The relationship between climate and wealth

I'm thinking of moving to India and working for McDonald's. The money I'm making here as a luxury chef sure isn't going far enough. Besides, they have McTikka there. <looks around for Gautam waiting to kill me, I run away>

cav, I sincerely doubt $400 a year is an average income in India. My guesstimation is at least triple that amount.

Services are much cheaper in third world countries, some food is also cheaper, but durable goods have more or less the same prize everywhere.

So a guy who earns $9,000 a year and golfs every weekend strikes me as improbable. Anywhere in the world (if he's doesn't work in the golf club).

Hmm, I was just going on figures posted in the article. They are not necessarily accurate, media source and all.

When I visited India a couple years ago, we were hosted to dinner by a middle class family where all four sons with their family lived with the parents in what I would consider a mansion. The combined income of all four sons was about $40,000/year. My wife works three days a week, and earns more. Everything is relative; the lifestyle they have in India by that family is probably in the top ten percent. Our income in this country doesn't provide that much relative wealth in the US. We're probably somewhere in the top 35 percent range.

[quote="Craven de Kere" But in Brazil I never worried about money went out every single night and had a maid...[/quote]

Craven, This is a reflection on the maids, and barmaids, finances as much as it is on yours.

If the much vaunted liberal "saftey net" in the Western world was lessened and education was denied many of the less afluent females I could probably afford a maid also here in West Virginia.

It's indeed an unfortunate fact of life that female sufferage and womens educational and job opportunities have considerably reduced the amount of women who wish to do housework for a living. This has generally raised the price of this service, thus making "having a maid" an aspiration for the well to do only. A working professional person may well justify the expense. The rest of us make do with automatic washers, permanent press clothes, and often a rumpled bed.
A reasonable sacrifice Definitly a subjective question.

Definitely. And at times I'd feel bad about having a maid (she was elderly) but not employing her would have been worse.

Thing is, if you get to thinking about all of this it gets very depressing.

Incidentally I do not think it's related to women's education. The men end up as pedreiros, camelôs etc etc.

In 1997, $100/month was the monthly average income for Russian workers (professional or not). In late 2002, it had risen to $160-$180 a month, with the figures in Moscow, Salekhard or Tyumen reaching $500 to $600.

fbaezer, Thanks for the update on the Russian average income increasing to $160-$180/month. That's significant when compared to other third world countries where average income has been stagnant or going lower.

About personal services (maids, etc).

This is more a matter of poverty than a matter of gender difference.
Greater female equality has made that the price of typically femenine services has risen more than the price of typically masculine services.

When I was a child, a stay at home maid would make about 2% of a senior executive wage. You could hire a man to move furniture around for about 4% of the daily wage of the senior executive.
(1 and 2 dollars a day, respectively)

Now, an in-and-out maid, with weekends off, would make about 8% of a senior executive's wage. And one day of work of an unskilled furniture mover would cost about 10% of the manager's daily wage.
(15 and 19 dollars a day, respectively).

Yes Craven, The alternative to hiring a personal service employee is often worse.
When some people rant and rave about "sweatshops" I also have mixed feelings.
Often employees are abused but a low wage is in itself better than no wage at all.
The abuses should be taken care of by society's rules. Simple economics should handle the wage question adequetly, if not satisfactorily, or too promptly.

In any case the poor old lady knew no better. She'd get mad when I gave her time off. She'd do crazy stuff like show up on Christmas and New Years. I'd meet her at the door and tell her to go home and relax and she'd beg me to at least let her do the dishes. sigh

It was her life, she was big on routines, made me kinda sad.

Our maid comes in every other week, and her hourly pay is close to $30. I think she does better than most doing that kind of work.

