The typical American family spends half its income on housing and transportation. The typical Egyptian family spends half its income on food.
This week, we looked at how health care, education, and cell phone bills have eaten into American budgets since the recession. But let's take the global view. What do family budgets look like in Egypt? Or Indonesia? Or China? The Credit Suisse Emerging Consumer Survey asks thousands of respondents across eight developing countries -- the three above plus India, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey -- to say how they spend money on categories like cars, food, and phones. Those eight graphs, with key stats from the report, are below. Some light analysis for the road comes at the bottom.
GDP per capita: $1,382
Key stat from the Credit Suisse report: "70% of Indians say they have no computers in the home. Only 19% of respondents register having access to the internet."
Egypt GDP per capita: $2,892
Key stat: "There is [an] ongoing red flag raised by exposure to food with its near 50% claim on the household income of Egyptian consumers. Ironically, plans to cut government spending on food subsidies to strengthen state finances, could in itself increase inflation and undermine consumer sentiment."
Indonesia GDP per capita: $3,456
Key stat: "The risk that always exists for the Indonesian consumer is the sensitivity of food prices. Food consumes a large proportion of the household budget. Upward pressure on prices would threaten to crowd out other discretionary spending."
China GDP per capita: $4,833
Key stat: "The two categories that stand out are healthcare and education. The only country with comparable momentum in healthcare spending is Saudi Arabia. Only Saudi and India had stronger readings on extra educational spending ... At nearly 30% of monthly income, [China's savings] is the highest in the survey."
Turkey GDP per capita: $11,054
Key stat: "Expenditure in [housing] (at an estimated 24%) is the highest of any country in the survey. This looks to be more out of necessity than desire. The proportion of people registered as renting their property is among the highest in the survey. Turkish economic growth over the past decade, and the ensuing urbanization, has led to high inflation in the housing sector."
Brazil GDP per capita: $12,423
Key stat: "The Brazilian consumer continues to stand out as the most optimistic across our survey. Barely 7% of household income is registered as saved and over a half of respondents suggest they have no extra cash for savings. Given the strength of projected real income growth, this is extraordinary. It is more typical of the countries where the consumer is being seriously squeezed than one where finances seem robust."
Russia GDP per capita: $13,543
Key stat: "Despite the structural support there has been for the Russian economy in recent years from commodity prices, there has not been a notable trickle down to the average consumer. Optimism remains the lowest of the BRICs. The inequality of income suggests that growth opportunities are played mainly at the high-income end in Russia."
Saudi Arabia GDP per capita: $21,685
Key stat: "While inflation has been a negative factor in our emerging economies sur- veyed, including Saudi Arabia, there is a stabilizing effect from government pol- icy. Robust oil revenues (a driver of infla- tion for others) have provided govern- ment spending with the firepower to support public sector incomes and boost spending more generally. We have seen a government pledge to spend USD 130 billion on housing and job creation this year."
Two big ideas for the road: Houses and food. Everybody
needs somewhere to live and something to eat. But you can learn a lot
about a country by looking at housing and food spending. Here's how the
U.S., where middle-class families spend about a third of their income on
housing, compare to the developing economies in this survey.
And here's the story with food.
don't want to push this point too far, because these sort of surveys
have obvious limitations. Tremendous income inequality in developing
countries with hundreds of millions of people makes it impossible to
tell the story of the frothy middle class *in one graph.* But the bigger
picture is clear and uncontroversial. When families earn more income,
they can afford to eat more and buy more clothes, but the real shift is
from those essentials to bigger better houses, education, and health
Joe Moran’s book Shrinking Violets is a sweeping history that doubles as a (quiet) defense of timidity.
The Heimlich maneuver, in the nearly 50 years since Dr. Henry Heimlich established its protocol, has been credited with saving many lives. But not, perhaps, as many as it might have. The maneuver, otherwise so wonderfully simple to execute, has a marked flaw: It requires that choking victims, before anything can be done to help them, first alert other people to the fact that they are choking. And some people, it turns out, are extremely reluctant to do so. “Sometimes,” Dr. Heimlich noted, bemoaning how easily human nature can become a threat to human life, “a victim of choking becomes embarrassed by his predicament and succeeds in getting up and leaving the area unnoticed.” If no one happens upon him, “he will die or suffer permanent brain damage within seconds.”
It’s a great physics thought experiment—and an awful accident in 1978.
What would happen if you stuck your body inside a particle accelerator? The scenario seems like the start of a bad Marvel comic, but it happens to shed light on our intuitions about radiation, the vulnerability of the human body, and the very nature of matter. Particle accelerators allow physicists to study subatomic particles by speeding them up in powerful magnetic fields and then tracing the interactions that result from collisions. By delving into the mysteries of the universe, colliders have entered the zeitgeist and tapped the wonders and fears of our age.
“I’ve never seen anything quite like” Trump’s approach to national security, says a former counterterrorism adviser to three presidents.
Updated on February 20 at 4:40 p.m. ET
President Donald Trump has made national security a centerpiece of his agenda, justifying policies ranging from a travel ban to close relations with Russia. But the United States is now more vulnerable to attack than it was before Trump took office, according to the man who served as George W. Bush’s crisis manager on 9/11.
