Uruguay fact of the day

by on June 1, 2016 at 2:38 am in Uncategorized | Permalink

Person with a median income in Uruguay is better-off than 73% of the world population.

Uruguay

That is from Branko Milanovic.

1 Ray Lopez June 1, 2016 at 3:37 am

Meaningless stat, like Kettering once remarked at GM, about a car having over 10k moving parts, so what? You must adjust for Africa’s 1b in population when doing these stats. Where is Uruguay vis-a-vis Chile, South America?

Bonus trivia: U* borders the river Plate, which means “Silver” in Spanish and was the site of a WWI and/or WWII naval battle between the UK and Germany, involving a “pocket battleship”.

2 prior_test2 June 1, 2016 at 4:20 am

WWII – ‘The Battle of the River Plate was the first naval battle in the Second World War and the first one of Battle of the Atlantic in South American waters. The German cruiser Admiral Graf Spee had been located in the South Atlantic a long time before the war began, and had been commerce raiding after the war began in September 1939. One of the hunting groups sent by the British Admiralty to search for Graf Spee, comprising three Royal Navy cruisers, HMS Exeter, Ajax and Achilles (the last from the New Zealand Division), found and engaged their quarry off the estuary of the River Plate close to the coast of Argentina and Uruguay in South America.

In the ensuing battle, Exeter was severely damaged and forced to retire; Ajax and Achilles suffered moderate damage. The damage to Graf Spee, although not extensive, was critical; her fuel system was crippled. Ajax and Achilles shadowed the German ship until she entered the port of Montevideo, the capital city of neutral Uruguay, to effect urgent repairs. After Graf Spee’s captain Hans Langsdorff was told that his stay could not be extended beyond 72 hours, he scuttled his damaged ship rather than face the overwhelmingly superior force that the British had led him to believe was awaiting his departure.’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Plate

3 Jan June 1, 2016 at 6:05 am

“adjust for Africa’s 1b in population”? Like count them each as 1/2 a person or something?

4 MOFO June 1, 2016 at 9:09 am

Surely you mean 3/5ths of a person, to make your sneer historically relevant?

5 Jan June 1, 2016 at 6:58 pm

No, those were US-based black people. Anyway, Ray’s comment makes no sense. I really don’t know what he meant.

6 Thiago Ribeiro June 1, 2016 at 6:11 am

There is no Uruguay. The former Cisplatine Province, that is, province of this side of (the Rio de la) Plata, a former rebel province of the former Empire of Brazil, is and always will be an inalienable part of the Brazilian nation. Its reunion, sooner or later, with its brethren will be brought by the very historical inevitability born of the unmistakable justice of our cause.

7 O Sul é o Meu País June 1, 2016 at 6:33 am

Can you imagine how rich and powerful a greater Rio Grande would be. Time for another Ragamuffin War.

8 Thiago Ribeiro June 1, 2016 at 7:03 am

Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina are inalienable parts of the Brazilian nation, and the Ragamuffin rebels were justly vanquished by the undefeatable Brazilian Armed Forces under Caxias’ irreproachable leadership. Those sta can not really thrive and fulfill their destiny outside the communion with the rest of the Brazilian nation.

9 Thomas June 1, 2016 at 9:25 am

Such bloodlust. You would make a great American imperialist.

10 The Anti-Gnostic June 1, 2016 at 9:48 am

You will weep like a child about “isolationism” the day America decides to be a Republic again.

11 Chuck June 1, 2016 at 5:51 pm

Sadly not gonna happen. Merchants would not like.

12 Troll me June 2, 2016 at 2:06 am

You don’t have to be an empire to trade. Singapore seems to do quite well.

13 The Anti-Gnostic June 2, 2016 at 10:56 am

Yes. Authoritarian city-states do pretty well.

14 Troll me June 3, 2016 at 12:11 am

In which sense to you consider Singapore as authoritarian, when considering life as lived by people who live there?

Why does the notion that it’s possible to trade without having an empire offend you so much?