Good God - I thought I had already replied to your remarks
about my input on this thread of conversation - but I don't' see
it in any of the back pages, maybe it didn't take, but:
At any rate - what mostly occurs with me is a kind of
wandering of the mind - hopping from one thing to another
like a rabbit.
Don't know it it has anything to do with advancing age - but
it annoys the crap out of my daughters also, if that is any
consolation to you. You are not alone. Many of the comments
had nothing to do with your original topic.
The only true things that I have to add to the topic about
climate and wealth - is that different descendants from different
ethnic groups came to the "new world" ages ago - and they
inhabited varying places in this new and empty land.
So - essentially - it may or may not be climate oriented. It is
possible that it could be ethnic-oriented.
It's is a possibility; YES? Even then, in terms of wealth in the
colder climates - even THIS is wealth split amongst some of
the very few big family fortunes such as the Carnegies,or
the owners of coal mining operations, steel making & all kinds
of improvement in industrialization.
Also - when I think of the early to mid 1940's - all the years
during which John Nash attended Princeton - while many of
the great minds of mathematics were there as well, having
intelligently made an early decision to leave Germany and
Austria prior to Hitler's rise to total power such as Einstein
and Von Neuman; so I believe that there are ALSO time
related variables involved as well. During those years at
Princeton, so much free thinking, so much encouragement
to develop new ideas. Whereas now that we have the
wealthy few - who tend to dominate certain markets -
where improvement would NOT be appreciated, because
it would adversely affect "their fortunes".
I DO think that many new ideas and inventions are
suppressed because they would spoil the wealth of those
who have the majority of the money in the USA. So - all in
all what I'm saying is that I believe there to be other
variables involved ... and that it is not as simple as
climate = wealth OR climate = industrialization.
Thanks for listening. Babs

I am again forced to quote the very first paragraph of this thread:

Well I'm throwing in my two-bits.
I perceive that when it is unseasonably warm, that it greatly slows most work functions.
And the weather has been making some radical changes and continue to do so.
And THAT was my two-bits.

Post script: Please feel free to correct me on any punctuation errors. Ima learndin'.
adele

Well - yes, you certainly did add that to your
discussion, Craven. I stand corrected for not re-reading your
original post far more carefully - and I DID miss that.
Ah well - to err is human, to forgive is divine. So look at
how much divinity you are gaining via this one simple
post.

Ahh, don't mind me. It's just that each time I discuss this people seem to focus on the fact that there is an exception they can think of or that there are also other factors.

Both are true but to me that was always a given.

$1,200 a year?

I am a nitwit when it comes to economic indicators. And Googling for "average income" yields surprisingly little, nothing, really. Only lots of indicators on GNI and GDP per capita.

'Ccording to the Asian Development Bank, India's GNI per capita was $460 in 2001, higher than Vietnam, Mongolia and Pakistan but lower than Uzbekistan and Papua New Guinea and considerably lower than Indonesia.

This World Bank report has loads and loads of data (see statistical index), and lists "Per Capita Income" for India in 2000 as $450, as compared to $840 for China and $3580 for Brazil. It lists "PPP Per capita income" as $2340, as compared to $3920 and $7300 for China and Brazil.

World Bank figures from 2002 have the above two figures listed as "GNI per capita - Atlas methodology (US$)" at $480, and "GNI per capita - Purchasing power parity (international dollars)" at $2570. In the first case India ranks between Yemen and Lesotho, in the second between Lesotho and Honduras.

What's all that mean? (Told you I was a nitwit).

According to the UN Statistics Division, 35% of India's 2000 population - over one in three - lived on less than "1 $ (PPP) per day consumption" (or less than $365 a year, thus) - now thats a stat I can immediately understand. The above-mentioned WB report even has 44% of India's 1997 population at "below US$l/day".

nimh, Statistics rarely tell the full story, because they are based on the 'averages, median, and mean' of total numbers. For all practical purposes, these numbers do not represent the reality by which the people lives. Here's one example that will explain it somewhat. In the US, different areas have different living costs. The major factor in living cost is housing. In the Silicon Valley, it would be impossible to be earning $35,000 a year and consider buying a home in this area, because the 'average' cost of a home is probably around $500,000. There are homes for sale in the $200,000 range or $2,000,000 range. However, rents are more affordable for the person earning $35,000, because one can rent for $1,200 or less depending on whether they share the rent with somebody else. I read some months ago that the 'average' income for people living in Silicon Valley is around $75,000 a year. If we have people living in our area earning $35,000, there are others earning hundreds of millions, especially in the high tech industries. When a report says that such and such a countries per capita income is $480, it can be as misleading as the example I gave above. Even in our area, there are people earning minimum wage of about $12,000/year. The picture isn't any more clear with the declaration that the average income in Silicon Valley is $75,000.

nimh, you're saying I'm right!

If the average per capita income is $450, then the average income per worker should be around, at least $1,200. Remember that the per capita income includes members not on the work force. This means children, elder dependants, students, non working spouses, unemployed, etcetera.

We are not talking about income distribution, but about comparing what is comparable.

c.i's commentary about living costs is also important.