GDP/capita typically measures economic wealth and is typically used to compared economies. "Median income" does not account for cost of living which can explain how Mississippi can have a higher quality of life despite a lower median income.
I believed that the top level comment of 'mustafa_pasi was more focused on the effects of unions on employee outcomes, rather than on national-level outcomes. So I chose to continue that. Perhaps I was wrong. If we're asking the question: "Should I, as a selfish individual, support increasing unionization?" we can come to a different conclusion than "Should I, as a massively powerful national leader entrusted with the perpetuation of my nation and its ability to deal with existential threats, support increasing unionization?"
> "Median income" does not account for cost of living.
In this case it does, as the numbers I gave been adjusted for purchasing power parity.
I agree this makes sense if you're comparing "What could a nation do with its wealth?", which is a question that economists are often tasked with. But it makes less sense to use GDP if you're comparing "What is the economic outcome of a typical individual in that society?"
GDP (total, possibly adjusted for PPP) makes sense if you'd like to know roughly how much a nation could contribute in war materiel to an existential crisis.
GDP (per capita, usually adjusted for PPP) makes sense if you'd like to know roughly how much infrastructure (schools/healthcare/etc) a nation could choose to build out for its citizens.
For me though if I'm asking the question "how comfortable are hypothetical young adults going to be in a nation?" (how comfortable would my children be?) I still feel like median income, adjusted for purchasing power parity, makes a lot of sense towards answering that question. Otherwise, to "economists", is median income just a useless metric which offers no insight at all? Why do they spend so much effort tracking it for so many different geographies? This could be interpreted as an "appeal to authority" fallacy but I'd like to know -- if I'm using the metric wrong, how should I be using it?
What am I supposed to be using median income for? If "GDP/capita (PPP) is what economists use to compare wealth", as you say, then what do those same economists that you're talking about use median income metrics for? I accept that I might be using median income wrong, but I'm curious what using it "right" looks like.
It measures total output, not quality of life for most people. Median income (when adjusted for PPP) is a better indicator of the latter.
> "Median income" does not account for cost of living
Using real median income accounts for that across time (for inflation), and using purchasing power parity (PPP) accounts for it across space (addressing different regional cost levels.)
It is an objective measure, it is not (and neither is GDP/capita) a measure of wealth. Both are income measures, not wealth measures.
> it does not take into account non-income based compensation like food stamps, housing assistance or child tax credits
It can, when it is net of taxes and transfers, which is a fairly common stat (OECD uses it for comparisons, specifically becuase tax and benefit distribution varies considerably among OECD members.) But whether it is or isn’t is orthogonal to whether it is an objective measure, though it is releavnt to how good of a measure it is for various purposes (but for comparing common lifestyle, its better than GDP/capita, which doesn’t capture any aspect of distribution, in any case.)
> For example, Medicaid compensation for example is 3x of than the equivalent in Germany.
The US having ludicrously higher medical costs than Germany without better outcomes doesn't make government medical coverage for the indigent in the US better than for those covered than similar coverage in Germany. Might make it somewhat better for the healthcare providers receiving the compensation, I guess.