Canada drops to No. 6 in UN development ranking

[Cheese]

Canada has dropped to No. 6 on the UN Human Development Index, which ranks 177 countries each year in terms of health, education, life expectancy, income, poverty levels and environmental quality.
Canada held the top spot on the list from 1992 until 2001, when it dropped to No. 3. It took fifth place in 2005.

Norway tops list for 6th straight year.

According to the study, Norwegians earn 40 times more than the study's lowest-ranked country, Niger, live almost twice as long, and have nearly five times the literacy rate.

Canada drops again

[JohnnyFlame]

These are ratings for bozo's. Real ratings would include warm weather year round, good golf courses, good vacation spots(beach etc.) and yeah you need a job so we will throw that in. Plus plenty of stuff to do with that earned cash.

I'm thinking there are a whole lot of places I'd rate higher than Norway LOL.

[Agamemnon]

Yeah... I don't think they're rating which countries have the best beaches and malls... why would the Human Development Index waste their time on that? Golf courses?

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

These are ratings for bozo's. Real ratings would include warm weather year round, good golf courses, good vacation spots(beach etc.) and yeah you need a job so we will throw that in. Plus plenty of stuff to do with that earned cash.

I'm thinking there are a whole lot of places I'd rate higher than Norway LOL.

You ever been there? I lived there for many years and I thought it was a great place to live.

Personally I'd rank health, education, life expectancy, income, poverty levels and environmental quality over having good vacation spots in my country. Besides, there's nothing stopping my from taking my vacation in another country and going golfingor going to the beach or whatever else I want to do there. I can't easily go to another country and improve my education, life expectancy, income and health.

[JohnnyFlame]

I don't know if I could give a reason for why the UN wastes time!!! I think you could pile a whole bunch of developed countries on that list and the differences between them would be hardly worth a debate. As such even though my post was in jest the other things the countries had to offer would be far more important to me.

I would think looking way further down the list might be more revealing if you are actually concerned with the things on the list.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

You ever been there? I lived there for many years and I thought it was a great place to live.

Personally I'd rank health, education, life expectancy, income, poverty levels and environmental quality over having good vacation spots in my country. Besides, there's nothing stopping my from taking my vacation in another country and going golfingor going to the beach or whatever else I want to do there. I can't easily go to another country and improve my education, life expectancy, income and health.

Actually I've lived all over the world and it depends if you are talking about the people as a whole or individuals. I've lived in countries that were sad for the people as a whole in dang near all of those categories but it didn't affect me personally. And there are a whole large number of countries I would live in that are as good as each other as far as I care about any of those concerns.

Really depends who you are. If you are living in one of the countries near the bottom of the list I would be concerned and be trying to move to a better place-- but as someone living in one of the top ones the difference between living in this developed country or another one to me isn't based on this list --they all are up there anyway so a whole other set of factors would join the list.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Actually I've lived all over the world and it depends if you are talking about the people as a whole or individuals. I've lived in countries that were sad for the people as a whole in dang near all of those categories but it didn't affect me personally. And there are a whole large number of countries I would live in that are as good as each other as far as I care about any of those concerns.

I'm pretty sure the Index is meant to measure the whole population of a country, on average, not visiting/tourist JohnnyFlame's experience there. There are vacation guides that do that for you.

Really depends who you are. If you are living in one of the countries near the bottom of the list I would be concerned and be trying to move to a better place

Believe it or not, if you live in a country at the bottom of the list its probably not easy to just pick up and move. Its not like they're living in RV's and mobile homes. More like shacks and hovels.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'm pretty sure the Index is meant to measure the whole population of a country, on average, not visiting/tourist JohnnyFlame's experience there. There are vacation guides that do that for you.


Believe it or not, if you live in a country at the bottom of the list its probably not easy to just pick up and move. Its not like they're living in RV's and mobile homes. More like shacks and hovels.

Visiting tourist. Hmm lived in the States for two years, Nigeria for two years and China for four. Believe it or not I have helped people in those countries do just that(not just blathered about it) -- you know inbetween holes whilst I was busy doing the "tourist" thing---sheesh.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Visiting tourist. Hmm lived in the States for two years, Nigeria for two years and China for four. Believe it or not I have helped people in those countries do just that(not just blathered about it) -- you know inbetween holes whilst I was busy doing the "tourist" thing---sheesh.

