[quote=@SleepingSilence]
[@Vilageidiotx]
[b][color=ed1c24]What I am saying is those stats defy common sense. I've been to the south, and if Britain is doing as bad as that, they'd be a third world country.  

Which is why I severely doubt their methodology but don't have time to dig through it. [/color][/b]

6. Once again your refusing evidence that I've provided...just because it "feels" like it's wrong. Well I'll refrain from an obvious quote I have i mind. But feelings but have much substance.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736056/Britain-poorer-American-state-except-Mississippi-s-thanks-South-East.html

There we go found a link that says it's NOT as poor as mississippi, but everywhere else.

[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/27/1409171038840_wps_5_fraser_nelson_jpg.jpg[/img]

However the data, produced for The Spectator, also showed that without London the UK would rank far below even the most deprived state in the US.

When all the wealth generated in Britain each year is divided out equally among the population, it comes to just $36,202 each, compared to Alabama at $36,356 and Mississippi on $35,157.

All three are behind Missouri, where riots have been taking place, on $45,721, and far removed from the most well-off state, Alaska, which generates $80,741 dollars per person per year.

Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, said: 'If Britain were to somehow leave the European Union and become the 51st state of America, we would actually be one of the poor states.

'If you take our economic output, adjust for living costs and slot it into the US league table then the United Kingdom emerges as the second-poorest state in the union.

'We’re poorer than much-maligned Kansas and Alabama and well below Missouri, the scene of all the unrest in recent weeks.'

The Mirror also calculated that without London, which accounts for around 22 per cent of the UK's GDP, we would have a GDP per capita of $25,224 - almost $10,000 per year worse off than Mississippi.

The figures were also adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity, meaning researchers took into account how much you can buy for your money in each country, ensuring the fairest result.

[u][b]Google: What is the average house size in the UK?[/b][/u]

UK house size is relatively small at 76 m2 (818 ft2) while Canadian houses are quite big at 181 m2 (1,948 ft2
http://alabamanewscenter.com/2015/11/05/alabama-new-homes-sizes-among-smallest-nation-2014/

[img]http://alabamanewscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Median-Home-Sizes-768x576.jpg[/img]

Alabama has the smallest houses in the nation and have bigger houses than the average home in Canada...
[/quote]

As a Brit I found this interesting. I do think the north of England, where I live, has strong parallels with the American rust belt or perhaps the south. There are a lot of former mining towns here that face similar issues of de-industrialisation and all the social problems that entails. I don't think the poverty is as extreme here though. The problem with the use of GDP, as you've used here, is outlined in this article that you linked to earlier:

'The critics at TIME (and other publications) correctly pointed out that if one is going to draw broad conclusions about poverty among various countries, GDP numbers are arguably not the best metric. For one, GDP per capita can be skewed upward by a small number of ultra-rich persons.' - https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states

This article tried to remedy that problem by focusing on the median instead, but that isn't a very good measure either. The median, like the mean, ends up focusing on the people around the middle. It does put half of the sample above and half below that wage, but it doesn't tell us how far above or below they are or how they're distributed. The median alone just isn't a good measure to judge the entire population on. I'd be interested to see the range and standard deviation to accompany it.