49 replies to this topic

[oomaha28]

Britain has dropped to 25th place on a list of the best places in the world to live - behind countries such as the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Uruguay.

While France tops the poll for the fifth year running, the UK's climate, crime rate, cost of living, congested roads and overcrowded cities have pushed it even further down from last year's ranking at 20.

The Quality of Life Index, published by International Living magazine for the 30th year, says the French live life to the full, while Britons are over-worked.



In all, 194 countries are surveyed on nine criteria, including the cost of living, culture and leisure, environment, safety, culture and weather.

Australia is placed second after France, followed by Switzerland, Germany and New Zealand.

Even former communist countries where unemployment is still rife are considered better places to settle down in than Britain, with Lithuania and the Czech Republic coming in at 22nd and 24th place respectively.



Cars near high-rise flats in Vilnius, Lithuania: The Baltic state came in three places above Britain in the list



Ice skaters trek around the frozen Lake Nasijarvi in Tampere, southern Finland: The Scandinavian country came 18th in the list of best places in the world

Variety is also seen as a major factor in France's appeal, with the survey noting: 'Romantic Paris offers the best of everything, but services don't fall away in Alsace's wine villages, in wild and lovely Corsica, in lavender-scented Provence. Or in the Languedoc of the troubadors, bathed in Mediterranean sunlight.'

Britain does not top a single category in the survey, which is compiled using official government statistics, data from the World Health Organisation and the views of the magazine's editors around the globe.

The U.S. fell from third to seventh place because of the economic crisis last year. A magazine spokesman said: 'Sustaining the American Dream has escalated out of the reach of many.'

Germany is widely praised for its efficiency and leisure facilities, with the magazine noting that 'the Harz Mountains now has a specialist hiking trail for nudists. Germany is arguably the world's most naturist-friendly country'.

[Nootropic Cat]

Here's a very different list from last year: http://en.wikipedia....py_Planet_Index

'The HPI is best conceived as a measure of the environmental efficiency of supporting well-being in a given country. Such efficiency could emerge in a country with a medium environmental impact (e.g. Costa Rica) and very high well-being (e.g. Panama), but it could also emerge in a country with only mediocre well-being, but very low environmental impact (e.g. Vietnam).'

1 Costa Rica
2 Dominican Republic
3 Jamaica
4 Guatemala
5 Vietnam
6 Colombia
7 Cuba
8 El Salvador
9 Brazil
10 Honduras
11 Nicaragua
12 Egypt
13 Saudi Arabia
14 Philippines
15 Argentina
16 Indonesia
17 Bhutan
18 Panama
19 Laos
20 China
21 Morocco
22 Sri Lanka
23 Mexico
24 Pakistan
25 Ecuador

Edit: how the hell does China score well on any criteria I wonder

Edited by TripleHelix, 22 April 2010 - 05:33 AM.

[JLL]

Because both indexes are bullshit.

[kismet]

Because both indexes are bullshit.

Please explain. Just because you disagree doesn't mean they're wrong. Obviously, something's awry about the second one, but the first? As a life extensionist one may disagree with "money" (should a good place be worth any money or do we want to donate the money to charities?) and "weather" (as safe as possible but less sun, less photoaging -> ?)

I can imagine that the UK was ranked quite low when it comes to cost of living, environment, safety and weather. (which the article/OP implies)

Edited by kismet, 22 April 2010 - 09:56 AM.

[JLL]

Because both indexes are bullshit.

Please explain. Just because you disagree doesn't mean they're wrong. Obviously, something's awry about the second one, but the first? As a life extensionist one may disagree with "money" (should a good place be worth any money or do we want to donate the money to charities?) and "weather" (as safe as possible but less sun, less photoaging -> ?)

I can imagine that the UK was ranked quite low when it comes to cost of living, environment, safety and weather. (which the article/OP implies)

What is wrong with them is that they are not based on people's own opinion on whether they like or dislike the place they live in but rather some institution's view of what makes a place "good" or "bad" to live in. That is, it is a proxy, and a bad one at that.

