Hacker News Reader

Comment by killingtime74 | Hacker News Reader

GDP per capita is less than 1/3.

Which itself is not a measurement of development/welfare per capita. Having a higher GDP/capita than another country doesn't automatically translate to more money in your pocket for you or a higher standard of living.

True. But it is pretty darn closely correlated: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-development-index-v...

You can also check the size of Brazil vs. Italy, domestic market, and other factors that could gelp them grow. Brazil is showing its potential and realization and moving up in the rankings.

I think the interesting aspect is that they have room to grow, doing business in Brazil is not easy for foreigners. While this is true for Latam at large Brazil is also much different from the business perspective than other countries in the region. I think this is connected that they have a larger population which brings a big domestic market.

Doing business in Brazil also ain't easy for nationals. Too much regulation, too much corruption, too much risk. As the saying goes: "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law." To invest in Brazil one needs to be politically connected or crazy.

It’s not always a great metric to use. For instance in India the buying power of $1 is 3.5 times that of the United States because everyday goods and housing are so cheap. A lot of the lower middle class have 20-30 rupee lunches everyday which works out to about $0.25. These are relatively substantial meals with flatbread, a vegetable dish and an egg or two.

>These are relatively substantial meals with flatbread, a vegetable dish and an egg or two.

That is not substantial by developed country standards. I have seen these meals be served and among other factors that contribute to the low price, the hygiene standards (or lack thereof) are horrific.

Travelling around the world, I have found this to be true: you get what you pay for.

When currency differences makes something like a haircut or a lunch very cheap for a North American, there’s always a tradeoff involved.

Of course the concept of PPP makes sense, but it’s still partly nonsense in assuming equal quality around the world.

Why? That’s a nutritionally complete meal with 35g of protein (flatbread, beans and eggs) and is certainly more nutritious than a plate of mac and cheese or a salad with a light dressing. Irrespective of your perspective on it, these people can have 5-10 days of meals for what the average American pays for one meal. Having lived in India for a few years, I can remember getting food poisoning once that entire time. You can also pay 3 times that for food made very hygienically and it’s still a pittance.

The untold truth. Logistical advantages and lower cost of labor can explain some price asymmetries but often you get what you pay for.

When using GDP as a gauge of living standards, people usually use PPP (purchasing power parity) measures, which adjusts for the cost of goods in different places.

Any such adjustment isn’t going to be perfect, and there are other quirks (tax havens have artificially high GDP figures), but it’s a lot closer to what you want.

I’m aware of PPP and that was my point that you can’t directly compare GDP per capita without adjustments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com