking off something like the top 5-10% of earners? I feel like this would be a more useful statistic to really assess wealth.

[Jacobtm]

But has anyone compiled GDP PPP per capita taking off something like the top 5-10% of earners? I feel like this would be a more useful statistic to really assess wealth.

This does sound interesting Jacibtm.  Though 'earners' is a bit of a strange term to apply to the privileged.  I can tell you that the worknig class didn't seem any better off in america than in thailand.

I realize that you and I may talk about the same people and economic activities and use very different terms, so you would call the priveleged "owners," and say that their wealth isn't earned but stolen from the workers. However, while you may see someone who owns a small business or works in a mid-level management position as an "owner" or "exploiter", and thus take that persons' well being to only exist at the expense of the "owned", I don't think you should discount the well being of one based on their position on the economic ladder.

So while you say the "working class" in the U.S. and Thailand are about equal, if you're excluding some 1/3 of the American public from being labelled "workers" because they're slightly higher up the scale of ownership, I think it's important to consider those people in judging the economic well being of any country, and the effectiveness of any economic system.

Of course, if the "owners" are only 10% of a population  and 90% of the population is just toiling to pay their bills and eat, then that system is rotten.

[Jacobtm]

Of course, if the "owners" are only 10% of a population  and 90% of the population is just toiling to pay their bills and eat, then that system is rotten.

Yeah I think its more like 90/10 than 2/3-1/3.

While you may view 10% as owners, and then think the 90% of "workers" are inherently exploited, I don't think the owner/worker dichotomy you subscribe to really matters. I know plenty of rich people, in the top 10% wealthiest in the US, who are miserable in their wealth. I know others who purposefully left high income jobs for lower paying ones because they wanted more personal time. And I know people who are much further down the scale, in the bottom half, who are perfectly happy.

To me, if the system permits people making a reasonable salary to live a happy life, then that's perfect. Economis is really all about utility, not wealth, and if you can use your income to arrange your life in a way that makes you happy, that's all that an economic system can really be asked to do. Surveys comparing wealth to happiness find that after around $40/50k a year, happiness doesn't really increase with wealth, so as long as one can bassically afford to live a comfortable life, they're as happy as money can get them.