15 Thiago Ribeiro June 1, 2016 at 10:13 am

There is no bloodlust involved whatsoever. I’d would rather the so-called Uruguay re-enter our Union peacefully. I am all for offering very generous terms, even some measure of autonomy. Maybe some variation of “One Country, Two Systems” would do. Deng Xiaoping promissed that Hong Kong could have stock exchanges and horse racing for another fifty years (now, it seems Mainland China will be having at least the former for a long time, too). Uruguay can have barbecue and liberated pot for a century as far as I am concerned.
Brazil is one of the few countries that never fought a war of aggression, our country only fought against invaders, most notably against the Paraguayan aggressor. Even then, against a savage regime that conscripted women and children to kill Brazilian soldiers, our noble forefathers behaved with the most commendable restrain and the most remarkable generosity, freeing Paraguay from tyranny and terror. But make no mistake, if necessary be, we will be ready to trample out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.

16 Troll me June 2, 2016 at 2:08 am

It doesn’t really quite seem that you’re joking. ??

17 Thiago Ribeiro June 2, 2016 at 4:50 am

I am not joking. Brazil shall rise again and redress the humiliations that were imposed on us . As the Germans used to say after the fall of the Berlin Wall, “We are one people”. The exile of our Cisplatine brothers must end, they must rejoin our Union.

18 Troll me June 3, 2016 at 12:33 am

You didn’t strike my as the kind of guy that can remained worked up about an independence movement that achieved success 200 years ago.

It was Spanish, and then there was an anti-imperial independence revolution, and then Brazil had military rule over it for a few years, and then they were independent.

And they speak Spanish there. I’m still not sure if you’re joking. Or perhaps there is some really manipulative propaganda about the matter in some circles in Brazil? Or perhaps I misunderstand the very basic historical outline I presented (from Wiki)?

19 PV van der Byl June 3, 2016 at 9:09 am

Will your Cisplatine brothers be speaking Spanish or Portuguese?

20 Chuck June 1, 2016 at 5:51 pm

There is no United States of America. Just a rebel province of the British Empire.

21 Thiago Ribeiro June 1, 2016 at 6:50 pm

It is a different matter. The American territory was conquered by colonists, but the Cisplatine Province, by its own free volition, asked admission to our Union and can’t be other thing than a part of the Brazilian Empire or its successor states. No one has the right to keep our country divided. The exile of our Cisplatine brethren must end, another star will grace Brazil’s proud flag!
“The Union forever! Hurrah, boys, hurrah!
Down with the traitors, up with the stars;
While we rally round the flag, boys, we rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!”

22 Steve Sailer June 1, 2016 at 4:19 am

It’s a meaningful stat for predicting immigration flows. Mexico, for example, is not a particularly poor country, but about 35 million Mexicans now live in the U.S.

It’s also interesting to compare means and medians: Mexico has a decent median, according to this chart, but a high mean, due to Carlos Slim and his pals pocketing such a large share of Mexico’s wealth generation.

Using the CIA World Factbook’s GDP per capita (Purchasing Power Parity adjusted) rankings, the mean Mexican has been wealthier than the means of countries with a population of about 5 billion.

That’s rather sobering when thinking about the border.

23 prior_test2 June 1, 2016 at 4:42 am

‘but about 35 million Mexicans now live in the U.S.’

Is this a Trump style observation, saying that ‘Mexicans’ are something other than citizens of Mexico? Because with a population of 120 million, it is extremely hard to imagine that more than a quarter of Mexico’s entire population lives in the U.S., especially as the number of Mexicans living in the U.S. with legal immigration status is somewhere around 5.5 million, and even if one goes with extremely high estimates of the number of Mexican citizens residing in the U.S. without a legal status, one still only arrives at a number around 20 million, almost half of your figure.

On the other hand, if one uses Trump’s way of counting Mexicans, which apparently in no sense considers whether those he is counting are American or Mexican citizens, then maybe you can arrive at that 35 million figure.

