PPP is a misleading figure. If your PPP-adjusted income is 2 times higher than someone's else does it mean that you can buy 2 times more MacBooks or trips to Korea?
You're looking for "discretionary income" minus groceries (not to be confused with disposable income), because GDP does not tell you that (PPP adjusted or not) and PPP adjusted income doesn't tell you that either. Also you kind of made a jump from (per capita) GDP to income, which is related, but not the same thing.
To answer your question: In your example it may either be more or less, because PPP really does not say much for anything but your chosen basket of goods.
Example: Person A earns $2000 and spends $750 to meet standard of living X, while another person B also earns $2000 but has to spend $1500 to meet that same standard.
Adjusted for PPP using that standard of living/basket of goods X, Person A earns twice as much.
Let's assume that MacBooks and trips to Korea generally cost the same for both people. Person B has $500 left over to pay for such things, while Person A has $1250 left - more than twice!
I easily could have chosen numbers such that it was less than twice. I could also have chosen them such that one person, while appearing richer purely based on non-adjusted income, can in fact afford less of everything. Obviously you can also make it so that one person can afford less luxuries than the other despite appearing richer adjusted for PPP.
You can try to fix this by making any luxuries you're interested in part of your basket of goods. While you're still comparing an entire basket, at least you'll know how often each person could purchase that entire basket compared to each other.
The point I'm trying to make is that while you still have to be careful to understand what PPP adjusted numbers are telling you, non-adjusted numbers aren't any better and in fact are probably more misleading for what you appear to be interested in.
American housing is built the way it is not due to extra interest in safety, but because it's cheap to build under US prices. You can call it better or worse than Europe, but it sure isn't earthquakes.
Wood buildings can last hundreds of years but require far more upkeep.
HVAC also can generally also be run under floors (and outside of the USA forced air systems are pretty unusual so you're only dealing with pipes).
This was the case but it's not really true any more. Building codes have become more stringent and risk specific. This hasn't changed anything around earthquakes though as as building a single story wood building that stands up to an earthquake is easy, building one that withstands a hurricane is harder.
Sorry to put it this way, but is this a joke? I do live in Bucharest, in Eastern Europe, on the 8th floor of an apartments building built in the early 1980s, and I sure do hope that this building can withstand a Magnitude 8 earthquake seeing that we've had a 7.5 earthquake back in 1977 and a 7.7 one back in 1940 (and a 7.1 earthquake back in 1986, which I do remember).
When the huge construction boom began in Cluj in the first decade of the new millennium, the common opinion seemed to be that the old, ugly socialist-era blocks would survive an earthquake just fine, but people were less confident about the new buildings that private developers were constructing.
This is how modern European brick houses are built:
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/unfinished-brick-house-sti...