A good place to live...

bonkey · 10-07-2001 2:00pm #1

Just saw an article on TheRegister http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/20276.html which talks about an annual UN report - which lists "the best" places to live, and "the best" places for tech.

Now, I dont know how they qualify "the best" in these situations, and wer must in mind that they are dealing with countries, and not at a more granular level. However, I still find their list a bit unusual....here it is...
--
1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Canada
4. Sweden
5. Belgium
6. United States
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10.Finland
11.Switzerland
12.Luxembourg
13.France
14.UK
15.Denmark
16.Austria
17.Germany
18.Ireland
19.New Zealand
20.Italy
--
I find it interesting that Oz can be second, while its relative neighbour (NZ) is down in 19th. Norway, and the Scandanavian countries in general have some of the highest suicide rates in the world....as does Japan.

I dont know enough about the reality of life in the US to say whether or not it deserves its 6th place.

I am interested, however, that Ireland managed to make 18th slot - being the only country on the list with what is generally perceived as major on-going civil unrest (in the form of the troubles up north). Or am I forgetting some siumilar stuff in other countries?

I'm also surprised that Switzerland is so relatively low in the top 20.

Anyway...just thought it might make for some interesting reading, or perhaps even discussion

Id also love to know what criteria the report is based on, if anyone knows where such info is to be found....let me know.

jc

Magwitch · 10-07-2001 4:27pm

Well I don't think we needed a UN report or league table to tell us that the bounties of our much praised economy are not benefiting most people to any great extent.

All it has done is provide a basic living to most, for whom even that was not a viable possibility before the Tiger arrived. When its over I expect our place on that table will not vary much.

C B · 11-07-2001 8:45am

Taken from page 14 of the current report

____________________________________________
The HDI measures the overall achievements in
a country in three basic dimensions of human development - longevity, knowledge and a decent standard of living. It is measured by life expectancy, educational attainment (adult literacy and combined primary, secondary and tertiary enrolment)and adjusted income per capita in purchasing power parity (PPP)US dollars. The HDI is a summary,not a comprehensive measure of human development.

As a result of refinements in the HDI
methodology over time and changes in data series,the HDI should not be compared across editions of the Human Development Report (see
indicator table 2 for an HDI trend from 1975
based on a consistent methodology and data).
The search for further methodological and data refinements to the HDI continues.
___________________________________________

More detailed info is available at http://www.undp.org/hdro/

Magwitch, I think we do need actual scientific studies rater than your opinions if we are to say anything meaningful about the sucess or otherwise of Irelands social and economic poilicies over the last decade.

bugler · 11-07-2001 12:56pm

As with alot of surveys its very much slanted.For instance, the US might be 6th best, just so long as your not borne into the lower socioeconomic classes.Or maybe are a black working class male.Or indeed, a new born child.The US's infant mortality rate is similar to that of Cuba, with Cuba having been on the receiving end of US economic warfare for almost half a century and with a GNP 5% of the US, now that is something to be proud of.God bless America and all that.

C B · 11-07-2001 1:10pm

Issues such as income inequality are actually taken into account in the HDI.

Here's a suggestion, why don't you go to the link and read it and then come back with any issue (there are many) which you feel could be dealth with. Alternatively you could go and play a game of hide and go fu(k yourself.

bonkey · 11-07-2001 1:54pm

Originally posted by bugler:
As with alot of surveys its very much slanted.For instance, the US might be 6th best, just so long as your not borne into the lower socioeconomic classes.
<snip>

Your logic can be extended to say that no country is a good place to live if youre born poor. Or, that if a country *is* a good place to be born poor in, then it is obviously the best place in the world to be. Neither is truly a fair comment.

Actually, I would have thought that any poll such as this would deal with the AVERAGE person.

You can further refine it by adding weight (bonus points) to countries where the deviation from the average is lower, rather then higher. In otherwords, how spread is the curve. What percentage of the population fall within an accepted range of the average.

There are a number of other weightings which can be employed.

The question I was asking, I guess, is what makes a country a good place to live. Personally, I would rather live in Switzerland than the US. However, the cost of living here is quite a lot higher. Which is better? Depends on your point of view.

jc

bugler · 11-07-2001 4:38pm

Originally posted by C B:
Alternatively you could go and play a game of hide and go fu(k yourself.

