Yes, but China on the whole is still fairly poor. It's much easier to catch up - many poor(er) countries that get their economy going again show immense growth until they get catch up with the rich countries. Much of the eastern bloc (that recovered well) are in a similar situation.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-...
Where are you coming up with this nonsense? Let's see the numbers.
>This is a well documented fact
Oh, well if you say so then.
Where do you think all the people working in Amazon gulags come from exactly. You think people work 12 hours shifts pissing in bottles because they enjoy it.
>Oh, well if you say so then.
It's like you're too stupid to use Google or something. Here you go little buddy:
>Here's another number that may surprise you – to be in the top half (50%) of all earners you need to earn more than $29,999.99 a year. The number of people earning less than $30,000 accounts for 48.06% of the population.
https://wallethacks.com/average-median-income-in-america/
here's another simple chart you might be able to comprehend https://i.redd.it/pg5w8ws3b0o31.jpg
With the median income in the US being 5x higher, I imagine $400 of unexpected expenses would be much worse for a Chinese citizen, assuming they don't have something saved up of course.
Relative to whom exactly? Us engineers posting on HN? I'm not making light of anyone's circumstances here, but living paycheck to paycheck doesn't make you poor, and billions of people around the world would love to be that "poor" (and many of them live in China.) Very different definitions of "poor".
I'm fine with have a reasoned discussion, but you don't seem to want that, so you're not worth talking to.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/income-inequ...
Don't know if it's true though.
Declining life expectancy is not an indication that the population is poor either. Consider that obesity, which is linked to higher mortality rates, did not become an issue until the 1900s in countries that passed wealth thresholds allowing such a problem at scale. Similarly with allergies, car crash fatalities, lead poisoning in paint, any number of life-shortening effects come from wealth in a society and are counterbalanced by improving health care levels.
Given how small the US decline is, were China to stop the massive supplies of fentanyl they're intentionally allowing to pour into the US, that decline would probably arrest. The Chinese fentanyl is killing people at a young age, which hammers the life expectancy calculations.
Remind me how China feels about what was done to them in the Opium Wars.
The US isn't alone in this however. Britain is starting to see declining life expectancies. Is China better off than Britain? It's laughable.
"UK life expectancy drops while other western countries improve"
https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/uk-life-expectancy-...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/07/life-expecta...
The 40% claim (regarding N% of Americans that can't afford a sudden ~$400-$500 expense) is entirely fraudulent, and repeated ad nauseam as an easy - and ignorant - hit on the US.
The real number is around 12%-14% at worst. The routine Fed survey that most people reference (while ignoring what the Fed actually said) makes this clear. Numerous well-written articles have been posted over the last several years pointing out the fraudulent nature of the claim.
Here's the money line from the Fed that buries this lie:
"The Fed also asks respondents how a $400 emergency expense that they had to pay would affect their ability to pay their other bills. Eighty-five percent report that they would still be able to pay all their bills. Only 14% say that the emergency expense would result in their not being able to pay some bills."
A Bloomberg writer recently demolished it as well:
> The question comes from the annual “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households” by the Federal Reserve. The report finds, in 2018, that 61% of adults would cover a $400 unexpected expense using cash (or its equivalent).
Note: that's the origination of the error. The propagandists then remove the 61% and magically claim that everyone left (~40%) can't cover the expense.
> Instead, as the Fed report makes clear, though “the remaining 4 in 10 adults” “would have more difficulty covering such an expense,” many of them would be able to make it work by carrying a credit card balance or borrowing from friends and family.
> The report states: “Twelve percent of adults would be unable to pay the expense by any means.”
> The report also goes out of its way to make clear that some of the 39% who wouldn’t use cash might still have $400 in the bank: “It is possible that some would choose to borrow even if they had $400 available, preserving their cash as a buffer for other expenses.” In a footnote, the report even cites a 2016 study finding that 76 percent of households had $400 in liquid assets, even after taking into account monthly expenses.
> The common misinterpretation of this finding in the study is particularly strange in light of two other questions on the same survey. The Fed asks respondents whether they are able to pay all of their bills in full. Only 17% say they can’t pay some bills. Again, 17%, not 39%."
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/report-economic-...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/middle-class-doing-ok...
https://www.cato.org/blog/it-true-40-americans-cant-handle-4...
There's also that the other cases rely on being indebted, which means that they cannot afford it with their current means. Sure they can cover expenses, but the example of the debt-adverse Germans wouldn't see it as being able to afford them.
No, its rich but insecure. That's not the name thing as poor, though it can feel like it.