Either way, you probably weren't living like 'the average Nigerian/Chinese', working or visiting. Were you?

The purpose of this study is to measure the general quality of life in these countries for most of their citizens. You seemed to be saying that, while it might affect them, it didn't affect you. I'm pretty sure the point of the study wasn't to try and differentiate between how outsiders would view the country, but rather an 'Index' on what life is like there, generally. I'm sure you've got experience there, but you're a foreigner who has more money than probably 90% of Nigerians/Chinese, if not more.

[mykalberta]

They are likely looking at the lowest income bracket (if any) and comparing them.

Example a poor person in Norway "earns" 40x more than a poor person in Niger.

Look at Norways income tax and then tell me if anyone who can afford high speed internet in Canada would want to pay that.

If they were to look at the 35-50K income crowd, Norway wouldnt be to high on the list.

MYK

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Either way, you probably weren't living like 'the average Nigerian/Chinese', working or visiting. Were you?

The purpose of this study is to measure the general quality of life in these countries for most of their citizens. You seemed to be saying that, while it might affect them, it didn't affect you. I'm pretty sure the point of the study wasn't to try and differentiate between how outsiders would view the country, but rather an 'Index' on what life is like there, generally. I'm sure you've got experience there, but you're a foreigner who has more money than probably 90% of Nigerians/Chinese, if not more.

Exactly. I'm saying that the difference between Norway and Canada and a big list of other countries is irrelevant. In those countries I would make the choice based on other reasons as they are all good enough in these categories.

I'd start the list at like who knows -- 100. Then use the list to gauge how these countries are doing in comparison to countries like them.

These people are indeed in different circumstances and pointing out there is a whole lot of developed countries doing better does what?

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

They are likely looking at the lowest income bracket (if any) and comparing them.

Example a poor person in Norway "earns" 40x more than a poor person in Niger.

I think it would be much more likely that they are comparing the average income bracket than the lowest. The article didn't say anything about poor people in Norway vs. Niger. It said "According to the study, Norwegians earn 40 times more than the study's lowest-ranked country". I would assume that to mean average. I'm not sure where "poor" came from.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Look at Norways income tax and then tell me if anyone who can afford high speed internet in Canada would want to pay that.

Well, a Saudi would probably look at Canada's income tax and say "who would want to pay that?". That doesn't make Saudi Arabia, which has no personal income tax, a better place to live that Canada. Or a Norwegian may look at Canada and say "only 2 weeks of vacation a year, who would want that?".

You're only considering the cost side of the equation and not the benefits. People in Norway pay much higher taxes, true, but also have a much bigger range of benefits available to them, such as a much higher number of vacation days, higher compensation while on unemployment insurance, longer materiny/paternity leave (at full pay), etc.

The ratio of benefits to costs is whats important to consider here -- not just costs or benefits.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

If they were to look at the 35-50K income crowd, Norway wouldnt be to high on the list.

Why not? Do you mean the 30-50K crowd in Canada or the 30-50K crowd in Norway. Either way, its not really comparable beause the average middle-class Norwegian earns considerably more than the average Canadian (according to the study). Either way, if you mean middle class, I wager Norway would still top that list, since the study is comparing averages.

If you looked at the highest income earners in the country, then I think Norway would not be high on the list since they are paying high taxes and have relativley few advantages over the middle and lower classes. In this situation, I think the US would trounce everyone.

[Sylvanfan]

Well in all honesty the difference between 1 and 10 on this list is pretty minisicule. Back when Canada first rated #1 the demographics of our country had the largest coherts being 45 years old and younger, and the tax levels were high. Today we still pay a lot of taxes, but a large percentage of our population is now into their 50's or older. As people get older, their health needs increase, and statistically we probably don't look as healthy.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Exactly. I'm saying that the difference between Norway and Canada and a big list of other countries is irrelevant. In those countries I would make the choice based on other reasons as they are all good enough in these categories.

I'd start the list at like who knows -- 100. Then use the list to gauge how these countries are doing in comparison to countries like them.

These people are indeed in different circumstances and pointing out there is a whole lot of developed countries doing better does what?

I think what you're basically saying is that the list is subjective, but does give a rough indication. If that's the case, I agree with you.