My, well aren't you quite a lucid young chap?
Aswell as lying blatantly in posts (one of the N.I threads, I'll point the lie out to you if in fact it was spawned of ignorance and not deceit) you can also just fire off the cuff insults. Your something of a joe22 figure here on the humanities board nowadays. I'm sure the moderators will be impressed by your unimaginative and childish abuse.Your ignorance truly knows no bounds. You have to be the least reasonable and intelligent person I have seen posting here in quite a while.Anyway enough of that....

bonkey, you miss my point completely.I'm sure your aware of how infant mortality rate is calculated? Well then you'll know it's an average figure which is a good indication of how the countries lowest classes are cared for.In Washington, the capital of the 6th 'best' country to live in, the IMR is the same as that of Cuba, a third world country.How exactly, can you now justify saying that being poor in any country is bad. I didn't say that, and you cannot apply my logic to that.You can be damn sure that none of the other listed countries capitals have an IMR like that of Washington's, as the US lags well behind the rest of the industrialized world in this respect.Is this irrelevant? Don't the poor people count?

What about workers rights? The US has the most aggressive anti-'right to organise' laws in the Western world. Reagan and his Reagonomics started this downward trend, and it has been faithfully carried on by successive governments.

Read this extract :

By the time the Reaganites had completed their work, the US was far enough off the spectrum so that the International Labor Organization,which rarely criticizes the powerful, issued a recommendation that the US conform to international standards(on Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights), in response to an AFL-CIO complaint about strikebreaking by resort to 'permanent replacement workers'.Apart from South Africa, no other other industrial country tolerated these methods to ensure Article 23 remains empty words;and with subsequent developments in South Africa, the US remains in splendid isolation in this particular respect

Source - 'Rogue States', - Chomsky, Pluto Press.

*Article 23 of the UD states that 'Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment; Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests'.For their part, Business Week the magazine says that 'US industry has conducted one of the most successful anti-union wars ever, illegally firing thousands of workers for exercising their rights to organise'. Aside from Lithuania and El Salvador, the US has the worst record in the Western Hemisphere and Europe in this regard.

Oh and the US also doesn't recognise standard conventions on child labour, but hey, their most likely to be foreign kids, so thats ok too! For example, 'The Convention on the Rights of the Child' adopted by the UN in 1989(!) and has since been ratified by all countries except the US and err...Somalia, which can't ratify it as it doesn't have a government.

They have also partly dismantled their welfare system, with the effect of forcing poor women to the labor market, where they will work at or indeed below minimum wage rates, companies are encouraged to employ them by governement subsidies, this has the effect of driving wages down

So do workers rights also not count towards whether or not a country is the 'best' to live in? Not if your rich, and run factories as opposed to work in them, I suppose.

Ok ok, so we now know that America is great to live in, so long as your not a poor baby, or an unskilled worker trying to exercise his right to organise, or indeed a poor woman.So what about black males as I was saying earlier? Well for instance, the National Criminal Justice Commission concluded that fear of crime(particularly drugs of course) was stimulated by a 'variety of factors that have little or nothing to do with crime itself', including 'the role of the governemnt and private industry in stoking citizen fear', exploiting latent racial tension for political purposes' with racial bias in enforcement and sentencing that is devastating black communities, creating a 'racial abyss', and the Commission says, 'putting the nation at risk of social catastrophe'. The follow on from these aforementioned factors is what has been called 'The New American Apartheid' by criminologists. Blacks are imprisoned at seven times the rate of whites, which you might say is mere hard fact, blacks commit more crime, except of course that the arrest rates are not nearly in that proportion, it is quite simply true that if you are black in an american court, you are more likely to be convicted, or have the case against you pursued.

By 1998, more than 1.7 million (it was approaching 2 million at the milleniums turn) were in federal or state prisons, or local jails.Average sentences for murder and other violent crimes have decreased markedly, while those for drug offences shot up, targetting primarily African-Americans and creating what criminologists call 'The New American Apartheid'

Source Shelden and Brown, 'Criminal Justice', Wadsorth Press.Actually an interesting fact can be related to the working conditions/rights matter, is that work related deaths are six times higher than homicides.Oh and corporate crime is estimated by the US Justice Department as costing 7-25 times that of street crime, less receives a fraction of the attention from law enforcement agencies.

Oh I'm getting tired now.One last example then for the road then.Prisoners, an issue dear to all of your hearts I'm sure. I'll quote Chomsky here again, because I'm running out of the will to go on, anyway it concerns the US's objections to International Covenant on Civil and Political rights(ICCPR)

To cite one example, thhe US entered a specific reservation to Article 7 of the ICCPR, which states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment".The reason is that the conditions in US prisons violate these conditions as generally understood, just as they seriously violate the provisions of Article 10 on humane treatment of prisoners and on the right to "reformation and social rehabilitation" which the US rejects.

