Post by: Paddy on January 06, 2008, 06:27:35 AM
David Smith, Economics Editor
LIVING standards in Britain are set to rise above those in America for the first time since the 19th century, according to a report by the respected Oxford Economics consultancy.
The calculations suggest that, measured by gross domestic product per capita, Britain can now hold its head up high in the economic stakes after more than a century of playing second fiddle to the Americans.
It says that GDP per head in Britain will be ?23,500 this year, compared with ?23,250 in America, reflecting not only the strength of the pound against the dollar but also the UK economys record run of growth and rising incomes going back to the early 1990s.
In those days, according to Oxford Economics, Britains GDP per capita was 34% below that in America, 33% less than in Germany and 26% lower than in France. Now, not only have average incomes crept above those in America but they are more than 8% above France (?21,700) and Germany (?21,665).
The past 15 years have seen a dramatic change in the UKs economic performance and its position in the world economy, said Adrian Cooper, managing director of Oxford Economics. No longer are we the sick man of Europe. Indeed, our calculations suggest that UK living standards are now a match for those of the US.
Although many people will be surprised by the figures, Americans have long complained that average incomes have been stagnant in their country. One often-quoted statistical comparison suggests that in real terms the median male full-time salary in America is no higher now than it was in the 1970s.
Oxford Economics says that while the comparisons are affected by sterlings high value against the dollar, they also reflect longer-term factors. The UK has been catching up steadily with living standards in the US since 2001 � so, it is a well established trend rather than simply the result of currency fluctuations, its report says.
It concedes, however, that a significant fall in the pound against other currencies would push Britain back down the ladder. It has assumed an exchange rate of just over $2 for the purpose of the calculation but in recent days the pound has slipped below that level.
The Oxford analysts also point out that Americans benefit from lower prices than those in Britain. With an adjustment made for this purchasing power parity , the average American has more spending power than his UK counterpart and pays lower taxes. (In the run-up to Christmas many Britons travelled to New York and other American cities to take advantage of the strength of sterling against the dollar and those lower prices.)
However, the British typically have significantly longer holidays than Americans as well as access to free healthcare.
The figures may be of small comfort to Britons worried about house prices and facing a severe squeeze on their incomes this year as a result of record petrol prices and rising energy bills.
Citigroup, which was the most accurate forecaster of Britains economy last year, predicts the slowest rise in consumer spending this year since 1992.
After the credit-fuelled boom in domestic demand and asset prices, the UK economy now faces a hangover, with slowing credit growth, falling property prices and tightening lending standards, said Michael Saunders, its UK economist.
Last week oil prices hit $100 a barrel, presaging a rise in petrol and diesel prices on the fore-courts. Npower, Britains fourth biggest energy supplier, announced that energy prices would go up sharply, raising the prospect of the average household bill rising above ?1,000 for the first time.
America overtook Britain economically in the final years of the 19th century, during the so-called second industrial revolution, which brought mass manufacture and sharply rising prosperity to the United States.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3137506.ece
And this is in spite of the higher tax structure, so-called 'socialized medicine' and the general 'nanny state' Europeon environment of the UK. compared to the U.S. So there must be something else working against Americans. I know what it is. Do you?
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 06, 2008, 06:29:37 AM
Post by: Paddy on January 06, 2008, 06:31:41 AM
Now get serious. Your standard of living is dropping. Do you care?
Post by: Iain on January 06, 2008, 06:35:22 AM
The figures may be of small comfort to Britons worried about house prices and facing a severe squeeze on their incomes this year as a result of record petrol prices and rising energy bills.
Scant comfort indeed. Npower's gas bills are supposed to be rising by 17%.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 06, 2008, 06:39:58 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 06, 2008, 06:51:25 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 06, 2008, 06:58:21 AM
Oh, yes, and don't dare watch OTA TV without paying the television tax, or the Television Police are authorized to sniff out your reciever with an antenna van, then enter your residence to look for unlicensed TVs. The gas and electric companies can enter your home without permission, too.
