Umm, the average American PCPI was $29,676; Alabama's was only $23,471. Still more than Sweden's, though.

Of course, median income isn't the same thing as poverty rate; Sweden likely has a much tighter distribution, and so might possibly have fewer people below some poverty line.

With a 30% differential I find that hard to believe, although...

One also needs to factor in taxes and state-supplied services (eg, Healthcare). I'm not at all sure which that would favor, but 30% is 30%.

Sorry to follow up so fast, but according to http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts/stbf/bf1/b128000.htm , Mississippi's PCPI was $20,900, which wasn't lower than Sweden's for the same period.

No doubt Alterman will claim a victory for that; of course, if I were Swedish I wouldn't exactly be happy that my per cap was 71% of Alabama's, anyway...

I'd note that Alterman is the one who switched from Per capita income to poverty rates.

Thank God. I was afraid I was below average even for Alabama, which would just have been too depressing. Anyway, things are cheap here.

One also needs to factor in taxes and state-supplied services (eg, Healthcare).

Our taxes are almost certainly lower by any measurement, although I don't have a link. Advantage: U.S.

Lots of our healthcare is paid for either by taxes or by employers - no real diff as long as it doesn't come out of your pocket. For poor people, the government foots the tab (partially), and forces the providers to eat the shortfall, so I would say that, from a quantitative standpoint, this is probably either a wash or advantage: U.S. (especially if you count the value of services delivered, which would be higher n the U.S.) From a qualitative standpoint, no question ours is better. Plus, we don't have lines due to gove't rationing of access.

I *live* in Mississippi, and it's barely above third-world conditions in vast areas of the state. It's truly frightening to imagine that the Swedes aren't much better off.

(And while they may have advantages in pickled herring, we have a huge advantage in price and quality of pork skins and barbecue. Haute cuisine it's not, but I've had ribs (at Leatha's, for those who know it) that would make you murder your entire family twice over just to taste them again.)

The CIA Factbook figure is per capita Gross Domestic Product. Hence, it embraces all of the income that is available to Swedes for all purposes and should not be adjusted for taxes or socialized medicine. The purchasing power parity calculation is supposed to take into account differences in cost of living.

I'm not sure that per capita GDP is comparable to per capita personal income (the numbers cited for Mississippi and Alabama). The latter is presumably lower than the former, which makes Sweden look even worse.

You know, Moe, you could have leapt to my defense when I was surrounded and defending this thesis by myself over on Pyramid.

A good way to compare purchasing parity is to compare ownership of basic appliances. Sweden as a whole owns fewer appliances than America's poor. Full statistics available on my blog.

'Sweden's purchasing power parity'

Average purchasing power parity; median tells a much different story. This also doesn't include hours worked per worker; we work 20% more hours than Swedes, on average.

Is it me, or am I the only one to notice that $20,688 is actually LESS than $22,200?

There are certain other, less easy to quantify factors to consider as well; for instance, not being able to afford a car is less of a problem when there's a decent (nationwide) public transportation system. Sweden has one, I doubt Mississippi does.