Small change if earth's yrly GDP / earth's population

[Brook Renwick]

If the world's GDP [Gross domestic profit] which is apparently $40 million * million - Is divided by the world's population [apparanlty 6.8 billion] the amount of USD$ that each living person would get is about $650 USD....

How long would it take before we had a society of rich and poor again?

My rent is $350 per week
My utilities $100 per week
My food bill $100 per week
My cigarettes $25 per packet per week [Australia]

= I would not have much left after a week off work :-)

[flannel jesus]

Your math is wrong.
40millionmillion / 6.8billion is, by my calculations, 5 882.35.
Your result was almost 10 times less, and the numbers aren't even similar, so one of us is doing something massively wrong.

[BadgerJelly]

What about property?

Kind of a HUGE factor in the equation.

[weakmagneto]

Brook: Where did you get the figure for the world's GDP? The figure usually sits in the trillions not millions?

[flannel jesus]

$40 million * million

Brook: Where did you get the figure for the world's GDP? The figure usually sits in the trillions not millions?

a million million is a trillion

[weakmagneto]

Whoops! Did not see that! Thanks FJ.

[flannel jesus]

Also, I think one thing people fail to realize when talking about global income levels is that the cost of living isn't the same everywhere, and it isn't necessarily completely accounted for after converting from whatever currency is under question to the dollar.

I live in France, for example, and 1 Euro is worth 1.315 Dollars, so one might naively expect that the cost in Euros of living here should be less than the cost in Dollars of living in the US, but in fact the number of Euros required to live for a month comfortably in France is actually equal to or more than the number of Dollars required to live at the same standard in the states.

In other words, even after doing standard conversions between currencies, the "real value" is still obscured. So it's not exactly immediately clear what the data in the OP actually tells us -- all it tells us is how many dollars the average person makes, but that actually tells us quite little, I think, about the actually relevant details, like quality of life etc.

In certain poor places, for example, where people work for some amount of money that, when converted to dollars, most Americans would find horrific -- in fact that horrifically low income can often, because of local food prices and things like that, provide actually a fairly comfortable standard of living. Maybe they don't have internet, maybe they don't go to the movies as often as their American counter parts, but they eat well.

So, it's a bit more complicated, I think, than just taking the worldwide GDP and averaging it out.

[mtbturtle]

also, GDP = gross domestic product not "profit"

[Brook Renwick]

Thx. My maths was wrong as I missed 3 zeros. Ur figure of $5500 is closer.
I am not an accountant and this does not tke into account anything but the GDP. It is just indicating that if all of the Assets, land etc were divided up equally amongst 6.8 billion folks it would not go all that far. Also as someone mentioned elsewhere on the net....maybe it would not take long before there was a rich and poor separation again?
I think if currency was taken into account such the chinese Yuan is approx 1/10 value of the USD$ it would some difference but the point is that no-one would get rich out of the exercise. No-one could retire on the earnings....In Australia and maybe America also we would each need a lot more than this to even take 6 months off work.
My reason for calculating this was to work out if folks are right to think we would be better off distributing the world's wealth around much as the fish and loaves were distributed. [I am not a christian]
With a 10 / 90 or as I heard it 20 / 80 ratio happening [20% own 80%] maybe this is a better situation to be in some can help out more if they have the power and the $$. Apparently the world bank gives 30% of its profits to underdeveloped countries for assistance. The world bank could not do this if the GDP was divided up equally and currency taken into consideration????

[Brook Renwick]

I only mean to say that if we want to live in a better world we ought not to complain that is no Robin Hood to take from the rich and give to the poor cos that would not work I don't think? Sure - chariity is a good thing!! BUT without the big powerful "Movers and Shakers" of the world such as the world bank we would be worse off. What do you think??