As if anyone is surprised that someone such as yourself can tell Mexicans by just looking, much the same way Trump believes that a U.S. District Court Judge is Mexican.

Proving, that at least in this newer age of Trumpian discourse (one where you can finally speak more freely, it seems), you obviously believe that citizenship is just a social construct, one where the citizenship of a federal judge is meaningless in terms of apparently more important criteria. Such as listing the number of ‘Mexicans’ living in the U.S. without any consideration of their actual citizenship at all. Though admittedly, maybe you aren’t actually using racial measures, it is just you are ignorant of or disinterested in any data – which is another part of Trump’s appeal, at least to some of his more fervent supporters.

24 Steve Sailer June 1, 2016 at 4:58 am

From the Pew Hispanic Center:

“A Demographic Portrait of Mexican-Origin Hispanics in the United States
BY ANA GONZALEZ-BARRERA AND MARK HUGO LOPEZ

“Mexican-Origin Hispanics in the United States

“A record 33.7 million Hispanics of Mexican origin resided in the United States in 2012, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by Pew Research Center. This estimate includes 11.4 million immigrants born in Mexico and 22.3 million born in the U.S. who self-identified as Hispanics of Mexican origin.”

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/01/a-demographic-portrait-of-mexican-origin-hispanics-in-the-united-states/

25 Axa June 1, 2016 at 6:04 am

Poor Sailer can’t make the difference between ancestry and citizenship. 45 million of US citizens self-identify as German, 30 million as Irish, about 25 million English. If ancestry/self-identified ethnicity is something important, the US is in problems, only 7% self-identifies as American. That’s 2000 Census data, it seems the question was not made on 2010 Census.

https://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/censusatlas/pdf/9_Ancestry.pdf

26 The Anti-Gnostic June 1, 2016 at 7:34 am

The US is in problems.

27 Peter Akuleyev June 1, 2016 at 7:49 am

The fact that only 7% of Americans self-identify as Americans is indeed a huge problem, and if that percentage does not increase then that presents a serious threat to the long-term stability of the country.

28 Peter Akuleyev June 1, 2016 at 7:54 am

You should also keep in mind that Americans generally get no special benefits or privileges by self-identifying as “German”, “Irish” or “English”. Self-identifying as Hispanic of Mexican origin entitles you to a host of affirmative action benefits, scholarship funds and “White House initiatives”. That deepens the rift between Hispanics and Americans of other ethnicities and the gulf is only going to grow worse over time.

29 Thiago Ribeiro June 1, 2016 at 8:39 am

Well, if only 7% of Americans self-identifies as Americans, it is hardly the Hispanics’ fault. And the Hispanics are as Hispanic as the Blacks are Black and the Caucasians are Caucasians. What should they identify themselves as?

30 IVV June 1, 2016 at 10:59 am

I’m an American citizen by birth, and I identify my ancestry as German, Irish, English, and, yes, Mexican.

Good to know I’m still just fleeing my homeland.
(I don’t even speak Spanish.)

31 Heorogar June 1, 2016 at 1:21 pm

Many Americans can trace their roots to other countries: Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, etc. Go to the St. Patrick’s Day parade in NYC.

Silly people, those Americans’ ancestors came here and learned to speak English; embraced the (extinct) American way of self-government; fought and won two world wars, plus less successful smaller wars; and assimilated. Some newer arrivals (Latino and Moslem invaders come to mind) refuse to learn the language; attack/murder/rape; violently riot at political events: waving Mexican flags, burning American flags. threatening death and violence; etc. The invaders, and the treasonous fifth column, have fundamentally destroyed America and instituted a thing that many of the 280 million of the rest of Americans did not want: Viva Venezuela.

32 IVV June 1, 2016 at 2:58 pm

So am I assimilated, or tainted by where my specific ancestors came from?

33 The Original D June 1, 2016 at 3:28 pm

The worst thing about the rise of Trump is he’s provided a template for trolls like Harding and Heorogar.

