this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2026
19 points (95.2% liked)

Political Discussion and Commentary

1600 readers
14 users here now

A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!

The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.

Content Rules:

  1. Self posts preferred.
  2. Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
  3. No spam or self promotion.
  4. Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.

Commentary Rules

  1. Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
  2. Stay on topic.
  3. Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
  4. Provide credible sources whenever possible.
  5. Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
  6. Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
  7. Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).

Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.

Partnered Communities:

• Politics

• Science

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
laverabe@lemmy.world
laverabe@lemmy.zip
19
The difference between GDP per capita and Income per capita is the amount extracted from workers by corporations (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by workerONE@lemmy.world to c/politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It occurred to me after seeing a video about England's low GDP per capita, that Income per capita is the amount workers receive (before taxes), so the difference I think, is the amount taken by companies as profit. Am I missing something? Seems right to me

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I think you're fundamentally Misunderstanding what GDP is and what GDP capita is. GDP is the value of goods or services created. But in many cases those services represent the value. So what winds up being included is just the wage. For example the wage of a government worker, which represents 25% of all jobs in Canada, is included in the GDP. The wages for many other sectors are also included in the GDP.

In addition you're not taking into account corporate disbursement such as dividends. Dividends are not retained by the corporation, and are very frequently paid to pension funds and workers directly if they happen to own shares in the company. Many companies also have Various forms of profit sharing along those lines and that would be after corporate earnings. Many middle class people own stocks as part of their retirement portfolios or rrsps. They would also benefit from those dividends and the corporation would not

So it wouldn't be accurate to say that at all. I guess you could sort of say there's a sort of a kind of relationship but not really.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

In the case of a public utility or non profit organization that does not generate any profit, the value of a service is probably measured using its cost. Even though wages may account for the majority of the cost there are always material costs and overhead. I'm only referring to your example where you say the value of a service only includes wages.

You mention dividends and say they are not retained by the company. They are profit that is distributed to shareholders. What a company does with its profit is irrelevant to the discussion.

Price - Cost = Profit

My statement in the original post could only be true if all costs are derived from labor. I just spent a few minutes reading this reddit post on Marx's economic theory https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/s/pKHF2zltlj

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

In the case of a public utility or not for profit exactly what I said is true.

"Because public services like healthcare, national defense, and education are rarely sold at a market price, Statistics Canada measures their output by calculating the cost to produce them. Therefore, the value of government output is deemed to be exactly equal to the total cost of the wages paid to public servants plus the cost of intermediate inputs."

So wages in such cases directly increase the GDP. If you pay a nurse or a police officer $50 per hour then for that hour the GDP goes up by $50

In the case where a corporation distributes profits it absolutely is relevant. You made the statement that the corporation is retaining the profits and that's not accurate. Dividends are akin to repayment of a loan. They are cost of doing business.

My statement in the original post could only be true if all costs are derived from labor.

Sure. In such a case GDP and income would be equal pre-tax.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

For public services and non profit, here you say you think wages are the only component included: "But in many cases those services represent the value. So what winds up being included is just the wage." When you say "just the wage" it means you don't think other costs are included (materials, overhead).

I speculated that the total cost must be used. Then you say the truth is exactly like you say but the quote you provide says this "the value of government output is deemed to be exactly equal to the total cost of the wages paid to public servants plus the cost of intermediate inputs."

If you look up the definition of intermediate inputs you'll see it includes other services, goods, and energy. So in the case of nursing they include medical supplies, electricity, and office costs like payroll services. It doesn't seem like that's what you said in your first post.

Regarding dividends, they are a distribution of profit. They are not a cost. Shareholders own a portion of the company. In a privately owned company the owner may transfer money from the company account to his personal account. This is not a cost for the business. In the same way, payments of dividends is a distribution of profit to shareholders.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

I have never said anything remotely close to "The wages are the only component" If you have to be dishonest about what I've said in order to make your point then you probably don't have a very good point. What I have said is that the wages are 100% included in the calculation. So if $50 is paid in wages then GDP goes up by $50 and that is absolutely true

And you fundamentally misunderstand the point I'm making. I never said anything about wages being the only cost. What I said originally was that the entirety of their wages are included in the value of the GDP and nothing about the fact that other costs are also included changes that fact. Which demonstrates that your original claim is false considering all wages are included with regards to those calculations in those sectors

I'm feeling like perhaps this is a little bit beyond your grasp. The original claim is that gDP minus income means something and my counterpoint which you are not getting is that gDP actually includes income for a significant portion of the sector therefore your statement is wrong. It doesn't have to be the only input for that to be true

You can say anything is a distribution of profit. Wages are in distribution of profit, the company makes money and uses a portion of it to pay its employees. The company pays the shareholders in exchange for the money that the shareholders have paid to own a portion of the company. An employee transfers money from the company account to his personal account. This is absolutely a cost of doing business. Just like repaying a loan is a cost of doing business

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 5 points 3 weeks ago

Not quite -- it's even a bit worse than that.

Because 'income per capita' still includes the income of CEOs and owners, who also extract their income from actual workers.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The difference would also include the cost of raw materials, equipment and servicing debt. Arguably the equipment while depreciating is part of the assets of the company, but it isn't exactly profit unless they liquidate and fold.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The GDP includes all goods and services produced in a time frame. If you buy equipment yes it is a cost but it doesn't change the equation because that equipment is a product from a vendor that is also included in GDP (unless it's purchased from an international vendor). I believe servicing debt is a service and included in GDP.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah i guess you're right, if you look at it like that it probably is accounting for most reinvestment of profit in a given business because they would have to spend that on something. My gut feeling tells me it can't be that simple but I have no evidence to suggest why it isn't, I'm also an engineer not an economist.

[–] lemming741@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

It's even worse when you realize that the workforce is only half of the total population, so you can almost double the per capita GDP to get the GDP per worker.

[–] Telemachus93@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I doubt it's exactly that simple, because the GDP is the sum of monetary values of all transactions in a region/country. The most important aspect is probably that a company's costs are not subtracted from the GDP. And there's of course more costs than just the workers' salaries: materials, insurance, property taxes, sales taxes just to name a few.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

One company's costs are another company's product or service, so they are included. However it doesn't include costs from international vendors. I'm sure there's more I can't think of

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Imports are subtracted from gdp.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I said GDP doesn't include purchases from international vendors. They're not subtracted they're never included to begin with

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Subtracting imports is specifically included in the GDP calculation.