India the Superpower? Think again

CNN.com ^ | February 9 2007 | Cait Murphy,

[MunnaP]

NEW YORK (Fortune) --For the first time ever, India has posted four straight years of 8 percent growth; since it cracked open its economy in 1991, it has averaged growth of 6 percent- not in the same league as China, but twice the "Hindu rate of growth" that had marked the first 45 years of independence.

India has gone nuclear, and even gotten the United States to accept that status. Its movies are crossing over to become international hits. No wonder the idea of India as the next superpower is fast becoming conventional wisdom. "Our Time is Now," asserts The Times of India. And in an October survey by the Chicago Council on World Affairs, Indians said they saw their country as the second most influential in the world.

Sorry: India is not a superpower, and in fact, that is probably the wrong ambition for it, anyway. Why? Let me answer in the form of some statistics.

-47 percent of Indian children under the age of five are either malnourished or stunted.

-The adult literacy rate is 61 percent (behind Rwanda and barely ahead of Sudan). Even this is probably overstated, as people are deemed literate who can do little more than sign their name.

-Only 10 percent of the entire Indian labor force works in the formal economy; of these fewer than half are in the private sector.

-The enrollment of six-to-15-year-olds in school has actually declined in the last year. About 40 million children who are supposed to be in school are not.

-About a fifth of the population is chronically hungry; about half of the world's hungry live in India.

-More than a quarter of the India population lives on less than a dollar a day.

-India has more people with HIV than any other country.

[Rummenigge]

I just looked it up:

In the US, poverty is officially defined as having less then 804$ per month to spend and that's the case for (and that's quite a high number I think) 12.7 % in 2005

Certainly thats still not bad compared to what you have if you're poor in India.

I wanted to express that a country may very well be quite a good place for economy if a lot of people live in the middle of the wealth scale - if you have just slaves and kings you won't win much.

In Norway life is so good (economy wise) because none or at least only very few people exist under the level of let's say an American production engineer.

Certainly the number of Norwegian millionaires is really limited in comparison to the US so the average doesn't say much about that.

So I guess if you're poor in India you're about the poorest guy on this globe and maybe only envied by northern Koreans - but the number of middle-wealthy quite happy people with a good dental care is growing rapidly.

In Western Germany btw the poor people make up for 13.5 % of us so there you go. Your poors are less then ours.

But - you are officially poor here if you earn below 949 $ (current exchange rate) - in the east you still may have less money and still will not be labeled as 'poor' it's comparable to the US.

Still I'd rather be poor with 900 bucks in Montana then in NY city.

So you see that's not an easy field to do statistics on.

I guess Germany and the US are quite comparable. I calculated once if I was better of in the US but I wouldn't be although I'd earn a lot more money as a Ph.D. in chemistry. But college, health care and stuff would eat it all up.

So for me it doesn't make economic sense to emigrate but if you have a certain income - then there's certainly much more in the equation than money.

[Rummenigge]

The average income is not a measure of the wealth of a nation.

The median would be good but isn't enough.

Example: If Togo had one Bill Gates they had a better avarage income then the US.

Would that mean that theres less poverty in Togo then in the US?

[MunnaP]

Technically standard american family does earn more than any other place on earth..At the same time standard American family also need to spend substantially more than any other place just to sustain life...
For example.....
Take energey consumpation per capits...
Because of the extreme weather in most of the USA, 90% of famiies need to spend money to heat homes...just to sustain life..same about clothes and footware....
For 80% of families in India heating cost for home is non existent...It does not denote lower standard of living....
Same holds for clothing and footwear...
I wonder how much of American GDP is generated by retailing and consumption of energy, clothing and footwear...??

[Rummenigge]

If I was a millionair I'd maybe consider living in San Diego. Maybe during winter in germany.


But - if'd be a dead poor mexican I'd go there too.

[jveritas]

Most workers in the US make over $ 40,000 a year.

[Rummenigge]

"Technically standard american family does earn more than any other place on earth."

Your source is ?

[jveritas]

But - if'd be a dead poor mexican I'd go there too.

Because they have a great opportunity for a better life.

There is no better place in the world for immigrants to be able to become prosperous and in many cases rich than the United States of America, no country can even compare.

[Rummenigge]

not true - that's per household.

[Rummenigge]

Well that's in the eye of the spectator (as long as you don't cite a survey and then it will probably still be in the eye of the observer because of the criteria the survey is based on)

A mexican will certainly not consider norway.

[Rummenigge]

But you're right - if your aim is to be a millionair you should go the US.

[Rummenigge]

I don't have a proof for that but that is, what my impression tells me.

[jveritas]

We spend a lot because we have the money and because the most things are cheaper here in the US not only compared to other industrial nations but also compared to third world nation, where most commodities are more expensive than in the US.

I have been in many places in the world, trust me, we have it the best in the US and by far :)

[Rummenigge]

Comparing live in India to live in the US is just..... so difficult it is nearly not possible.

[jveritas]

If you give the people of the third world a choice to go live and work in another country to get a better standard of living and an opportunity to become wealthy, the vast majority of them will come to the US. I do not think that only applies to third world countries but also to industrial nations as well including Europe and Canada, people in these countries also love to come work and live here, get paid more, pay less taxes, and buy almost everything at cheaper rates.

[MunnaP]

One thing I find nowadays is that when people talk about India they put China in the next sentence....Earlier it used to be Pakistan...I have still not made up my mind if that is good or bad...

[jveritas]

One day India and China will have huge problems with each others.

[Rummenigge]

I don't think so. The most people in the 3rd world don't even know about life in the US.

Many people in northern africa would certainly go to france because they speak french and given the facts about the US attitude to islam there's a good billion of people that wouldn't go near the US.
Certainly emigrating at an age of above let's say 30 deminishes the use of immigrating to the US.

BTW my friends from a german department of an american electronics company do not consider to stay in the US - although they are in CA very frequently.

Maybe it's because they have 30 days of holydays here.

[jveritas]

Many people in northern africa would certainly go to france because they speak french and given the facts about the US attitude to islam there's a good billion of people that wouldn't go near the US. Certainly emigrating at an age of above let's say 30 deminishes the use of immigrating to the US.

That is because in the US there are tougher immigration laws than in Europe however given the chance and a VISA for coming to the US, I guarantee for you that the vast majority of them will pick the US over Europe, including the muslims.

[Rummenigge]

Not so. I followed your assumption that people where free to go where they wanted.

[MunnaP]

Well...
She is presenting another view and she may be right...
Noone can call themselves superpower if half the population is in the state it is ..... Some sectors and some portion if the population is doing well and that does not qualify as superpower....