It's the same thing with some happiness indexes; the only worthwhile ones are those that directly ask people whether they are happy or not. The shitty ones are those that measure other things, such as the number of cars you own and the number of art galleries near your house.

Of course, if you agree with all the factors in the index, then it is useful for you.

[Blue]

This is a better index:
http://en.wikipedia....with_Life_Index

Likely better would be to multiply this value with average lifespan.

[tunt01]

Because both indexes are bullshit.

agreed. they are BS calculations designed to sell papers/magazines.

[Blue]

This is a better index:
http://en.wikipedia....with_Life_Index

Likely better would be to multiply this value with average lifespan.

Just noting that the Wikipedia map may not be reliable as per the discussion there.

Here is a BBC article regarding the index and a better map:
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/5224306.stm
http://news.bbc.co.u...ppiness_map.pdf

[gregandbeaker]

It would be fun to live in France just to witness the periodic riots and mass car burnings they love so much in the ghettos of Paris. We never get anything like that here in Minnesota :-(

[forever freedom]

Because both indexes are bullshit.

agreed. they are BS calculations designed to sell papers/magazines.

I agree too. "The Best Place to Live" depends on each person's priorities.

[platypus]

It's the same thing with some happiness indexes; the only worthwhile ones are those that directly ask people whether they are happy or not. T

Those kinds of studies do not compare cross-culturally. In some cultures positive-thinking is practically a must and people tend to avoid talking about difficult issues - this will be reflected in their responses.

[shifter]

Sorry to all the people that love Paris, but my brother on holiday from Australia, loved London, took a day trip to Paris and did not know how quick to get out of there. Most ugly concreted jungle he ever saw. Not too mention so many dodgy people trying to flog off some crappy souvineers everywhere he went.

All those lists are a load of crap. For example, I love Iceland despite the higher cost of living, where other people would hate it. Somebody goes to Paris and absolutely loves it, where others cant stand it.

The list is only useful to those that agree with it. Which is probably not a lot of people.

It's the same thing with some happiness indexes; the only worthwhile ones are those that directly ask people whether they are happy or not. T

Those kinds of studies do not compare cross-culturally. In some cultures positive-thinking is practically a must and people tend to avoid talking about difficult issues - this will be reflected in their responses.

[Forever21]

Best place to live for Life Extensionist is NOT France.

Oh wait, nevermind.

http://en.wikipedia..../Jeanne_Calment

[TheFountain]

The best place to live is in your mind.

[TheFountain]

It would be fun to live in France just to witness the periodic riots and mass car burnings they love so much in the ghettos of Paris. We never get anything like that here in Minnesota :-(

No, just a bunch of ignorant red necks.

[TheFountain]

Edit: how the hell does China score well on any criteria I wonder

Because to that particular population (which is amongst the largest in the world) it is a beautiful place to live, despite your politically ignorant and judgmental stance toward the country as a whole. You might not like their politics but they seem fine with it. This is what I can't stand about my fellow westerners. Serious lack of understanding that just because you find their culture horrendous they must also find it horrendous. FYI they find our culture horrendous!

[mikeinnaples]

It would be fun to live in France just to witness the periodic riots and mass car burnings they love so much in the ghettos of Paris. We never get anything like that here in Minnesota :-(

No, just a bunch of ignorant red necks.

Edit: how the hell does China score well on any criteria I wonder

Because to that particular population (which is amongst the largest in the world) it is a beautiful place to live, despite your politically ignorant and judgmental stance toward the country as a whole. You might not like their politics but they seem fine with it. This is what I can't stand about my fellow westerners. Serious lack of understanding that just because you find their culture horrendous they must also find it horrendous. FYI they find our culture horrendous!

Says the guy that just called people from Minnesota a bunch of ignorant rednecks.

You have to love the hypocrisy.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 22 April 2010 - 04:44 PM.

[TheFountain]

It would be fun to live in France just to witness the periodic riots and mass car burnings they love so much in the ghettos of Paris. We never get anything like that here in Minnesota :-(

No, just a bunch of ignorant red necks.

