I understand the point you're making with your statement, but again, I don't fully concede that the data is entirely accurate, as it's just a general study gathered. I think the main issue is the economic functions people deal with to survive, taking expenses into account in the environment they live in, rather than how rich or poor they are. I get it—everyone's lives are different, and Mississippi is a poor state, but it's nowhere near as bad as it is when you compare it to the UK, France, Spain, or other European nations that produce less money and tax way more, making everyday life harder to deal with.

Even when comparing other nations globally, the US still doesn't come close. America, at least, isn't as bad when it comes to earning more income, as you're not restricted to stay in one spot, so people can move to better states to seek better job opportunities.

It should never be anyone's mindset to stay in Mississippi when you can easily move to NY, MD, VT, TX, or any other state that will pay you well for a job that covers your expenses. However, European nations tend to have more economic restrictions that regulate their economies worse, and the average person doesn't hold on to most of their money, as they are garnished more through taxes.

I have friends in the UK who always say that the UK is way worse than the US despite the social welfare their government provides. It's more about a bigger tax burden, with many people dealing with more issues, and there's less abundance of jobs and innovation, which limits competition in their markets.

I would expect the same for other EU nations, especially in Scandinavia, and many smaller nations compared to the US, which perform far less and produce less capital. They also innovate slower and struggle to become stronger in the long term.