Norway tops the list, likely, because of the high number of benefits available to its middle class, but they also have to pay a high tax to have these benefits available. The people that made the survey obviously thought that the tax was worth the benefits received, but you may not. You may prefer a system like the United State's where you pay relatively little tax and get to keep most of your money, but don't have as many benefits available to you. Or you may prefer system somewhere in between the two.

The list does, however, provide a rough guide because of the massive disparity between countries in the world where some countries have basically zero benefits avaiable to them (except the ultra-ultra-elite). For example, I don't think anyone would argue that the life of the average Nigerian is better than the life of the average Norwegian or Canadian.

[Shazam]

Once you start getting into the 1-10 range, there is very little difference between quality of life. Really, if you're in any of those countries, you're living well.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

The rationale behind the index is to focus development attention on the bottom countries. The studies that the UN does in this regard are far from a waste of time - whereas the media picks up and ranks the best, the UN sponsored aid, food and social programs (such as the millenium development plan) tend to focus their effort on bringing up the rankings of the bottom countries.

The situation in some countries is scary - Swaziland alone has an HIV infection rate of 47%, in addition to poor everything else.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by TheCommodoreAfro

The rationale behind the index is to focus development attention on the bottom countries. The studies that the UN does in this regard are far from a waste of time - whereas the media picks up and ranks the best, the UN sponsored aid, food and social programs (such as the millenium development plan) tend to focus their effort on bringing up the rankings of the bottom countries.

*DING* *DING* *DING* And *THAT*'s the RIGHT answer.

-=-=-=-=-=-

They really do some stupid **** to get the numbers for these rankings. One thing is the drop-out rate. They check with each countries statistical agency to get an estimate of how many 17 year olds there would be in the country. Then they find how many students are enrolled in Grade 12. One of those years that we were on top we had a -3% drop-out rate. Which meant that teens were repeating Grade 12 so they could get into university. How does having a high level of students repeating Grade 12 add to our quality of life?

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

*DING* *DING* *DING* And *THAT*'s the RIGHT answer.

-=-=-=-=-=-

They really do some stupid **** to get the numbers for these rankings. One thing is the drop-out rate. They check with each countries statistical agency to get an estimate of how many 17 year olds there would be in the country. Then they find how many students are enrolled in Grade 12. One of those years that we were on top we had a -3% drop-out rate. Which meant that teens were repeating Grade 12 so they could get into university. How does having a high level of students repeating Grade 12 add to our quality of life?

Because in places like Niger only 15-20% of kids complete elementary school (I'm pulling those numbers out of my butt, but it's probably not too far off). Kids in Africa have to stay home to care for parents who are dying from AIDS, or to tend crops in for them as they're too weak to till the fields. Pretty abhorrent situation.

[Calgaryborn]

Part of the reason Canada has lost a couple of spots on that list is increased immigration. Many immigrants come with little education, etc. Norway is far more closed to immigration including refugees. They do have a beautiful country, though.

One thing the UN report doesn't address is freedom and potential for further personal prosperity. Try buying land in Norway or opening a new business. Try to home school your children there and see what the government does.

If you used the UN criteria and applied it to our prisons they would probably score better than the middle of the pack. A society gives up the personal ability to achieve when it eliminates the ability of it's citizens to fail.

O and for the record I'm in faviour of Immigration. I just think the government should do more to enable and encourage Canadian families to
have children. We need that in order to maintain our cultural distinction while receiving immigrants from around the world.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by TheCommodoreAfro

Because in places like Niger only 15-20% of kids complete elementary school (I'm pulling those numbers out of my butt, but it's probably not too far off). Kids in Africa have to stay home to care for parents who are dying from AIDS, or to tend crops in for them as they're too weak to till the fields. Pretty abhorrent situation.

I quite agree. And their methodology does make some sense if comparing Canada to Sierra Leone. Let's take a random number and say there are 200,000 17 year olds in Canada and there are 200,000 Canadians in the top class before university. That's a zero percent drop-out rate by their calculations. Comparably, there would be a 97% drop-out rate in Sierra Leone. So their crude methodology works in demonstrating the differences between a well off country and an impoverished one. But when comparing Canada and Norway, to get any REAL comparison you would want to know how many 17 year olds are no longer attending school. Much harder to track, so they don't bother since their rough estimates provide the detail that they need for these rankings. But I put no stock in Canada falling from 1st to 6th. I mean really, how great can Norway really be? They don't even like hockey much.