About Events Topics Resources
Acton Institute Powerblog
Great Britain is Poorer Than Every US State
by Joe Carter • August 25, 2014
At the height of power, circa 1922, the British Empire was the largest empire in history, covering one-fifth of the world's population and almost a quarter of the earth's total land area. Yet almost one hundred years later, Great Britain is not so great, having lost much of its previous economic and political dominance. In fact, if Great Britain were to join the United States, it'd be poorer than any of the other 50 states — including our poorest state, Mississippi.
Fraser Nelson discovered that fact by using a "fairly straightforward calculation" (see the end of this article for an explanation, and what Nelson missed). The result, as Nelson explains, is that all but one income group in America is better off than the same group in Britain:
It's not surprising that America's best-paid 10 per cent are wealthier than top 10 per cent. That fits our general idea of America: a country where the richest do best while the poorest are left to hang. The figures just don't support this. As the below chart shows, middle-earning Americans are better-off than Brits. Even lower-income Americans, those at the bottom 20 per cent, are better-off than their British counterparts. The only group actually worse-off are the bottom 5 per cent.
Tim Worstall notes that similar findings have shown that the bottom 10 percent in the US have the same incomes (PPP adjusted) as the bottom 10 percent in either Sweden or Finland. "While the top 10% have very much larger incomes than the top 10% in either country," says Worstall. "All that redistribution hasn't made the Nordic poor richer than the American poor but it has made the rich poorer."
Unfortunately, I suspect "soaking the rich" might be the real reason many people still support redistributions schemes that go far beyond what is necessary to adequately support the social safety net for the poor. If the primary concern of redistributionists was to help the poor become wealthier, rather than making the rich poorer, they'd have long ago abandoned the idea that massive transfers of wealth is a long-term solution to poverty.
To get Fraser's calculation, take the US figures for GDP per state, divide it by population to come up with a GDP per capita figure and then get the equivalent figure for Britain. Finally, when comparing the wealth of nations, you need to look at how far money goes, which means using a measure called Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). Tim Worstall explains why we need to add an additional step: make PPP adjustments for the price differences between the States as well.
Joe Carter is a Senior Editor at the Acton Institute. Joe also serves as an editor at the The Gospel Coalition, a communications specialist for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and as an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College. He is the editor of the NIV Lifehacks Bible and co-author of How to Argue like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator (Crossway).
Posted in PovertyTagged America, development, economics, Gross domestic product, Income distribution, International inequality, poverty, Purchasing power parity, redistribution of wealth, Social Issues, Socioeconomics, Tim Worstall, united kingdom, united states
Samuel Gregg: Welfare State Continues to Fail
Michael Novak: 'Capitalism is Lifting the World out of Poverty'
Which Inequality? Trends Toward Equality in Lifespans and Education
Bill Gates on Poverty and Inequality
Our Mission & Core Principles Awards, Scholarships, and Grants Acton Research Our Team Careers News Internships
Events Calendar Conference Series Lecture Series Acton University
Acton Commentary Acton Notes Religion & Liberty Religion & Liberty Transatlantic Journal of Markets & Morality International Public Policy
Videos Audio Radio Free Acton Curricula Films Mobile Apps
© 2017 Acton Institute | Privacy Policy