--- title: Britain Poorer Than Alabama? Not Quite description: Is the United Kingdom really "poorer than much-maligned Kansas and Alabama"? Er, not quite canonical: https://time.com/3198225/britain-poorest-state/ author: Dan Stewart article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2014-08-28T20:23:28.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-04-13T08:54:39.148Z article:section: Ideas og:title: Britain Is Not Poorer Than Alabama og:description: It's all about which statistics you use og:url: https://time.com/3198225/britain-poorest-state/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltde093bcdab65f2d0/6988d9b9bc6cfc69913e2a3c/time-logo.jpg?branch=production og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 675 og:image:alt: TIME og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Britain Is Not Poorer Than Alabama twitter:description: It's all about which statistics you use twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltde093bcdab65f2d0/6988d9b9bc6cfc69913e2a3c/time-logo.jpg?branch=production --- # No, Britain Is Not Poorer Than Alabama > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Inside TIME: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition Inside TIME is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories. Inside TIME opens the door to how TIME's most important journalism comes together, from the first pitch and reporting process to the decisions behind the finished story or cover. Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs takes readers inside the newsroom, revealing the journalists, ideas and editorial choices behind the stories shaping the global conversation. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=bd915a5c-10db-4db9-8667-d59fc9d45217&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Subscribers | 430,000 | TIME, August 2026 | | Open rate | 50.7% | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership Globally minded knowledge seekers. Readers who turn to journalism to understand the world, with meaningful concentrations among educators, students, media professionals, civic institutions and knowledge workers. ### TIME Inside TIME: key statements * Inside TIME is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * Inside TIME is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=bd915a5c-10db-4db9-8667-d59fc9d45217&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/subscribe?i=bd915a5c-10db-4db9-8667-d59fc9d45217&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is Inside TIME? Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. It reaches 430,000 subscribers with a 50.7% open rate as of August 2026. #### How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers? Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters. #### Who is the editor of TIME? Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions. #### Is Inside TIME free? Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent.  by [Dan Stewart](https://time.com/author/dan-stewart/)  ## Dan Stewart Aug 28, 2014 8:23 PM UTC  by [Dan Stewart](https://time.com/author/dan-stewart/)  ## Dan Stewart Aug 28, 2014 8:23 PM UTC Britain just loves confirming the worst about itself. Our tabloids thrive on stories that portray the country as a teeming mass of greedy migrants and workshy idlers, run by a parliament of elites in alliance with a small uber-class of the 1%. The truth is rather more complex than that, of course, but no newspaper will go broke telling Brits that their country’s gone to the dogs. Take Fraser Nelson’s [bleak diagnosis](http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/why-britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-other-than-mississippi/) in _The Spectator_ of how Britain compares to the poorest states in the U.S., which has been picked up widely by media on both sides of the pond. If Britain were somehow to become the 51st state of America, Fraser suggests, it would rank near the bottom: --- > “” --- This may shock Americans who stick to an outmoded idea of the United Kingdom as a sceptred isle of pageantry and gentility (though any Yank who has ever visited an urban center outside of London on a Friday night will know that it isn’t all tea and hunting parties). But are our poorest areas really comparable to the worst of Mississippi or Alabama? The statistics tell only part of the story, and it seems Nelson has rather skewed them to favor his conclusion. In pure GDP per capita, the UK ranks 21st in the world. That’s behind the U.S., at 6th, but ahead of countries such as Italy, Israel and Japan. When compared to U.S. states, it puts Britain in the lower half of the table, nestled between Tennessee and Missouri. It’s only when you adjust the UK GDP per capita for living costs—that is, when you factor in that a dollar goes further in the U.S. than its equivalent in sterling does in the UK—that the Brits sink to the bottom of the state-by-state listings. But here’s the thing: Nelson doesn’t appear to have attempted to factor in living costs _within the U.S._ The idea that a dollar spent in New York goes equally as far as a dollar spent in Alabama is laughable, but the comparison he uses proceeds from that assumption. In fact, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics finds sizable regional differences in the [Consumer Price Index](http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1407.pdf), with the South some 21 points below the Northeast. There’s no easy way to work that differential into Nelson’s back-of-an-envelope study, especially as the BLS doesn’t break down CPI by state. But isn’t it a little inaccurate to factor in the living costs of the UK and not the states used as a comparison? It is also a little simplistic to equate poverty with GDP, which measures business and government spending as well as individual consumer behavior. Poverty is better reflected by rates of joblessness, education level and life expectancy. The UK’s unemployment rate is 6.6%, roughly [comparable](http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm) to New York (36th among the states). The UK has a [91%](//sundial.csun.edu/2011/09/the-u-k-school-system-vs-the-u-s-school-system-why-we%E2%80%99re-losing/) high school equivalent graduation rate, which would put it in the top 5 among states. And the UK’s [life expectancy](http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/uk%5Fstatistics.html) at birth is over 80; that would rank it among the [top 10](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List%5Fof%5FU.S.%5Fstates%5Fby%5Flife%5Fexpectancy) states. None of this is to say that Britain—an island of roughly the same square mileage as Michigan, but with a population almost twice the size of California—doesn’t have huge structural economic problems, or its own areas of persistent blight. But it shouldn’t take an oversimplified comparison to Mississippi to make residents see them. Nelson does, however, get one thing absolutely right. If there’s one thing the Brits enjoy more than despairing at their own squalid state of affairs, it’s smugly noting that at least the Americans have it worse. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/3198225/britain-poorest-state/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/3198225/britain-poorest-state/"},"headline":"No, Britain Is Not Poorer Than Alabama","datePublished":"2014-08-28T20:23:28.000Z","dateModified":"2026-04-13T08:54:39.148Z","description":"Is the United Kingdom really \"poorer than much-maligned Kansas and Alabama\"? Er, not quite","url":"https://time.com/3198225/britain-poorest-state/","keywords":["United Kingdom"],"thumbnailUrl":"","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Dan Stewart","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/dan-stewart/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/3198225/britain-poorest-state/","name":"No, Britain Is Not Poorer Than Alabama"}}]}] ```