Edit: how the hell does China score well on any criteria I wonder

Because to that particular population (which is amongst the largest in the world) it is a beautiful place to live, despite your politically ignorant and judgmental stance toward the country as a whole. You might not like their politics but they seem fine with it. This is what I can't stand about my fellow westerners. Serious lack of understanding that just because you find their culture horrendous they must also find it horrendous. FYI they find our culture horrendous!

Says the guy that just called people from Minnesota a bunch of ignorant rednecks.

You have to love the hypocrisy.

See how it feels to be generalized? That was the point, calculated sarcasm.

[Mind]

The top ten on this list are my favorite. Freedom=prosperity. The U.S. is falling so fast, I will probably have to move soon.

[mikeinnaples]

It would be fun to live in France just to witness the periodic riots and mass car burnings they love so much in the ghettos of Paris. We never get anything like that here in Minnesota :-(

No, just a bunch of ignorant red necks.

Edit: how the hell does China score well on any criteria I wonder

Because to that particular population (which is amongst the largest in the world) it is a beautiful place to live, despite your politically ignorant and judgmental stance toward the country as a whole. You might not like their politics but they seem fine with it. This is what I can't stand about my fellow westerners. Serious lack of understanding that just because you find their culture horrendous they must also find it horrendous. FYI they find our culture horrendous!

Says the guy that just called people from Minnesota a bunch of ignorant rednecks.

You have to love the hypocrisy.

See how it feels to be generalized? That was the point, calculated sarcasm.

Backstroke.

[TheFountain]

The top ten on this list are my favorite. Freedom=prosperity. The U.S. is falling so fast, I will probably have to move soon.

It's funny that cities in asian countries everyone seems to hate are on the top of this list. GO COMMUNISM!

[tunt01]

It's funny that cities in asian countries everyone seems to hate are on the top of this list. GO COMMUNISM!

it's the heritage foundation. they are hard core, pro-economic conservatives. if women and children were being burned in the streets of hong kong, but people were still making tons of money and prospering, then heritage would still rate it #1.




and incidentally, it makes no sense to compare small countries like Hong Kong, Switzerland, Singapore, or even Australia against countries with 10x more of a population like the United States.

Australia isn't even half the size of California. Hong Kong is barely 1/5th the size of California alone.

[JLL]

Australia isn't even half the size of California.

What?

[Skötkonung]

Australia isn't even half the size of California.

What?

Population.

[TheFountain]

if women and children were being burned in the streets of hong kong

Yea because women and children are being burned alive in HONG KONG. Last I heard the only people being tortured and killed there are people who subject women and children to terrible, dangerous things.

Australia isn't even half the size of California. Hong Kong is barely 1/5th the size of California alone.

Population is a red herring really. If the economy we have in the U.S really worked for everyone obviously the poverty rate wouldn't be amongst the highest in the world. Let us not be apologists for lack of prosperity or limited prosperity.

[tunt01]

Australia is barely more than half the size of California.

What?

should read that way. i confused australia for another country when i retyped it.

Yea because women and children are being burned alive in HONG KONG. Last I heard the only people being tortured and killed there are people who subject women and children to terrible, dangerous things.

the point was about the heritage foundation. they are as credible as the Cato Institute. totally biased and not always reliable as a data source.

Population is a red herring really. If the economy we have in the U.S really worked for everyone obviously the poverty rate wouldn't be amongst the highest in the world. Let us not be apologists for lack of prosperity or limited prosperity.

it isn't a red herring. there are tons of variables in the effect of wealth and prosperity of a society. some middle east countries are sitting on a ton of oil (qatar, saudi arabia, etc.) and have a very high per capita income, others (yemen) are sitting on a pile of worthless dirt. it has nothing to do with laws, mankind, innovation, or economic freedoms. you either have oil and you are prosperous or you don't.

you can't look at a country like switzerland, which basically lives off banking, a few select industries, and its proximate location in the EU to create a very wealthy society. If we carved out New York City and compared it to Switzerland, then maybe that might be an OK comparison.

population, economic resources, are all factors -- outside of rules of law, government, etc.

