1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

[theanimal]

If I spend 13k/yr, that's globally equitable and sustainable? (putting aside for now all the nitpicks).

Yes

If I'm talking with an Indian, a chinese guy, and a person from Norway, we're all eating exactly the same slice of pie if I spend 14k$, the Indian spends 680$ (but in rupees), the chinese guy spends 3k$, and the norwegian spends 1,360$?

No, you would just multiply it by the conversion factor in the third column to get it to a number in their local currency.

India is 20 rupees/USD so 83*13,600= 272,000 Rupees
Nowrway 10 NOK/USD leads to 136,000 NOK
China 4.2 CNY/USD leads to 57,120 CNY


Edited 2.0 : I think that second table I had was way off. I'm not sure what it was indicating anymore. I removed it. The US figure is $13,600 for everywhere. To find the foreign local equivalent, you adjust by the PPP conversion factor for the country in question.

[AxelHeyst]

Ah! Yeah, that's way more clear now, thanks. I feel like I still have some questions/lack of understanding about the relationship between global real, nominal, and ppp GDP numbers and global consumption of resources (and thus if I buy the 14k$ number), but that's on me to do my hw.

[7Wannabe5]

More than half the world's population lives on less than the PPP eco-Jacob, so this number actually also leaves large margin for charitable giving. if charitable giving was of form such as local currency not further supporting the income/profit of those currently spending more than 1 eco-Jacob, the top might also be forced to collapse. Otherwise, if the poor stay poor, simply cutting the top off at $30,000 PPP would also be sustainable. I think the fair share number unfortunately serves to somewhat hide the reality that those who are already or have been spending at this $30,000 PPP level are entirely responsible for the problem. IOW, it's just theoretical to calculate "as if" the global poor have the means to spend at this level, and thereby "tsk, tsk' even those at relative poverty level in affluent realms, when really it is clear that it is only middle-class (household of 3 humans with income approximating $100,000)and upper-income-class humans who have been capable of rendering the situation unsustainable with their spending. If capitalism is retained as intrinsic to model, there is also little point in imagining egalitarian distribution of income (spending potential) ever coming to be in model. What's the point of leaving room for the global poor to grow into $14,000/year spending absent support or second order consideration of likelihood? IOW, the model kind of inherently azz kisses current high earners. Kind of like a gun buyback program or Marcus Aurelius giving himself high-five in journal of stoic behavior for only banging 3 of his grandfather's 27 concubines.

Why do we build the wall?
My children, my children
Why do we build the wall?
Why do we build the wall?
We build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
How does the wall keep us free?
My children, my children
How does the wall keep us free?
How does the wall keep us free?
The wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
Who do we call the enemy?
My children, my children
Who do we call the enemy?
Who do we call the enemy?
The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
Because we have and they have not!
My children, my children
Because they want what we have got!
Because we have and they have not!
Because they want what we have got!
The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
What do we have that they should want?
My children, my children
What do we have that they should want?
What do we have that they should want?
We have a wall to work upon!
We have work and they have none
And our work is never done
My children, my children
And the war is never won
The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free
We build the wall to keep us free

-"Hadestown"- Anais Mitchell (2006)

[Jean]

I think using ppp is bullshit.
When stuff are expensive somewhere, it either mean that bringing those stuff here is ressource intensive, or that people maintaining the existence of a market here have ressource intensive lifestyle.

[zbigi]

I think using ppp is bullshit.
When stuff are expensive somewhere, it either mean that bringing those stuff here is ressource intensive, or that people maintaining the existence of a market here have ressource intensive lifestyle.

Stuff is mostly more expensive because of higher taxes, more regulations and (probably most importantly) higher wages. The same 1 kg of flour may be sold in a shop in Sri Lanka by a shop clerk making $200 a month, or $2000 a month in California. The extra $1800 in wages needs to come from extra markup on the flour, assuming both shops are identical otherwise. This affects entire supply chains (e.g. the production of flour requires multiple inputs and multiple processing steps, each with high wages, taxes and regulations increasing price along the way), which eventually leads to higher prices in more taxed, more regulated and more affluent places.

[Jean]

Those taxes and wages most likely en up in ressources consumptions.

[loutfard]

Sorry for asking a question without having read the entire thread first.

What about taxation and government spending? That is ~55% of total economic activity here. Isn't just government spending on my behalf is overshooting my planetary budget already?

[jacob]

The best/most accurate way to calculate your personal footprint would probably be to follow the methods in: https://newsociety.com/book/radical-simplicity/ ... recording what you pay for all the inputs and just adding them up. This will give you an ultra-local number that is personal to you and the market you trade in.

The motivation behind the original jacob unit was to follow the principle of parsimony to avoid having to do the mental gymnastics of all these adjustments. It was intended as a goal that would be reasonably accurate if imprecise to the exact dollar. In my opinion, it's good to be thinking about how these numbers come about but trying to come up with a more precise unit or adjusting the original unit is kinda missing the point. In summary, if anyone compelled to be a stickler about it can go do the full calculation of RS.

[Jin+Guice]

@jacob: I agree with the logic behind simple metrics that are interesting and good enough rather than having to factor in every moral calculation.

In my understanding not using the PPP adjustment across the world is the same as not using inflation across time. These adjustments end up giving more accurate numbers for the initial questions asked. If I'm comparing myself to you in 2005 it makes more sense to compare to the inflation adjusted number and if I'm looking at the world global median resource distribution, it makes more sense to use the PPP adjustment.

The adjustments end up being large. What we do with that information is up to us and that is where the moral calculus comes in.

It's inspiring that you have beat inflation every year and continued to lower your spending beyond your initial goal. In my opinion, finding the lower bound of spending, given the constraints of the life you want to lead, is more admirable than hitting a metric.

[7Wannabe5]

The interesting thing about attempting the full accounting as in Radical Simplicity or similar means, is that you also have to make choices such as how much footprint you would like to leave for wild animals (the 1.7 factor is not a given, but varies based on choices like this), and you also are made to account for your efficiency in DIY efforts such as gardening. If taken to communitarian extreme, in theory you should also account for inefficiencies such as utilizing your well-educated self for the purpose of planting radishes, because this is analogous to using heated interior living space for storing garden tools.

IOW, no matter how you perform the calculation at some juncture you have to begin to consider other factors related to quality of life. I mean, it's also not wrong to simply determine that human quality of life is unlikely to be maximized sustainably with 10 billion humans on planet Earth. The Radical Simplicity method forces choices like "my own backyard swimming pool" vs. "doing work I like vs. that of most efficient benefit to most other humans" vs. "preference for 10X as much land preserved for wildlife."