In considering per capita incomes, one would have to take into account, amongst others, the 'per capita debt'(debt which is enforced upon all via, amongst others, housing/education costs) and 'per capita liabilities'(amongst others, healthcare costs). Thus, an individual earning 'less' in a semi-socialist state than her/is counterpart in a bourgeoiscratic one may actually be earning more in real terms than the latter.

It is not what one earns but how much of it one gets to keep unconditionally, and how much of what is taken away comes back to oneself that determines the significance of research done on ‘per capita incomes’. Without taking this into consideration, comparisons between countries is nonsense.


Additionally,

'per capita incomes' may have the effect of allowing a significant proportion of the population to think that the stated (local) high 'per capita income' is an amount that may be aspired to as it is already a local reality - albeit applicable to only a small sector of the local population. In other words, since it is supposed to be the 'per capita income' for the particular country, it may be perceived to be an amount that anyone of the local populace might aspire to. This may have the effect of perpetuating the miserable conditions suffered by many amongst the local populace - especially if the 'per capita income' figure is bloated by the amount earned by a small proportion of the population - since little will be done to agitate for the closing of the chasm between the rich and poor.

Of course, to realise this, the respective populations have to be in possession of significant ‘per capita' and 'per individual' intelligence.