If you remove the 10% of the richest americans the US GDP per capita is between Bulgaria and Maldives

>if you remove the 10% of the richest americans the US GDP per capita is between Bulgaria and Maldives

Attached: 004.gif (320x240, 3.54M)

So you're telling me that if Jeffy Bezos suddenly died, Amazon would collapse?

Thomas Pikkety showed that 50% of amerikans have the same GDP per capita than latin americans.

This is why only very poor indios and mestizos from El Salvador keep going to Muttirica

god decrees everything, he selected those people for wealth for a specific reason

Im pretty sure richest doesnt imply most productive
Bill Gates might have 120 billon dollars, but the US gdp is not going to drop 120 billion if he leaves with his money

how do you know most of his assets aren't in the economy producing?

he would have to sell all his stocks.

Merikan "economy" is 90% especulative papers

AHAHAHA... wait

Attached: fgj7jrs3bnoy.jpg (2448x3264, 617.57K)

thats what Im saying, assets are not necessarily correlated with productivity
Bezos wealth goes up and down like a rollercoaster because he keeps stocks around that go up and down with their company
equating a person's wealth with his productivity is like comparing the sum of my savings+home+bike and cliaming thats how much I make a year

>savings+home+bike
are you comparing those things with stocks?.

no offense but your bike and savings aren't investing billions into another Surface device or server deployment, stocks have immense value and generate immense value

Depends, is he actively investing or is he just holding bags from his time back when he was an actual part of the company

yeah, Gates isn't doing that either, thats the company, he just sees a return of that, and a good part of his assets are still not stocks, they're houses and yatchs
also, I used it as an example, Apple is worth like a trillion dollars, but they are not producing a trillion dollars worth of assets a year

I think what OP is trying to say is that all that "productivity" , meaning GDP goes to that top 10% of richfags even if they don't do anything like Bill Gates.

In other words the you take the out the GDP that goes to top 10% in america you have Bulgaria tier GDP.

The magic of capitalism.

GDP per capita and income per capita are basically equivalent. So if you ignore the income of the top 10% the bottom 90% are 2nd world tier. At least according to OP

Attached: income-by-race.jpg (728x545, 55.17K)

This isn’t how economics works

indeed.
do they list Indians as asians?

Attached: inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png (631x346, 15.27K)

Can you faggots stop pushing this meme that the only reason the USA is considered wealthy is because of the rich?
This is median right here.
USA bad for the lower class, but the Average person is fine

Attached: 9D538B7B-ABBE-4933-A968-4615EC5732FE.png (1242x2208, 314.1K)

>GDP per capita and income per capita are basically equivalent
they aren't
>At least according to OP
ye

>GDP per capita and income per capita are basically equivalent
Yeah, no

>do they list Indians as asians?
Yes. Now that you point it out, I do think it'd be a good idea to add this as a category or at least as a subcategory within asian but honestly its such a small population that its not that important.

Dude it's common sense. Every transaction is someone's income

>median
Completely flawed.
Take the average in account.
Of course you would have a good median if you have the richest guys around.
If you want a good median, remove the 10% poorest and the 10% richest from the calculation and you'll see the results.

we all know USA is wealthy.
the point is how it is distributed.

Median isn't skewed by highs and lows like average is. It means 50% of Americans earn less than $35k per year and 50% of Americans earn more. Showing all the percentiles would be educational too

nigga what

>Average is a better indicator than median when numbers have greater variance

Attached: hasgulyed.png (641x313, 31.2K)

>Real hourly compensation
Depends on for whom. The top earners have seen a massive increase. GDP per capita is still equal to income per capita, but more of that income goes to the top

arent they mostly in places like san fran where half their $300k wage goes to rent?

This is true.

what's the point of those arrows