“In terms of a major terrorist attack in the United States or on U.S. facilities, I think we’re significantly less ready than we were on January 19,” said Richard Clarke, who served on the National Security Council in the George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations. “I think our readiness is extremely low and dangerously low. Certainly [government] agencies at a professional level will respond [to an attack], but having a coordinated interagency response is unlikely given the current cast of characters [in the administration] and their experience.”
By replacing Mike Flynn with H.R. McMaster, President Donald Trump added one of the most talented officers the U.S. Army has ever produced to his team.
Let me be as clear as I can be: The president’s selection of H.R. McMaster to be his new national security advisor is unambiguously good news. The United States, and the world, are safer for his decision.
McMaster is one of the most talented officers the U.S. Army has ever produced. That sounds like hyperbole but isn’t. In the Gulf War, he led an armored cavalry troop. At the Battle of 73 Easting—a battle much studied since—his 12 tanks destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks, 16 armored personnel carriers, and 30 trucks. In 23 minutes.
In the next Iraq war, he led a brigade in 2005 and was among the first U.S. commanders to think differently about the conflict and employ counterinsurgency tactics to pacify Tal Afar—one of the most wickedly complex cities in Iraq. He excelled at two different echelons of command in two very different wars.
The preconditions are present in the U.S. today. Here’s the playbook Donald Trump could use to set the country down a path toward illiberalism.
It’s 2021, and President Donald Trump will shortly be sworn in for his second term. The 45th president has visibly aged over the past four years. He rests heavily on his daughter Ivanka’s arm during his infrequent public appearances.
Fortunately for him, he did not need to campaign hard for reelection. His has been a popular presidency: Big tax cuts, big spending, and big deficits have worked their familiar expansive magic. Wages have grown strongly in the Trump years, especially for men without a college degree, even if rising inflation is beginning to bite into the gains. The president’s supporters credit his restrictive immigration policies and his TrumpWorks infrastructure program.
Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to listen to more titles.
Experts on Turkish politics say the use of that term misunderstands what it means in Turkey—and the ways that such allegations can be used to enable political repression.
Over the last week, the idea of a “deep state” in the United States has become a hot concept in American politics. The idea is not new, but a combination of leaks about President Trump and speculation that bureaucrats might try to slow-walk or undermine his agenda have given it fresh currency. A story in Friday’s New York Times, for example, reports, “As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a ‘Deep State’ in America.”
It’s an idea that I touched on in discussing the leaks. While there are various examples of activity that has been labeled as originating from a “deep state,” from Latin America to Egypt, the most prominent example is Turkey, where state institutions contain a core of diehard adherents to the secular nationalism of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, which is increasingly being eroded by the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey has seen a series of coups, stretching back to 1960, as well as other activity attributed to a deep state.
When my wife was struck by mysterious, debilitating symptoms, our trip to the ER revealed the sexism inherent in emergency treatment.
Early on a Wednesday morning, I heard an anguished cry—then silence.
I rushed into the bedroom and watched my wife, Rachel, stumble from the bathroom, doubled over, hugging herself in pain.
“Something’s wrong,” she gasped.
This scared me. Rachel’s not the type to sound the alarm over every pinch or twinge. She cut her finger badly once, when we lived in Iowa City, and joked all the way to Mercy Hospital as the rag wrapped around the wound reddened with her blood. Once, hobbled by a training injury in the days before a marathon, she limped across the finish line anyway.
So when I saw Rachel collapse on our bed, her hands grasping and ungrasping like an infant’s, I called the ambulance. I gave the dispatcher our address, then helped my wife to the bathroom to vomit.
Lip service to the crucial function of the Fourth Estate is not enough to sustain it.
It’s not that Mark Zuckerberg set out to dismantle the news business when he founded Facebook 13 years ago. Yet news organizations are perhaps the biggest casualty of the world Zuckerberg built.
There’s reason to believe things are going to get worse.
A sprawling new manifesto by Zuckerberg, published to Facebook on Thursday, should set off new alarm bells for journalists, and heighten news organizations’ sense of urgency about how they—and their industry—can survive in a Facebook-dominated world.
Facebook’s existing threat to journalism is well established. It is, at its core, about the flow of the advertising dollars that news organizations once counted on. In this way, Facebook’s role is a continuation of what began in 1995, when Craigslist was founded. Its founder, Craig Newmark, didn’t actively aim to decimate newspapers, but Craigslist still eviscerated a crucial revenue stream for print when people stopped buying newspaper classifieds ads.
Humans have been living and working with horses for more than 5,000 years, since the first domesticated equines had their teeth worn down by primitive bridles in northern Kazakhstan. Hands could not have built modern civilization without the help of hooves—to haul ploughs, pull carriages, march soldiers into battle, and carry messages of love and war across hundreds of otherwise-insurmountable miles.
An unlikely pairing of wily predator and one-ton prey, humans and horses have managed to successfully communicate across the species barrier because we share a language: emotion. Experienced riders and trainers can learn to read the subtle moods of individual horses according to wisdom passed down from one horseman to the next, but also from years of trial-and-error. I suffered many bruised toes and nipped fingers before I could detect a curious swivel of the ears, irritated flick of the tail, or concerned crinkle above a long-lashed eye.