You have to be careful when comparing the US to the rest of the world, because the US is the one breaking the ground of new levels of relatively-well-distributed wealth.
Yeah, that's the wrong stat to use. The US has had a healthy middle industrial-age middle class for longer than anyone else, and even if it is ailing today (which is debatable and subject to rapid change with notice in either direction), my points still stand. It also has a higher average income level than most if not all, along with a higher median and a generally larger "social wealth", even if, again, we may be letting some of that slip.
A well-distributed wealth of $15K a year will not show you how that country will necessarily behave when it has a spotty-but-$42K-average wealth.
I suggested strongly that the point not be missed, I guess I should have just cut straight to spelling it out even if it would have broken the flow. You point is not relevant to my point at all.
His point is relevant, I think. But it does not make your point invalid. The us can be considered exceptionally wealthy due to it's per capita gpa, consumption, size, and stored wealth in terms of infrastructure, resources, education, and stability.
Not so much, see here: http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/mint-map-global-wealth-distr...
Most of the "western" countries are ahead of the US for distributing wealth amongst the population.