If someone breaks in to steal things, don't you dare hurt them, or you'll be arrested! The most you can do is file a Complaint, and threaten them in hopes they'll leave. But don't hit them with anything, or you're in for it.
Sounds like hell, to me.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 06, 2008, 07:22:41 AM
Anyone know what the average after-tax incomes are in each country?
Post by: HankB on January 06, 2008, 08:10:12 AM
Post by: grislyatoms on January 06, 2008, 08:11:32 AM
I just had a thought . . . do the people living in Mexico know this? If they realize that the UK offers them a better lifestyle, maybe they'll go THERE, instead!!!
That's a long swim...
Post by: Manedwolf on January 06, 2008, 08:13:06 AM
I just had a thought . . . do the people living in Mexico know this? If they realize that the UK offers them a better lifestyle, maybe they'll go THERE, instead!!!
The people in the sandbox do. That's why they keep going there and trying to change it in the very ways that made the sandbox into a collection of dysfunctional hellholes.
Post by: The Viking on January 06, 2008, 08:32:29 AM
I just had a thought . . . do the people living in Mexico know this? If they realize that the UK offers them a better lifestyle, maybe they'll go THERE, instead!!!
The people in the sandbox do. That's why they keep going there and trying to change it in the very ways that made the sandbox into a collection of dysfunctional hellholes.
Post by: longeyes on January 06, 2008, 08:38:55 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 06, 2008, 09:18:11 AM
Of course not. It's the evil boomers, stealing your social security. duh.
Oh, they can have that. Quote
Now get serious. Your standard of living is dropping. Do you care?
Obviously, not. I'm wasting my time talking to you.
Post by: El Tejon on January 06, 2008, 09:18:32 AM
Post by: Iain on January 06, 2008, 09:36:24 AM
The food stinks too. That's what drove my family out . . . well, that and we backed the wrong horse in the civil war.
That's not something an American should be proud of, unless you're talking longer term backing of the wrong horse and it was 1660 that caused the leaving.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 06, 2008, 09:42:59 AM
Post by: Declaration Day on January 06, 2008, 10:03:34 AM
The Oxford analysts also point out that Americans benefit from lower prices than those in Britain. With an adjustment made for this purchasing power parity , the average American has more spending power than his UK counterpart and pays lower taxes.
Here's an example of what cars cost in Britain.
Take, for example, the Jeep Grand Cherokee. In the United States, its base price is $29,215
According to Jeep's UK site, a base model Grand Cherokee is 24,590 GBP
Plug that figure into an online currency converter, and 24,590 GBP = 48,538.32 USD!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Iain on January 06, 2008, 10:09:39 AM
What civil war is the one he should be ashamed of?
Most vaguely sensible countries only have the one civil war, if that.Backing the wrong horse in the civil war implies support for the subsequently executed wannabe absolute monarch, Charles I. Having to leave in 1660 would suggest that during the civil war ones family was Parliamentarian (or agin the King) and the Restoration necessitated fleeing.
Having an ancestor who was a regicide is worth lots of bonus points.
Post by: HankB on January 07, 2008, 03:49:35 AM
. . . our cultural enrichers in the ghettos . . .
I like that term . . . I'm going to use it sometime in the future, without attribution. Sorry in advance.
Post by: K Frame on January 07, 2008, 05:43:34 AM
I suspect that were you to factor things like that into the entire equasion, instead of focusing on a single, largely meaningless datapoint, the American standard of living is still far and away better much better than it is in Britain.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 07, 2008, 06:06:05 AM
For the record, I like the UK and its culture and people, although I detest their social policies. If anything, they need another revolution, an armed and bloody one.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 07, 2008, 06:35:59 AM
When we stop subsidizing the world by being the world's free policeman and we stop importing poverty by illegal immigration, we will get back up there where we belong.
For the record, I like the UK and its culture and people, although I detest their social policies. If anything, they need another revolution, an armed and bloody one.
For the record, I like the UK and its culture and people, although I detest their social policies. If anything, they need another revolution, an armed and bloody one.
I won't be sending any weapons. The last time the US lent them a bunch of guns, even ones civilians donated, they dumped them in the Atlantic.
