Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

Well since you're at least responding to this somewhat politely I'll explain it to you. The per capita analysis doesn't mean anything in this instance because the end result of assisting those in need isn't affected by it. They only care about the total received regardless of where it came from and who gave how much. What is being measured by a total sum is the requirements of the person IN NEED and whether it has been met, you can measure the groups who are GIVING by any standards you want and come up with a million different numbers depending on how you divide it.

In your example of unemployment rates, the per capita is significant because it's in direct relation to the desired outcome of the people IN NEED, for the same reasons you mentioned. In the other example what is being measured is just the opposite, the givers, not the recipients.

An absolute measure, or a total sum measure, is irrelevant in this instance. To compare this with what was being compared above you would need to analyze what someone was doing to create jobs on a per capita basis.


Hmm, that sounds like a nationalist comment there, like you're trying to place your people above our people... that's something you don't often see people in the US doing even when they have the opportunity to do so - there's a reason for that.