34 John L. June 1, 2016 at 3:28 pm

“Silly people, those Americans’ ancestors came here and learned to speak English; embraced the (extinct) American way of self-government; fought and won two world wars, plus less successful smaller wars; and assimilated. Some newer arrivals (Latino and Moslem invaders come to mind) refuse to learn the language; attack/murder/rape; violently riot at political events: waving Mexican flags, burning American flags. threatening death and violence; etc. The invaders, and the treasonous fifth column, have fundamentally destroyed America and instituted a thing that many of the 280 million of the rest of Americans did not want: Viva Venezuela.”
Oh, those Mexicans and “Moslems”, they abolished American self-government. America’s president is even Black… Hahaha

35 GoneWithTheWind June 1, 2016 at 7:07 pm

“about 35 million Mexicans now live in the U.S.”

Of course you meant 35 million hispanics, right. Indeed many “Mexicans” live in the U.S. But many Americans who came from Mexico or whose ancestors came from Mexico live here but they are not “Mexicans”.

36 Axa June 1, 2016 at 7:15 am

The histogram of medians is good only is the distribution is unimodal. If i remember well, income distribution is bi-modal in Latin America. The median may be high, but the frequency (amount of people) close to the median may not be the largest group of people in the country.

37 Banned Guy. June 1, 2016 at 10:07 am

Income distribution is highly skewed in most LA countries (Argentina and Uruguay the exceptions). It is not bi-modal anywhere.

38 Axa June 1, 2016 at 7:17 am

The histogram of medians is good only IF the distribution is unimodal…..typing on a screen is not easy =(

39 Brian Donohue June 1, 2016 at 7:49 am

The History of Human Life on Planet Earth, Even Unto The Present Day, is Almost Entirely What We in the 21st Century West Would Describe As Grinding Poverty

40 Scott Sumner June 1, 2016 at 9:10 am

I suspect that the data is wildly inaccurate, as there is no source. The median income in Mexico is more than 10% below Bolivia? About 20% below Brazil? I’d guess it’s actually much higher than both those countries.

Mexico’s average income (PPP) is more than 2 1/2 times higher than Bolivia, and 10% higher than Brazil. The World Bank reports Ginis of .48 for both Mexico and Bolivia, and .53 for Brazil. How can Mexico do far worse than the other two on median but not mean, if it’s Gini is as good as Bolivia and better than Brazil? I don’t get it.

41 Todd Kreider June 1, 2016 at 12:14 pm

I wondered if someone was going to point out there is no source.

Mexico was the stand out that seemed like it wasn’t correct, although several countries seemed plausible at a glance assuming the gini coefficients weren’t too different from that of Uruguay.

42 Larry Siegel June 2, 2016 at 7:38 pm

It’s probably not PPP adjusted. At 19 pesos to the dollar, Mexican incomes are very low using market exchange rates but not using PPP exchange rates, because the cost of living is also low.

43 bob June 3, 2016 at 8:40 pm

I agree the data looks suspect. I lived in Bolivia and it is not that wealthy. I am also surprised that Chile does not do better.

One of the things I wonder is the ranking of Chile. One question I have never been able to figure out is how much of the economic success of Chile during the Pinochet era was propaganda and how much was legitimate economic growth. Defenders of Pinochet always seem to give out statistics that start after the economic collapse of 1982. How much more prosperous are the Chileans than other Latin countries? This chart indicates they are towards the top end but is the median Chilean less affluent than the average Argentinean? And if that is true then there was no economic miracle in Chile.

44 Excursive June 1, 2016 at 9:11 am

I identified myself as German ancestry in the 2000 census, but am of course American. It’s a gross misrepresentation of the census question to say that people “identified” as “being” not American. The question was historical.