Edited by prophets, 23 April 2010 - 01:07 AM.

[niner]

if women and children were being burned in the streets of hong kong

Yea because women and children are being burned alive in HONG KONG. Last I heard the only people being tortured and killed there are people who subject women and children to terrible, dangerous things.

You're in rare form today.

Australia isn't even half the size of California. Hong Kong is barely 1/5th the size of California alone.

Population is a red herring really. If the economy we have in the U.S really worked for everyone obviously the poverty rate wouldn't be amongst the highest in the world. Let us not be apologists for lack of prosperity or limited prosperity.

Poverty rate among the highest in the world? Really? Do you have any reference for that?

[Alex Libman]

This list is insanely stupid! It tries to force subjective cultural values down your throat, punishes freedom, and rewards laziness! France and Germany are countries on the verge of economic and demographic collapse!

[DairyProducts]

it isn't a red herring. there are tons of variables in the effect of wealth and prosperity of a society. some middle east countries are sitting on a ton of oil (qatar, saudi arabia, etc.) and have a very high per capita income, others (yemen) are sitting on a pile of worthless dirt. it has nothing to do with laws, mankind, innovation, or economic freedoms. you either have oil and you are prosperous or you don't.
...population, economic resources, are all factors -- outside of rules of law, government, etc.

A friend of mine in graduate school sent me an email about the various theories in academia right now about economic development. Take it for what you will:
"In the economics of international development, many hypotheses have been suggested to explain varying levels of development, particularly among former colonies. Latitude apparently has something to do with it (the closer you live to the equator, the more likely it is that you're poor). Legal system has been suggested as well, and there's some truth to that: civil law systems, especially French civil law systems, are usually less wealthy than common law countries, though most of that correlation becomes statistically insignificant once various controls are put in place. Low density of native inhabitants has been another suggestion, but measurement is difficult considering how many Native Americans died of smallpox before we even got to Nebraska. Contrary to claims about the "Protestant work ethic," religion has nothing to do with levels of development.

One theory that's gained traction has been the "resource curse" theory. For example, if a country is rich in natural resources, its primary role will be the production of raw materials. This means that countries will only develop enough infrastructure to transport those materials out of the country. The vast majority of profits will go to the elites, curbing development, which requires robust domestic demand to be sustainable long-term. This theory has been somewhat discredited, though, because it's been noted that nations like the United States and Canada are fairly resource rich as well as wealthy; they just don't make those resources as integral to their economic development.

In actual fact, European mortality rates at the time of colonization are the best determinant for current per capita GDP, a point discovered by Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson in 2001. The logic is straightforward, if a bit convoluted (it's for statements like that that you should always be sure to have your morning coffee before your Fact of the Day). If mortality rates were high, Europeans generally didn't settle there. They would set up extractive institutions to rape the colony of all its natural resources, with nothing but a small garrison to maintain transportation conduits. The Belgian Congo, one of the most brutal colonies in the world, is the best example of this. On the other hand, if the mortality rates were relatively low, immigrants would often move there, settle, and demand the rule of law, just like they had back in jolly old England or le vieux France. Property rights institutions, ensuring the protection of earned income and possessions, also ensured investment in the local economy and development of an effective government. The best example of this is Canada, or even South Africa, which continues to have a higher per capita GDP than the rest of Africa. These institutions, whether bad or good respectively for extractive and settlement colonies, largely continued after decolonization.

One other thing, though. While property rights institutions have been imperative for economic well-being, reliable contracts have almost nothing to do with it. A later study by Acemoglu discovered that even if contracts are not rapidly and effectively enforced (measured by number of steps it takes to get a contract enforced, how long a judge takes to pass judgment on an arbitration proceeding, and one other thing I can't remember), it has no impact on overall economic performance. The logic seems to be that if individuals can't work it out in court, they'll find some other way to deal with their dispute, or at least hedge against the risk of a poorly enforced contract. I hope this makes all the lawyers feel useless. Because that was pretty much the point."

[Alex Libman]

Oh, the mental gymnastics some people will go through to ignore the obvious and decisive benefits of free market capitalism...