Post by: The Viking on January 07, 2008, 06:55:54 AM
. . . our cultural enrichers in the ghettos . . .
I like that term . . . I'm going to use it sometime in the future, without attribution. Sorry in advance. Post by: MrRezister on January 07, 2008, 11:08:28 AM
Post by: El Tejon on January 07, 2008, 12:18:10 PM
Post by: Paddy on January 07, 2008, 12:24:47 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 07, 2008, 02:21:37 PM
What civil war is the one he should be ashamed of?
Most vaguely sensible countries only have the one civil war, if that. You're saying Britain has had several?
Post by: doczinn on January 07, 2008, 02:47:55 PM
Post by: MrRezister on January 07, 2008, 02:51:56 PM
You're saying Britain has had several?
Ouch!
Actually, a long-ago uncle o' mine helped start G.B.'s second civil war by booting and beheading Charles I. Unfortunately, the public quickly realized they preferred a King to a Lord Protector, but I still look for opportunities to dethrone kings whenever possible.
Post by: K Frame on January 08, 2008, 03:04:35 AM
At the top of the heap are the War of Roses and the English Civil War...
Post by: Iain on January 08, 2008, 04:40:23 AM
By my definition there are probably very few countries that qualify as vaguely sensible, and we've had quite a few centuries to forget our senses here and there. I've seen 1642-51 claimed as being responsible for a greater percentage of deaths of the total population of England/Britain than the 20th century world wars.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 08, 2008, 08:58:40 AM
I won't be sending any weapons. The last time the US lent them a bunch of guns, even ones civilians donated, they dumped them in the Atlantic.
Funny you should mention that. Apparently, our own gov decided to destroy warplanes and tanks which survived the lend-lease. The Russkies maintained them and returned them in excellent condition at a port in the Far East (Vladivostock?). A US ship loaded a portion up, got out a few miles into the ocean, used a giant hydraulic press to crush them into small blocks, dumped the blocks into the sea, then chugged back to port to load up the next batch. When he heard about it, Stalin ordered that all surviving Shermans (Emkas) be disarmed and then used turretless as tractors. On paper, they were registered as war casualties, so that they are not returned for dumping into the ocean.
Fascinating story. If interested, read the source: "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" by Dmitriy Loza (memoirs). It is available from Amazon.
Post by: HankB on January 08, 2008, 10:27:58 AM
I won't be sending any weapons. The last time the US lent them a bunch of guns, even ones civilians donated, they dumped them in the Atlantic.
Funny you should mention that. Apparently, our own gov decided to destroy warplanes and tanks which survived the lend-lease. The Russkies maintained them and returned them in excellent condition at a port in the Far East (Vladivostock?). A US ship loaded a portion up, got out a few miles into the ocean, used a giant hydraulic press to crush them into small blocks, dumped the blocks into the sea, then chugged back to port to load up the next batch. When he heard about it, Stalin ordered that all surviving Shermans (Emkas) be disarmed and then used turretless as tractors. . . .
After WWII, we had lots of warplanes that were surplus . . . I read about a bunch of brand-new, P-38 G's or H's that were available (sans guns or military IFF) for $1250; individual Americans bought a few, and Chiang Kai Shek and his crew wanted to buy the whole bunch; Harry Truman, worried that they might be used against Mao, had them chopped up and scrapped instead.
Post by: K Frame on January 08, 2008, 10:37:00 AM
LOTS.
I used to have a bunch of radio equipment that came from Sherman tanks. All of the dials and switches were labeled in Russian.
The British also supplied a lot of tracked vehicles to the Soviets.
Here's a good page on the subject...
http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 08, 2008, 01:40:17 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 08, 2008, 06:43:16 PM
There was even an AAF drinking song bit:
Don't give me a P-39
With an engine stuck up its behind
It will tumble and roll
And dig a big hole
Oh don't give me a P-39
But the Russian slang for it among their pilots apparently translated to "Can Opener", regarding its effectiveness against German armor.
Post by: French G. on January 08, 2008, 11:10:28 PM