America, a great place to live in.So long as your not black, a poor baby, a poor mother, a prisoner, a worker trying to exercise his/her rights......still, the US is good at technology, isn't it?

C B · 12-07-2001 8:18am

More extracts from the site, bugler these may answer some of your questions and support some of your opinions. The reason I flamed you is simple, you have not yet apologised for a tirade of personal abuse in the G8 thread. If you wish to discuss the relative merits of the US social model vis a vis the European model then open another thread (then we could probably agree for once). Bonkey opened a thread to discuss the importance and relevance of these statistics and it is immature rhethoric to reply without reference to the relevant methodology.

Why only three components?
The ideal would be to reflect all aspects of human experience. The lack of data imposes some limits on this, and more indicators could perhaps be added as the information becomes available. But more indicators would not necessarily be better. Some might overlap with existing indicators: infant mortality, for example, is already reflected in life expectancy. And adding more variables could confuse the picture and detract from the main trends.

How to combine indicators measured in different units?
The measuring rod for GNP is money. The breakthrough for the HDI, however, was to find a common measuring rod for the socio-economic distance travelled. The HDI sets a minimum and a maximum for each dimension and then shows where each country stands in relation to these scales—expressed as a value between 0 and 1. So, since the minimum adult literacy rate is 0% and the maximum is 100%, the literacy component of knowledge for a country where the literacy rate is 75% would be 0.75. Similarly, the minimum for life expectancy is 25 years and the maximum 85 years, so the longevity component for a country where life expectancy is 55 years would be 0.5. For income the minimum is $200 (PPP) and the maximum is $40,000 (PPP). Income above the average world income is adjusted using a progressively higher discount rate. The scores for the three dimensions are then averaged in an overall index.

Is it not misleading to talk of a single HDI for a country with great inequality?
National averages can conceal much. The best solution would be to create separate HDIs for the most significant groups: by gender, for example, or by income group, geographical region, race or ethnic group. Separate HDIs would reveal a more detailed profile of human deprivation in each country, and disaggregated HDIs are already being attempted for countries with sufficient data.

bonkey · 12-07-2001 8:35am

Originally posted by bugler:

bonkey, you miss my point completely
<snip>
America, a great place to live in.So long as your not black, a poor baby, a poor mother, a prisoner, a worker trying to exercise his/her rights......still, the US is good at technology, isn't it?

And I believe you missed my point entirely as well.

NO country is a good place to be in for all of the above conditions, except possibly the exercising your rights part, and obviously modifying the race issue to suit the nation in question.

Simply put, you can tell me all you like about problems in Washington (which has always been a cesspit), and the specific evils in the American system, but at the end of the day, the AVERAGE over there is better than most other nations. I dont care about LA, Washington DC, racial minorities or anything else in this case, because we are looking at a NATIONAL AVERAGE.

Yes, there is probably a completely different chart to be produced which is "the 20 best countries to live in if you are in the poorest 5% of the nation", but that was not what this report was about. I never claimed it was.

Can you tell me a single nation in the world where it is[\b] good to be a poor child, poor mother, in a racial minority, in prison, or trying to exercise your rights as a worker? Even better, can you tell me of a single country where these problems do not occur? None of them? And no other problems either?

CB pointed out the URL which shows what the calculations are based on. You argue that the report is "slanted". Can you propose how you can have a report which is not slanted, when you are dealing with such a <sarcasm>clearly</sarcasm> defined term as "Best to Live in".

Fine - you disagree with the methods used. Unless you want to do seperate charts for every single combination of race, gender, financial status, health, and so on and so forth, every single report you produce is generalised and therefore slanted. And were you to produce such reports, they would be so numerous and focus-specific, they would be absolutely useless as tool of any meaningful purpose.

So, by your standards, where is a good place to live in and why?

jc

[This message has been edited by bonkey (edited 12-07-2001).]

[This message has been edited by bonkey (edited 12-07-2001).]

bugler · 12-07-2001 12:26pm

Can you tell me a single nation in the world where it is good to be a poor child, poor mother, in a racial minority, in prison, or trying to exercise your rights as a worker? Even better, can you tell me of a single country where these problems do not occur? None of them? And no other problems either?

I don't believe I said any country was a good one to be in if you were poor, or in prison etc. The fact of the matter is this: If you are a baby born into a poor family in say, Stockholm, your chances of survival comapred to a poor child in Washington are far superior.Theres no two ways about it, the IMR statistics confirm it.So, basically, its "better" to be a baby of a poor family in Stockholm than it is in Washington. Similarly, I'd be interested to see Dutch crime statistics as regards rates of imprisonment of blacks.I'm damn well sure that taking into account differences in average sentencing and crime policies that blacks are not imprisoned at seven times the rate of whites, nor would the Dutch government be accused of operating a racist justice program by human rights groups.So are you going to tell me now that 'it's not good to be a racial minority in any country'? Maybe so, but as I have stated already, I never said it was.Just like I never said it was "good" to be a poor child, or in prison in a different country.Being poor, in the minority or disadvantaged is not likely to make your life easy whatever country you live in, but in the US, being any of these is especially harsh. Thats not to mention the workers rights issue.As I mentioned in my previous post, the US is worse than all countries other than Lithuania and El Salvador in this respect.To answer your question, Ireland is a good country to be in if you are a worker attempting to exercise your right to organise.So is Sweden, Denmark, or France.

Yes, there is probably a completely different chart to be produced which is "the 20 best countries to live in if you are in the poorest 5% of the nation", but that was not what this report was about.

I'm not sure where the 5% figure came out of, but the matters I speak of relate to a far bigger proportion of the population than that.For example, the US's poverty level is twice that of any other industrial society, as is the case with poverty, it is the vulnerable who suffer most, young children to be specific.One in four children under six years of age in the US fell below the poverty line by 1995, which compares very unfavourably with other industrial societies.
The following extract is somewhat outdated, but remains relevant, seen as it is commonly agreed that the gap between rich and poor in the US is getting wider and has gotten wider over the last decade.Why the figures are from 1990 I am not sure, perhaps a similar accurate survey has not taken place since.

In the US, 30 million people suffered from hunger by 1990, an increase of 50 percent from 1985, including 12 million children lacking sufficient food to maintain growth and development(before the 1991 recession). Forty percent of children in the world's richest city fell below the poverty line.In terms of such basic social indicators as child mortality, the US ranks well below any other industrialized country, alongside of Cuba...

I'd presume the current figures to be worse still, but seen as I can't back that up these will have to do, and lets' face it, they are bad enough.

So, by your standards, where is a good place to live in and why?

Well you asked, so it would be rude not to answer, excuse me if I repeat myself.
I think the following would make a country "good" to live in.My dream country if you will.
* A country that does not have a justice system that is racist on a wide scale, with the staistics confirming that blacks are arrested far more and are far more likely to be convicted and imprisoned than whites are, with one racial minority currently imprisoned at seven times the rate of whites.
*A country that guarantees its workers basic rights as layed down by international law.
* A country that seemed at least to be concerned with its dire poverty levels, specifically punishing on young non-white children.
* A country, which considering its considerable wealth, attempted meaningfully to arrest the plunge of the lower classes further into poverty while its richer get richer.
* A country that has a fair and honest electoral system, meaning that one person equals one vote, and where the countries leaders were not so ridiculously indebted to corporate business, who can they more or less dictate governemnt policy on certain matters.
*A country whos government does not lie to its populace about its matters(both local and international).(Some chance on this one I suppose

)
All of the above points refer to internal matters if you like, i.e actual social or economic occurrences in the country you are resident in. Should I also be so lucky as to be able to wish on the country's foreign policy etc then I could say the following:
I think a country that would be "good" to live in would:
* Not interfere in other sovereign nations affairs for its own selfish benefit, including aggression(both diplomatic and military) against said countries.It would not impose sanctions when it has no authority to do so.It should not pronounce itself the worlds judge or policeman.(One particular country has initiated 80 percent of sanctions since world war 2, I'll let you guess which country it is)
* Respect international law, or at least ratify a resolution to do so.(The US is the only country to refuse to agree to a UN draft that all countries should respect and be bound by international law). The above would make the country I live in to be "better", IMO.Of course this is all about wealth, and technology etc, so such things may not hold much value for others.

[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 12-07-2001).]

bonkey · 12-07-2001 1:30pm

Again, you miss my point. Maybe I should be more explicit.

In your various posts you have attacked the US, the US, and, oh yes, the US. Up until this most recent post, every statistic you have produced was about a city, or a minority group - not about the nation as an average, which is what I have been trying to say - your statistics are not relevant to the question in hand, which is dealing with AVERAGES of NATIONS. Not cities, not minorities.

I would also point out that it is completely meaningless to take a 10-year old report which covers a period of time and then assume that its projections cary forward. If that were a valid scientific approach, we would all be dead from lack of an ozone layer, pollution would be at 3 times its current level, and the worlds population would be roughly 1.5 times what it is. Or at least, thats what the projected reports would say.

But, I digress. I will assume your reports are still valid. It makes no odds....

Your argument, and I will quote you, was put as :

America, a great place to live in.So long as your not black, a poor baby, a poor mother, a prisoner, a worker trying to exercise his/her rights

My question is why do you single America out? You make it sound as though they have a monopoly on flaws and abuses. I argue that they have flaws and merits, as does any other country. When both are taken into account, and the whole lot is measured, then you come up with a set of values which can be summarised in a table. This is what happened here. You, on the other hand, are picking a single country, looking at its worst flaws, and saying that because its the worst in these areas, it cant be a good place.

When taken in a generalised fashion - looking at the nation rather then its troublespots - which is what this report has purported to do, then I srgue that it deserves its place. You have yet to show why it doesnt. You have also yet to show how you can improve the statistical methodology used in the calculation of this table, or why the existing approach is flawed. The publishers themselves are looking for ways to meaningfully improve the measurement scale. If you can meaningfully improve it, then let them know as well.

Regarding your oft-used IMR point...As CB has already pointed out, the survey itself takes IMR into account through its handling of life expectancy. If this is already taken into account, then I honestly think you should drop it as a problem, because it undoubtedly has reduced the US from being closer to the top of the pile, if they are as bad as you say (which I am not doubting, I just dont know). This is something which has already been taken into account, but you have neither shown why the approach for counting it is flawed, nor recognised that the US is 6th DESPITE this issue.

Furthermore, about blacks being 7 times more likely to be imprisoned. You do not produce statistics which show the probability of blacks being involved in crime, which makes the "shock" factor of "7 times" meaningless. Now, I'm not saying that there isnt racial discrimination...I'm questioning the validity of the statistic you produce.

Secondly, blacks are a minority group who are mistreated. Their mistreatment reduces their average earnings, which in turn is reflected within this report. Again, the report takes this issue into account in a quantifiable manner. Your emotive manner is non-quantifiable. Can you compare a country with terrible sexist oppression for example against one with racial oppression and apply a meaningful scale to balance the two? I dont think so. You have to look at a quantifiable figure which is directly affected by the injustices, and measure/compare that. This is what has been done, and you have not shown why its invalid.

And once again, we are talking about a nation. let me say that one more time...we are not discussing minorities, we are not discussing majorities. We are discussing an entire nation - all of its people, all of their conditions, taken together and averaged.

I have never once denied that the US is guilty of the atrocities (if you will) that you have levelled against them. I have argued that every nation has its flaws, and that picking on one nations flaws to disqualify it is a pointless exercise unless you can show how other nations are better IN EVERY RESPECT. Time anf time again you seem to have taken this to mean that I think the US doesnt have its problems.

So, going back to your original thought. Maybe I misunderstood what you are saying. Maybe you are saying : the US is a great place to live in as long as your not one of the people who are mistreated in that country. This is true of pretty much every nation on earth. So, again, I would ask what your point is?

Finally, after your wonderful description of Utopia when asked to name a country you would like to live in, I again will assume you have misunderstood my question...which I will re-state more clearly.

Name the *real-world country* which is without any of the flaws you have used to consistently attack one nation's placement on the charts, and which is without any other major identifiable problems such as sexism, oppression of any time, has complete equality, high life expctency, low suicide rates, etc. etc. etc.

In other words - you are consistently attacking the US for being a bad place to live, or at least for not deserving its 6th place. Where would you reckon is a better place to live? And please make sure there are no minorities which get a had time of it in the country you name, because otherwise your own arguments come right back at you.

jc

Manach · 12-07-2001 9:40pm

I'll quick made my 2-pence comment and leave ye battle on.
Read preceding comments. All have some valid points. But in my short opinion, what matters is power. If your country has that, both the ability to defend or project that power world wide, then this is the most important attribute.
That means the US. I am not a fan of the country (before Bulger flames me

) but their society seems the most successful on that basis.

On the opposite scale, Newsweek had a list of countries that were the worst places to be. Russian for a European male, and North Korean for just about anyone.

bonkey · 13-07-2001 7:51am

Originally posted by Manach:
I'll quick made my 2-pence comment and leave ye battle on.

Id hope people were seeing it as an attempt at intelligent discussion, rather than a battle

But anyway...

But in my short opinion, what matters is power. If your country has that, both the ability to defend or project that power world wide, then this is the most important attribute.

How do you quantify it, though? You cant really accurately compare and contrast nation's relative power. I take your point though, and it is an interesting one.

One other thing I would say is that National Power [tm] does not necessarily make a place good to live - it just makes the country powerful. How the government treat their own citizens isnt addressed in there.

Also, with inernational alliances, does your country's individual "power" (military, economic, whatever) really matter so much any more?

jc

C B · 13-07-2001 8:18am

Power is not what is relevant here at all Manach. The international power of a nation has very litle bearing on the standard of living of ordinary citizens, look at Russia and China compared with Belgium and Portugal for example and ask yourself which have more power and where you'd rather live.

The aim of the HDI is to provide an alternative measure of progress to GDP (which was never intended to be a measure of social progress and has been abused by the media and politicians). It takes into account a number of factors, stated in my posts above, which have a large bearing on human welfare within a nation, and creates an index which can be used to track progress over time.

Bugler when you get over your fascination with the US you might go and read the report. You will then see that it is a serious scientifc study, which unfortunatly remains flawed. It may be advisable to start using your intellect and passion in a more constructive matter. Why not suggest manners in which the methodology can be improved, because anyone can point out flaws on the margin.

PhilipMarlowe · 14-07-2001 10:54pm

What is seriously relevant is the climate in the country.
Seriously… like yesterday early evening here it was 11ºC and raining… that’s in the middle of July… erm yeah… [sarcasm] summer [/sarcasm].
You might have a standard of living here but quality of life is pathetic (IMO) when compared to say France or the US. There is almost no “Outdoor living” here… sat out many evenings in your shorts and shades yet this year having a barbecue after work?
…Don’t think so…

I’m at a stage in my life (almost 30) where I have a decision to make about what the future might hold….
One option is to build a house here, maybe invest a lot of money in a business and get on with it…
Or I could invest this in America in a business where customers actually spend money (unlike people here, but that’s another story), live in a decent climate (well winters are cold but at least the fvcking sun shines once in a while and it’s not so bloody damp and dreary…)… and live happily ever after

…or something™

C B · 16-07-2001 4:05pm

It would be almost impossible to incorporate everybodys preference for availability of activities and environmental/ climatic quality into a single indicator. The aim to to index those issues which have an enourmous bearing on the quality of life for everyone. simply giving florida extra points "'cause its a nice place" would hardly be objective and scientific.

One way in which these issues can be addresses is through hedonic pricing i.e. if France/ Spain are such better places to live you would be willing to accept a lower level of wages for the same work if you could live there.

C B · 16-07-2001 4:07pm

<snip>
double posting sorry

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 17-07-2001).]

bonkey · 17-07-2001 8:21am

Originally posted by Licksy20:
What is seriously relevant is the climate in the country.

.

Actually, Ireland has one of the best climates in the world. However, the weather which goes to make up that climate is particularly dull. I'm not being pedantic just for fun - there is a serious difference here.

Temperate climates are very difficult to mix with "good" weather. You get one or the other. Unfortunately, the better the weather you look for, the more prone you are to heat-waves, drought, floods, storms, blizzards, and temperature extremes.

So you can take the great and the terrible, or you can take the consistently mediocre.

You might have a standard of living here but quality of life is pathetic (IMO) when compared to say France or the US. There is almost no “Outdoor living” here…

Again - nor any hurricanes, monsoons, droughts, floods, etc. France is somewhat prone to these, and the US is rife with massive weather disruption the past few years.

Also, I should point out that while Ireland can be covered by a single climactic description, this is not true of France, and definitely not true of the US. Therefore, your comparisons based on climate OR weather are unfair.

One option is to build a house here, maybe invest a lot of money in a business and get on with it…
Or I could invest this in America in a business where customers actually spend money (unlike people here, but that’s another story), live in a decent climate (well winters are cold but at least the fvcking sun shines once in a while and it’s not so bloody damp and dreary…)… and live happily ever after

…or something™

Business in America is more cutthroat than over here. Yes, consumers may spend more in relative terms, but this is partially because the market is so extreme that cutthroat competition has made everything so cheap. Setting up a business in the US is not all roses and cookies.

Also, bear in mind that the US only came 6th in the report. A lot of the negatives from this are the knock-on quantifiable effects of massive levels of poverty, racial discrimination, etc. These all have social implications. When is the last time you saw an Irish city under curfew because of racial riots?

I know several people who moved country because of the weather. None of them moved to hot climates (unlike the British who all seem to retire to Southern Spain). In fact, thay all moved from the extreme climates to the temperate ones, to get away from the storms and heatwaves.

On a final note....even if weather/climate was the deciding factor in a country's "goodness" - its still not a scientifically quantifiable factor, and therefore couldnt be part of a serious survey.

jc

PhilipMarlowe · 17-07-2001 9:11am

Hey... I wasn't really suggesting that climate/weather be included in the survey.. I was just making a personal observation...

Like if it turned out that the country at the top of the list was covered in snow for 6 months of the year I would include that as an important factor... but to quantify it in a survey would be pretty much impossible. And yeah, if I was to choose a place in the US to live, keeping away from the extremes (as much as possible) would be important. But it’s rose and thorn stuff to some extent….

I would also argue that the weather we are experiencing here is extreme... extremely dull, extremely damp, extremely grey, extremely frustrating...
Here’s part of an email I got from my brother yesterday…

Sunday afternoon......... Mid 70's.......... no humidity.........clear blue skies......... refreshing breeze.....shorts (of course!)........ golfing at Rye Golf Club with Peter & Barry ......... putts are falling........... end up with an 80........ not bad for an old guy......... afterwards, beers on the terrace.............. then down to the shore club........... 10 miles at racing speed on the bike with Frank (that one sounds too much like hard work - it was ..... after the beers)........... relaxing with Elaine & Frank in adirondacks chairs looking towards Long Island while refreshing the body with a few drinks (that makes it worthwhile)............ cycle home............. up 'that' hill......... survive it........... barbecue for dinner........... sit outside on the patio............. find out the Red Sox won and the Yankees lost.........

Oh yeah.. and there’s another plus point for America… they’ve got Baseball

Re: setting up a business…
Well, the business I am in is seasonal and can be largely weather dependent so you can maybe see why I would be so influenced by sunshine

. And I wouldn’t be so naive as to believe it was going to be easier somewhere else, but let’s just say that we have experience of the same type of business in both countries…

Another factor…. The cost of setting up over here… We were asked £400,000 for a wee plot of ground (less than one acre) behind someone’s house (sharing a common, narrow entrance) in a provincial town… Compare that to $420,000 for a business on 5 acres, with road frontage to two of the Islands main roads in Martha’s Vineyard, which also included a house to live in. Bear in mind that the £400,000 over here was just for a site and a poor one at that and a business would have to be developed on it from scratch…

It’s just a weird time for me at the moment… I came back from an excellent 2 week holiday in America straight into rain and damp and poor sales

I think I need another holiday…

bugler · 17-07-2001 9:53pm

I thought it would be fairly obvious why I single out the US.It is the "leader of the free world", the aggressive pusher of the economic model that it just knows is best for everyone it seems.I'm not sure what makes you think I have not read the report, but it will probably not surprise you that I place little hope or emphasis on it.It does little for me, and little for anyone else either.Measures....statistics.....graphs... these can be used by anyone to prove differing things, I sometimes cannot hide my disdain for many of these types of reports or surveys, though I do often refer to them if appropriate.

I just thought it was interesting that the US ranked quite high, considering some of the bizarre conditions that US citizens must endure and live under.Including its refusal to sign up to internationally approved resolutions and motions.

My "fascination" (I won't argue with the use of that word, it admittedly fascinates, intrigues and horrifies me) with the US will end when the US stops aggressively seeking gain at so many others expenses, or when the US's brand of 'Free Trade' pulls many of the Third world countries into relative prosperity.In other words, don't hold your breath.

bonkey · 18-07-2001 8:21am

onkey

Originally posted by bugler:
Measures....statistics.....graphs... these can be used by anyone to prove differing things, I sometimes cannot hide my disdain for many of these types of reports or surveys, though I do often refer to them if appropriate.

Heh - if you acknowledge that they can be used by many people for differing things, isnt using them to your own ends a bit disingenuous?

I just thought it was interesting that the US ranked quite high, considering some of the bizarre conditions that US citizens must endure and live under.Including its refusal to sign up to internationally approved resolutions and motions.

Yeah - I take your point. All I was arguing was that you never showed why they shouldnt be 6th....in that you never offered the name of an alternative country, which under quantifiable and comparable scales would/should rank better than the US.

Yes, they have a lot of corruption, poverty, and so on. They also have a lot of good tings in their society which they have a right to be proud of.

jc

finn_mac_cool · 18-07-2001 9:00am

Here's a question .... what's all this 'Karma' about??? 'cause whoever's handing it out must be having which ever set of sexual equipment they posess sucked by bonkey. I'd be the first to admit that he's a lucid and intelligent poster, but surely CB and Bugler have been making valid, if opposing points.

Here's the statistics.

Bonkey : 7 posts, awarded 7 Karma
Bugler : 5 posts, 0 Karma
CB : 4 posts, 0 Karma

Maybe I don't get the whole Karma thing, as I am as wet behind the ears as it's possible to be. But perhaps someone could explain it to me. Is it awarded objectively or on the basis of opinion???

finn_mac_cool · 18-07-2001 9:13am

Ah ha,
It would appear I have indeed misunderstood the whole Karma thing.

Ah well, they don't call me a 1 star newbie for nothing.

Apologies ..... eating humble pie.

bonkey · 18-07-2001 9:15am

Originally posted by finn_mac_cool:
Here's a question .... what's all this 'Karma' about??? 'cause whoever's handing it out must be having which ever set of sexual equipment they posess sucked by bonkey. I'd be the first to admit that he's a lucid and intelligent poster, but surely CB and Bugler have been making valid, if opposing points.

Here's the statistics.

Bonkey : 7 posts, awarded 7 Karma
<snip>

Karma (positive and negative) is awarded by moderators for good/bad posting. To date I have been awarded ONE karma. Each of my posts appears with my current total karma beside it.

So I have 1 karma, not 7.

I'm sure the admin boards have full info on it somewhere.

As to why CB and bugler dont have karma - dont ask me - I cant give it out.

jc

UPDATE - my karma is now 0, so that sorts that out.

[This message has been edited by bonkey (edited 18-07-2001).]

finn_mac_cool · 18-07-2001 9:23am

Agreed ....

See eating of humble pie above.

*munch* *munch* *munch*

Whoops, was that something I said????

[This message has been edited by finn_mac_cool (edited 18-07-2001).]

C B · 18-07-2001 10:06am

Bugler,

It is also interesting how high up Japan, and Australia are given the treatment of minorities in those societies.

In truth the study is highly objective and takes three development indicators: wealth, health, and knowledge/ education, which very few people would argue with.

It is highly disingenous to slate a study because it doesn't give you the results you want to hear.

If you were to be put in charge of this study would you continue with objective criteria or would you subjectively select criteria which makes the US look bad?

How would one compare racial inequality in the US and Ireland for example, given the lack of a multi ethnic society here? Any attempt would surely undermine the objectivity of the survey. and it could be argued that the US (and others) should get some bonus points because they have a multi ethnic society.

P.S. wheres my karma???

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 18-07-2001).]

bonkey · 18-07-2001 10:41am

Originally posted by C B:
How would one compare racial inequality in the US and Ireland for example, given the lack of a multi ethnic society here?

Ireland has an absolutely terrible record when it comes to anything even vaguely concerned with multi-ethnic issues.

Our treatment of the travelling community (who are classified as a seperate ehtnic group) is a prime example - we treat them as the castoffs of society, an embarassment more than anything else. We use their differing culture (and lack of respect for ours, perhaps) as reasons to alienate them, discriminate against them, and deny them basic civil rights.

Or perhaps our treatment of the incoming refugees - there was practically hysteria in the country for several months when it looked like our clean little white island could be taking in large numbers of "dodgy foreigners".

Yes, Clare elected Omar Bamjhee (sp?) to government. At the same time, taxi drivers of the same nationality as Mr. Bamjhee get treated like almost-criminals or dangerous animals, usualy with the attitude that they have no right to come over here and take our jobs. In an interview for Radio1, roughly at the end of his term of office, Bamjhee himself was talking quite a bit about the racial problems his family have faced. This is a respected doctor and (at the time) TD, pointing out that he suffered quite a lot of racial dsiscrimination, albeit of the non-violent variety.

For a country with such a low amount of multi-ethnicity, our track record is terrifyingly bad. I would be very afraid of how bad it would become were we to become a truly multi-ethnic society.

How do you compare us with the US? With difficulty. Their "crimes" are more numerous and more serious. As is their level of multi-ethnicity. Can you quantify this? I dont think so, not directly.

jc

[This message has been edited by bonkey (edited 18-07-2001).]

C B · 18-07-2001 11:17pm

I never claimed Ireland had a great equality record just that any measure would be highly subjective and would undermine the scientific validity of the study.

bonkey · 18-07-2001 11:29pm

Ahem.

Actually, I was agreeing with you CB.

[STOP PRESS. BONKEY AGREES WITH CB]

After the US being bashjed for so long, and then you pointing out that there are others high up on the list who are also not so great, I thought I'd show how we are not great in one of the specific areas mentioned, even allowing for our lack of ethnic diversity which the US has.

jc

A good place to live...

Comments