Now it seems that the press is full of remarks that a survey and analysis shows America in decline in health, wealth and longevity and its rank in terms of desirbility as aplace to live has fallen.

Norway is top!!

But Great Britain is the 14th best place in the world to live!!

By some miraculous symmetry, my other home - The Gambia is 14th worst!

I love Britain but I still prefer Gambia in all of its miserable pits of failure!!

So its official

do you have a link to this survey?
Ta

If it's the latest UN HDI report then the 2007 version puts Britain at 17th, US at 12th, Canada at 4th and Australia at 3rd. Canada just went up a couple from 6th, while Australia stayed level.

Just google UN HDI.

so I see we're beating Germany for once. Yippee!

I wonder if, in real terms, there is any difference between the top 22 at all. Looking at that list, is it not purely about what suits your personality and where provides the best opportunity for your skills?

For all the arguing that goes on, (perhaps US healthcare issue aside) anyone with any nouse is going to have a good life in any of those countries.

I bet the only people that dimiss the HDI are people who aren't in the top ten every year though. It records issues such as life expectancy and literacy and standard of living variables, derived through quite a comprehensive methodology. It seems quite accurate to me because in generic terms at least no one could argue that the UK provides a higher QOL than Australia, for example, and the HDI reflects this. Also, it is quite a fluid index with a lot of mobility on it; Canada was number one through much of the 90s, but slipped down to 8th (I think) at one point, now up again at a high 4th.

While there is a small margin between these top nations, in many of the indices there is quite a large discrepancy, so I think the index is an important and accurate measure of living standards across the world. If any British people have a problem with coming 17th (and recently the registering as the second worst country in Europe to live in) they should set about improving the nation rather than questioning the measure!

next year there's penalties


Vancouver came out best every year and i never understood it. Most of my friends had two jobs. We lived month to month and could hardly afford trips abroad. If it was based on views, yep, defo the best. Britain maybe a bit of mare but ive always had plenty of disposable cash here.

That's what I noticed in the detail of the child one done last year. Which is why I posed the question in real terms what actual difference does it make?

I just dont see that QOL and opportunity in Iceland can somehow be staggering differently to Germany. Perhaps crime rates are much lower, maybe life expectancy is higher but how that equates to a meaningful index reference difference of 21 doesn't ring true. How many people do you know that choose to go to Icelend?

Without knowing the details I have no ability to qualify the placement of any country. I think the question still stands true though. Iceland might be top but its going to frikkin suck if you've got rheumatoid athritis, for example.

Of course. No study can take the individual preferences of every single human being into account. If that were a requisite for any study then there would be no studies. However, there must be a ranking based on something, so the overall levels taken into account. This does not mean the index is irrelevant. Wha it means is, if you are interested in the overall quality of life of a specific nation, as measured by variables such as its literacy rates and life expectancy, then you need to refer to the United Nations HDI.

It is unfortunate that the UK always comes in fairly low among first world nations, although it usually beats New Zealand, so it isn't at the bottom of the English-speaking democracies. But like I said before, rather than dismissing it, a more constructive approach would be to look at how it is measured and then try and improve those factors in which it is obviously lagging behind other civilised nations.

You're missing the point .. and it would seem accusing me of dismissing the study. Personally, I dont give a toss what they say, in that, I can think of nothing worse for example than being stuck out in Australia or the middle of Canada as a quality of life even if the average life expectancy is 1.4 years, or whatever it is more. I own my house, am surrounded by over achieving schools, have a great postcode as far as the NHS is concerned etc etc etc.

I've never seen this particular study in any year. From a first glance it does seem quite swayed by life expectancy figures, but without a detailed look I certainly would not pass any real judgement.

As far as appearing to advise me to look at it and do something about it is concerned, you've not thought about what I potentially do, given the nature of the way I post have you? You seem to have just presumed that because I live here I've adopted a defensive approach.

Statistics can be quite meaningless, as was illustrated by the argument that apparently Alabama provides more opportunity than the UK because it records a higher GDP by PPP and the humorous debate that ensued. But my point wasn't, this is rubbish, Britain's 2/3 of the way down blah, blah, blah. The question was, in real terms what do people think the difference between spot 1 and 22 means?? If much at all. I stopped at 22 because Israel obviously starts introducing issues such as major political instability and violence etc etc.

Taking away personal likes/dislikes I would not worry about being in any one of those 22 countries (US healthcare system aside). The question still holds water.

No, I think you are missing the point. No other individual on this planet cares what quality of life you have. You, as an individual, cannot be trusted to provided objective information about a nation (none of us can). Therefore we must rely on data drawn from generic sources and averaged out for us. Any individual's opinion is subjective and based in personal prejudices "I can think of nothing worse for example than being stuck out in Australia or the middle of Canada" etc.

I think your offence is misplaced due to the lack of the passive voice in English. Replace "you" with "one" (on/mann) and the situation is diffused.

Again, the nations must be ranked, so this is how they do it. Whether the discrepancies are small or not is irrelevant, as this is a simple matter of ranking international differences. An analogy is the world of sport: it really does not matter that Fred passed the finish line 0.0004 seconds faster than Jim - Fred is a faster runner and Fred gets gold.

I agree with this to an extent, but I feel social provision generally is probaby quite different in these nations as is general cultural attitude and expenses as well. I wouldn't want to retire somewhere where fuel costs £6.20 a gallon, for example, as I like to drive and visit places and this is prohibitive. Also, for example, Australia has a life expectance nearly two years longer than the UK, which is enormous in statistical terms, never mind in real terms. These figures are not made up for fun, they are based on people's actual lifespans. So while any one individual reading it might say "this is irrelevant to me as I plan to live to 100", a discerning observation might be "what kind of policy allowed this discrepancy to happen and do I want to live in a place with this kind of attitude?"

Yes I know all that, but that wasn't the question.

Discerning observations would tell me for example that some of the key elements of life expectancy issues in the UK are lifestyle, diet and the poor use of preventative care. That tells me much more about the numerically larger subcultures of the UK than it does government policy. This is quite irrelavent to me in making a decision about where I want to live because I eat well, am active and use preventative care services. Government policy comes into play given the indication that a two tier health system could well be contributing.

What it tells me as an individual however, is more needs to be done to get people that don't use medical services to do so, that education on lifestyle choices needs to be improved and extended because the 4 pints a day, greasy cafe and chippy eating, far too prevalent subculture still has sky high heart disease rates (for example). That reintroducing health, cookery and greater amounts of sport back into the curriculum as a whole would be a good plan. Again however, to me personally in real terms, it's useless information.

It's not that I'm missing the point of the study, it's that I think you're missing the point of my question regarding the study. I havent looked at the data in detail, but going on the top level results 1-22 how big in real terms are the differences or in your analogy -

Fred might be 0.00004 faster than Jim but if the whole field came in at less than half a second apart what in real terms is the level of difference. More importantly how useful are those results as a whole, or does their relavence only improve when broken down.

I know what I think, I'm paid to make discerning observations. I was asking how other people felt about it.

I'm sure the study is accurate in what it is representing but it is not representing what everybody would considor.

I think this is the problem right here: this report isn't telling anyone where to live, and no one would base a decision of such magnitude on it. What the report is telling us is that certain countries peform more efficiently than others, and this is a good indicator of the future potential of those countries.

Yes, I would trust the UN as much as any with accuracy and non-partisan use of available data. I'm sure it doesn't cover all of what people think about when emigrating either.

Does that mean you think that the individual components of the study are more useful when looked at issue by issue?