45 extensive June 1, 2016 at 9:44 am

Uruguay would seem to be a fine illustration of what Dierdre McClosesky is arguing. As the New York Times notes :
“Because here nobody is better than anybody else.” The phrase, one of this small South American country’s most cherished sayings, dates back to the 19th century and is often repeated by its thinkers, presidents and everyday citizens. As a simple expression of the democratic spirit, it sums up how Uruguayans feel about their homeland.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/opinion/uruguays-quiet-democratic-miracle.html?_r=0
Uruguay, like The Netherlands, is noted for its tolerance, politeness, and relaxed attitude. When your country is not overrun with busybodies, as in the USA, peace and prosperity flourish. Uruguay’s GDP per capita will exceed that of the USA in less than 20 years (somebody should bet Bryan Caplan).

46 Banned Guy. June 1, 2016 at 10:03 am

When your country is not overrun with busybodies, as in the USA, peace and prosperity flourish.

Our busy-body laden country is more peaceful and prosperous than any Latin American country, by a factor of at least 2.5.

Uruguay’s GDP per capita will exceed that of the USA in less than 20 years

Uruguay’s GDP per capita (PPP) was 26% of that of the United States in 1990 and 38% of that of the United States in 2014. The smart money’s not betting on them surpassing any country in western Europe, North America, or the Antipodes in the next 20 years, bar perhaps Portugal.

47 Dave Anthony June 1, 2016 at 1:09 pm

“Our busy-body laden country is more peaceful”

I imagine there are some Iraqi, Afghan, Yemeni, Libyan, Syrian, Pakistani, and Iranian people who disagree.

48 Art Deco June 1, 2016 at 4:14 pm

Iraq was a charnel house from 1968 to 2003 and for some portion of the time from 1958 to 1968 as well. I notice you seem to fancy that the Taliban, the Iraqi insurgency, various Libyans, the Syrian government forces, and the Syrian rebel forces do not carry loaded weapons or kill people. You also seem to have conjured out of your imagination a non-existent insurgency in Pakistan and another in Iran (or maybe you think the Iran – Iraq War was a seamless plot concocted by Jimmy Carter).

49 Thiago Ribeiro June 1, 2016 at 6:58 pm

“I notice you seem to fancy that the Taliban, the Iraqi insurgency, various Libyans, the Syrian government forces, and the Syrian rebel forces do not carry loaded weapons or kill people.”
Evidently the Iraqui insurgency has nothing to do with things the American regime did after 2003… I wonder why we didn’t hard of them, say, in 1996.
If there is no insurgency in Pakistan, who are “we” murdering there? Illegal immigrants? Maybe “we” should let our Pakistani “allies” deal with their own problems. “”Pakistan has repeatedly protested these attacks as an infringement of its sovereignty and because civilian deaths have also resulted, including women and children, which has further angered the Pakistani government and people” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan

50 Troll me June 2, 2016 at 2:16 am

Re: Syria. As much as I don’t like Assad, it is not free of blame that there was an imbued understanding of significant arms and monetary support for the rebels from certain elements belonging to the US state.

When you promote a revolution and then back out once it starts, how fair is it to blame the existing regime that defends against the revolutionaries? I have nothing good whatsoever to say about Assad, but I believe this is a relevant perspective.

51 IVV June 1, 2016 at 11:01 am

Wait, the median Venezuelan is better off than 65%?

Really?

52 zbicyclist June 1, 2016 at 11:14 am

That VEN number makes you wonder how old this data is.

53 Dave Anthony June 1, 2016 at 1:10 pm

And how accurate has the VEN number been over the last 15 years. Socialist autocratic governments don’t like for the numbers to look bad.

54 Thiago Ribeiro June 1, 2016 at 7:01 pm

As opposed to all other governments…

55 mobile June 1, 2016 at 1:33 pm

If you turn the chart sideways, it resembles the Uruguay flag.

56 Thiago Ribeiro June 1, 2016 at 7:03 pm

There is no Uruguay. The former Cisplatine Province, that is, province of this side of (the Rio de la) Plata, a former rebel province of the former Empire of Brazil, is and always will be an inalienable part of the Brazilian nation. Its reunion, sooner or later, with its brethren will be brought by the very historical inevitability born of the unmistakable justice of our cause.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: