NationStates Jolt Archive

Iceland never wins the Eurovision Song Contest, but it's won something far more meaningful. The UN's annual Human Development Index ranks Iceland as number 1. Although it's extremely expensive to live there, Icelanders have a very high income and a very high standard of living. And even better: they take care of their children and provide universal access to healthcare and education for all their citizens.

The USA is ranked twelfth. For an advanced industrialized country, the USA has a fairly shameful record. Income distribution is skewed to the rich, access to healthcare is uneven and varies widely by race and income, ditto with the education system. Americans live on average 2-3 years less than people from the top 10 countries on the UN's list.

Reuters sums up Iceland's achievement in the article below. The writer was a bit too enthusiastic, gushing "rich free-market countries dominate the top places". Iceland, Norway, Australia, and Canada are indeed capitalist countries, but are hardly free-market utopias. They are testimony to the enormous success of welfare states. Other countries in the top 10 include Sweden, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands...all with extensive (and expensive) social welfare programs. They work :-)

BRASILIA (Reuters) - Iceland has overtaken Norway as the world's most desirable country to live in, according to an annual U.N. table published on Tuesday that again puts AIDS-afflicted sub-Saharan African states at the bottom.

Rich free-market countries dominate the top places, with Iceland, Norway, Australia, Canada and Ireland the first five but the United States slipping to 12th place from eighth last year in the U.N. Human Development Index.

But the index, blending 2005 figures for life expectancy, educational levels and real per capita income, finds that all 22 countries falling into its "low human development" category are in sub-Saharan Africa, with Sierra Leone last.

The US should just carpet bomb the 1st 11 nations so we can take number 1 by default. That's the American way.

The thing is, Iceland is really, really, boring. :p

By the way you can support the free market and a welfare state.

Now the UK has annoying people, underperforms in sports, shit weather, a crappy government, terrible reality tv, celebrities who shouldn't be celebrities, income distribution also somewhat skewed to the rich, stupidly high house prices etc...

but guess what, I wouldn't trade it for anything. How about that?

it must be all that hot volcanic love :fluffle:

Yay! Canada only sucks a little.

Thank GOD!!! It was about bloody time! Geeze!

The US should just carpet bomb the 1st 11 nations so we can take number 1 by default. That's the American way.

Haha! Yes! We should also carpet bomb the 5 countries below us, just to widen the gap!

Iceland is boring?

Please, Reykjavik has awesome nightlife and the people are friendly don't act like Western Europeans, which is always a plus.

Quite a cold top five.

More importantly, they all have low populations.

Iceland never wins the Eurovision Song Contest, but it's won something far more meaningful. The UN's annual Human Development Index ranks Iceland as number 1. Although it's extremely expensive to live there, Icelanders have a very high income and a very high standard of living. And even better: they take care of their children and provide universal access to healthcare and education for all their citizens.

The USA is ranked twelfth. For an advanced industrialized country, the USA has a fairly shameful record. Income distribution is skewed to the rich, access to healthcare is uneven and varies widely by race and income, ditto with the education system. Americans live on average 2-3 years less than people from the top 10 countries on the UN's list.

Reuters sums up Iceland's achievement in the article below. The writer was a bit too enthusiastic, gushing "rich free-market countries dominate the top places". Iceland, Norway, Australia, and Canada are indeed capitalist countries, but are hardly free-market utopias. They are testimony to the enormous success of welfare states. Other countries in the top 10 include Sweden, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands...all with extensive (and expensive) social welfare programs. They work :-)

BRASILIA (Reuters) - Iceland has overtaken Norway as the world's most desirable country to live in, according to an annual U.N. table published on Tuesday that again puts AIDS-afflicted sub-Saharan African states at the bottom.

Rich free-market countries dominate the top places, with Iceland, Norway, Australia, Canada and Ireland the first five but the United States slipping to 12th place from eighth last year in the U.N. Human Development Index.

But the index, blending 2005 figures for life expectancy, educational levels and real per capita income, finds that all 22 countries falling into its "low human development" category are in sub-Saharan Africa, with Sierra Leone last.

Nice: at least you didn't mean the supermarket chain... not as desirable as the real McCoy

The thing is, Iceland is really, really, boring. :p

By the way you can support the free market and a welfare state.

Now the UK has annoying people, underperforms in sports, shit weather, a crappy government, terrible reality tv, celebrities who shouldn't be celebrities, income distribution also somewhat skewed to the rich, stupidly high house prices etc...

but guess what, I wouldn't trade it for anything. How about that?

Heh, that's exactly how I feel.

Quite a cold top five.

More importantly, they all have low populations.

Hmm, there does seem to be a correlation between cold weather and long life. I heard the longest living people are japanese women living in northern japan who drink tea. Of course I personally believe cold weather chills people out some, and results in less turmoil within a nation and within the people living there.

I'd also like to note that 12th isn't half bad considering we don't do the whole socialized medicine stuff. Also, a difference of only 2-3 years pfft, thats nothing not worth the cost if thats the only difference. I'd rather live 72 years with more freedom than 74 with less. besides, chances are I will live just as long as they do since I plan to get rich and I'm already white, not fat and in good health, its a recipe for success I say.

The USA is ranked twelfth. For an advanced industrialized country, the USA has a fairly shameful record. Income distribution is skewed to the rich, access to healthcare is uneven and varies widely by race and income, ditto with the education system. Americans live on average 2-3 years less than people from the top 10 countries on the UN's list.

That's putting it better than I ever could. The problem with the US is collective we have about the intelligence of a brick and all the awareness of a drunken duck, and when we are aware of things we're a frustratingly passive nation that can't be bothered to get up off it's ass to do anything except damn the situation further.
I mean, from the government's point of view we've got to have the best population ever. Throw around the word terror enough and you can convince us to give up our firstborns and when we do get mad we just either say "ah well that's the way it is" or do nothing beyond moan about it on our blogs.

Teh Wiki has the following map, updated to the latest stats. Dark green is highest.

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/3104/tbdlr4.png

Top 10:
1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Japan
9. Netherlands
10. France

Looks like strong social policies lead to a very high HDI. No surprise there.

Per continent:

Highest in...
* Europe: Iceland (1)
* Oceania: Australia (3)
* North America / Caribbean / Central America: Canada (4)
* Asia: Japan (8)
* South America: Argentina (38)
* Africa: Seychelles (50)

Lowest in...
* Africa: Sierra Leone (177)
* Asia: Yemen (153)
* North America / Caribbean / Central America: Haiti (146)
* Oceania: Papua New Guinea (145)
* Europe: Moldova (111)
* South America: Guyana (97)

So you can't tell us iceland is a nice place to live without bashing the U.S? Yes, we get it socialist europe hates everything about us. We don't care, so shut up about it.

So you can't tell us iceland is a nice place to live without bashing the U.S? Yes, we get it socialist europe hates everything about us. We don't care, so shut up about it.

Kontor, you are not exactly the most open-minded of people, are you? He wasn't bashing the United States so much as pointing out the flaws in certain elements of our country.

Note that despite those flaws we still rank eleven, out of one hundred seventy seven. That's pretty damned good. We could easily net number one every year if we just altered our policies towards more of a welfare state. That sounds bad to some people, yeah, but the people it truly would be bad to would not be the common citizen, but the absolutely rich elite, and really, why should we common citizens protect their profits at the expense of enriching our own lives? I mean, come on! It's just so ridiculous to see people do that!

So you can't tell us iceland is a nice place to live without bashing the U.S? Yes, we get it socialist europe hates everything about us. We don't care, so shut up about it.

Where did he bash the US? He just stated the facts. By the way, water down the temper tantrum

So you can't tell us iceland is a nice place to live without bashing the U.S?
Nobody bashed the US. Pointing out a statistical fact that the USA doesn't have as high a HDI or income equality as Iceland isn't bashing.

Yes, we get it socialist europe
Europe? Socialist? Or is this is conservative 'OMG universal healthcare is communism!!!!!!!' definition of socialism?

hates everything about us.
We don't.

so shut up about it.
Temper.:rolleyes:

Europe? Socialist? Or is this is conservative 'OMG universal healthcare is communism!!!!!!!' definition of socialism?




I hope you know socialism is not Kommunism Comrade.


As for the temper thing, my tag does say I am somewhat deadly so look out!:mp5:

all you goddamn liberal hippies, trying to take the greatness of the US away by presenting facts. I don't care what the facts say, facts are for faggots. I care about what my gut says, cause at the end of the day, when it all comes down to it, when I have to choose between cutting the red wire or cutting the blue wire, facts won't help me at all, only my gut. And my gut is all I need to formulate my opinions about national policies, and fuck anyone who tries to tell me otherwise with their pansy facts.

So all you peace loving, welfare giving, lend a helping hand spewing, socialist living, european commies can go screw yourself.

May the Christian God bless my version of the United States of America.



(please read post with sarcasm, then reply accordingly) :)

I hope you know socialism is not Kommunism Comrade.
I know that. I was pointing out that Europe isn't socialist, and we both know that.

As for the temper thing, my tag does say I am somewhat deadly so look out!:mp5:
If it's only 'somehat', i'll take my chances.

The US should just carpet bomb the 1st 11 nations so we can take number 1 by default. That's the American way.
No, but that's funny.

We just consider the source and their ranking criteria and realize what a crock this report really is.

Look at the real world... Who has the largest net immigration, meaning where do most people see their best future? Hint: It isn't Iceland.

Glad everyone loves bashing on the US...especially those that live here. You know...if you live in the US and hate it so much, go to one of the countries that you admire so highly. Planes leave daily.

In the mean time...the country with the "backwards" social policies continues to attract more immigrants than any other in the world.

Besides...what's wrong with requiring someone to actually pay for their own health insurance? Let me know where in the Constitution it says that people are to be given free healthcare. Bill of Rights? Doesn't mention it either.

And why do people always bash the "rich"? Envy maybe? Jealousy of someone that might have actually worked and took advantage of the situations presented them in such a manner that they made lots of money? Why are they presented as so evil by so many?

Me? Am I rich? Nope. Will I ever be? Probably not. But guess what...I've made choices in my life that have given me a decent income, access to healthcare (in every job I've ever held...), and a fair overall lifestyle. So why should I have to give up more of my hard earned money to make sure someone else that didn't make those choices has those same things? That's why I disagree with Welfare states and I live in the US. I don't feel I should have to pay someone else's way.

Are there those that DO need help? You bet. And help I will. But universally so? Heck no. Economy's booming...get a job. Can't get a good job? Get better job skills. The Gov't makes it easier than most are willing to admit...they're just too lazy to look into and have bought into the "college is only for the rich" crap. I knew lots of people that were dirt poor but got loans and grants and worked a job during school to get through it.

No, but that's funny.

We just consider the source and their ranking criteria and realize what a crock this report really is.

Look at the real world... Who has the largest net immigration, meaning where do most people see their best future? Hint: It isn't Iceland.

you also have to take into account the immense difficulty of poor immigrants being able to migrate to Iceland, a tiny island nation in northern Europe, as opposed to the United States which has a much lower standard of living (meaning it's cheaper to live there than Iceland, something poor immigrants take into consideration), and it's much more convenient for an immigrant to walk across the border (whether it be Canada or Mexico, but honestly there isn't a whole lot of Canadian illegal immigrants in the US, hmmmm, wonder why) than charter a boat or plane to travel thousands of miles across the Norwegian Sea.

Honestly, before saying such stuff, you should really scrutinize the situation and ask yourself "why is that?" before spatting off about how the United Nations is producing false and inaccurate reports (pretty rich for an American to claim, considering your current Iraq quagmire)

all you goddamn liberal hippies, trying to take the greatness of the US away by presenting facts. I don't care what the facts say, facts are for faggots. I care about what my gut says, cause at the end of the day, when it all comes down to it, when I have to choose between cutting the red wire or cutting the blue wire, facts won't help me at all, only my gut. And my gut is all I need to formulate my opinions about national policies, and fuck anyone who tries to tell me otherwise with their pansy facts.

So all you peace loving, welfare giving, lend a helping hand spewing, socialist living, european commies can go screw yourself.

May the Christian God bless my version of the United States of America.



(please read post with sarcasm, then reply accordingly) :)
Colber[t] has just sued you for all your bases.

The presence of a green arrow (indicating an improvement) next to Zimbabwe's name destroys any claim to credibility this list may have had.

WTF? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Medium)

And how can a total shithole like Haiti have a medium HDI?

Look at the real world... Who has the largest net immigration, meaning where do most people see their best future? Hint: It isn't Iceland.

Correct. It's Canada. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration#Global_statistics)

Correct. It's Canada. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration#Global_statistics)

Blame Canada?

Colber[t] has just sued you for all your bases.

LMAO

Blame Canada?

There's an easy solution to this obvious high priority crisis.

The United States of America must annex Canada, not only so we can get to the top of the list, but also so that we can liberate them from their socialist government that gives them free, unprofitable universal healthcare.

I don't know what's worse about the Canadians, the fact that they're not American, or the fact that their healthcare system isn't run for profit. *shudder*

Blame Canada?

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5949/tbdcx2.png

Always. :)

That still wouldn't make me want to live in Iceland. Hell, you couldn't pay me enough to live in Iceland. Well, more accurately, you'd have to pay me enough so that I could afford to live somewhere else than Iceland for most or all of the time.

There's an easy solution to this obvious high priority crisis.

The United States of America must annex Canada, not only so we can get to the top of the list, but also so that we can liberate them from their socialist government that gives them free, unprofitable universal healthcare.

I don't know what's worse about the Canadians, the fact that they're not American, or the fact that their healthcare system isn't run for profit. *shudder*

I was being facetious.

Never seen the South Park movie? :(

I was being facetious.

Never seen the South Park movie? :(

LOL, i was playing along ;)


and yeah, i LOVE the southpark movie

LOL, i was playing along ;)

Sorry, hard to tell sometimes online. :p

and yeah, i LOVE the southpark movie

Concurred. :D

Glad everyone loves bashing on the US...especially those that live here. You know...if you live in the US and hate it so much, go to one of the countries that you admire so highly. Planes leave daily.

In the mean time...the country with the "backwards" social policies continues to attract more immigrants than any other in the world.

Besides...what's wrong with requiring someone to actually pay for their own health insurance? Let me know where in the Constitution it says that people are to be given free healthcare. Bill of Rights? Doesn't mention it either.

And why do people always bash the "rich"? Envy maybe? Jealousy of someone that might have actually worked and took advantage of the situations presented them in such a manner that they made lots of money? Why are they presented as so evil by so many?

Me? Am I rich? Nope. Will I ever be? Probably not. But guess what...I've made choices in my life that have given me a decent income, access to healthcare (in every job I've ever held...), and a fair overall lifestyle. So why should I have to give up more of my hard earned money to make sure someone else that didn't make those choices has those same things? That's why I disagree with Welfare states and I live in the US. I don't feel I should have to pay someone else's way.

Are there those that DO need help? You bet. And help I will. But universally so? Heck no. Economy's booming...get a job. Can't get a good job? Get better job skills. The Gov't makes it easier than most are willing to admit...they're just too lazy to look into and have bought into the "college is only for the rich" crap. I knew lots of people that were dirt poor but got loans and grants and worked a job during school to get through it.


Hmmm, the old "love it or leave" policy huh? You know, there is such a thing as loving the country but hating the current social policies, and thus ADVOCATING for progressive change. You know, as opposed to just jumping ship.

Also, you need to do a little bit more research, the United States does not have the most net immigration.

Aaaaand, further more, the US Constitution doesn't mention anything about universal fire departments, or police departments, or public education, or even a welfare program for that matter. Public libraries aren't mentioned in the Constitution either, or the Federal postal system. Hell, it really doesn't even mention anything about the RIGHT of the people to have a standing Federal army. Huh, that's funny. Maybe we should just go ahead and cut all those things too, because it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The Constitution however does say that the government is to "promote the general welfare" of the American people, and I would say universal healthcare would fall under that topic.

Again, no one is complaining about America or bashing it, we are simply acknowledging facts of a UN report. And surely you don't believe that America is perfect, do you? There is ALWAYS room for improvement, no matter what nation is in question, even in Iceland, the most favorable place to live, has room for improvement. And that's all we're acknowledging, the fact that there is indeed room for improvement in America.

Oh yeah, and by the way, America started out as a nation allowing only land owning white males to vote. It was only through political activists who saw ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT and ADVOCATED LOUDLY FOR THAT PROGRESSIVE CHANGE that the laws of America were changed to allow for MORE freedom, MORE liberty, changing America into a BETTER democracy.

Yeah, I wouldn't be too quick to judge the "bashers" if I were you, they're the reason you enjoy the numerous rights you so egregiously take advantage of today.

Hmmm, the old "love it or leave" policy huh?

How about love it and leave it? That's what I plan to do.

The Constitution however does say that the government is to "promote the general welfare" of the American people, and I would say universal healthcare would fall under that topic.

Yes, but if universal healthcare were to cost more than the benefit it provides, it's equally arguable that it would harm the general welfare rather than promote it. It all depends on cost-benefit analysis, really.

Yes, but if universal healthcare were to cost more than the benefit it provides, it's equally arguable that it would harm the general welfare rather than promote it. It all depends on cost-benefit analysis, really.

True. However, you and I both know that the cost-benefit analysis points directly in the favor of universal health care.

Yes, but if universal healthcare were to cost more than the benefit it provides, it's equally arguable that it would harm the general welfare rather than promote it. It all depends on cost-benefit analysis, really.

I would say saving at LEAST the 18,000 lives who die each year directly due to lack of healthcare insurance would be "beneficial" enough, even to your standards.

But I guess you really can put a price on a human life, can't you?

How about love it and leave it? That's what I plan to do.

LOL, that's a good one too.


So long as you're happy and living the life you choose to live, it's all good!

LOL, that's a good one too.


So long as you're happy and living the life you choose to live, it's all good!

That's my plan.

That's my plan.

Where do you plan to move to?

Where do you plan to move to?

Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaue_City)

The USA is ranked twelfth. For an advanced industrialized country, the USA has a fairly shameful record. Income distribution is skewed to the rich, access to healthcare is uneven and varies widely by race and income, ditto with the education system. Americans live on average 2-3 years less than people from the top 10 countries on the UN's list.

Yes, but the larger the population, the more difficult it becomes to maintain a high HDI, social welfare or not.

Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaue_City)

LOL, very wise of you to send me a wiki link, or else I would have asked all sorts of questions!

And why do people always bash the "rich"? Envy maybe? Jealousy of someone that might have actually worked and took advantage of the situations presented them in such a manner that they made lots of money? Why are they presented as so evil by so many?


Generally speaking, hard work isn't the reason people are rich. The rich have rich children who have rich children. Maybe the rich are "bashed" because they protect their wealth and their place in society at the expense of the meritocracy you suspose got them there in the first place.

Love the quote marks around rich btw, way to mantain ironic distance from something you're not even disputing.

Aaaaand, further more, the US Constitution doesn't mention anything about universal fire departments, or police departments, or public education, or even a welfare program for that matter. Public libraries aren't mentioned in the Constitution either, or the Federal postal system. Hell, it really doesn't even mention anything about the RIGHT of the people to have a standing Federal army. Huh, that's funny. Maybe we should just go ahead and cut all those things too, because it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The Constitution however does say that the government is to "promote the general welfare" of the American people, and I would say universal healthcare would fall under that topic.

Again, no one is complaining about America or bashing it, we are simply acknowledging facts of a UN report. And surely you don't believe that America is perfect, do you? There is ALWAYS room for improvement, no matter what nation is in question, even in Iceland, the most favorable place to live, has room for improvement. And that's all we're acknowledging, the fact that there is indeed room for improvement in America.

Oh yeah, and by the way, America started out as a nation allowing only land owning white males to vote. It was only through political activists who saw ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT and ADVOCATED LOUDLY FOR THAT PROGRESSIVE CHANGE that the laws of America were changed to allow for MORE freedom, MORE liberty, changing America into a BETTER democracy.

Yeah, I wouldn't be too quick to judge the "bashers" if I were you, they're the reason you enjoy the numerous rights you so egregiously take advantage of today.

Actually...I'm the reason I enjoy the rights I have ;) When you raise your right hand and swear oath to the Constitution...let me know.

Article I, Section 8 provides direction for raising and maintaining armies, the navy, and militia (National Guard).

No where does it mention national healthcare. The Preamble mentions only PROMOTING welfare...not PROVIDING for it.

Police departments, fire departments, etc are all provided by city governments, not federal. They are there at the request of the citizens of said city.

And there are states with universal healthcare...TN comes to mind...where it's failing miserable (or failed...don't remember if they've cancelled it or not).

Personally...I tend to vote towards keeping more of my money, not getting rid of more of it. Only way to support a welfare state is with more taxes. I get taxed enough as it is...by a system that is communist in nature, no less (Hello Karl Marx and the graduated tax).

I would normally consider the HDI a reasonable source of information. By ranking Iceland first this year they seem to have overlooked two very important facts.

1. Iceland is really, really cold. And this is coming from someone who lives in Scotland. I don't care how good my life expectancy is, I'd rather spend 60 years on a beach in Mauritius than 80 years on an icy rock.

2. Drink is expensive. I don't care if the GDP per capita is enormous if I have to spend all my bloody money on a night out!

I hear that Baghdad is beautiful around this time of year..... ;)

I would normally consider the HDI a reasonable source of information. By ranking Iceland first this year they seem to have overlooked two very important facts.

1. Iceland is really, really cold. And this is coming from someone who lives in Scotland. I don't care how good my life expectancy is, I'd rather spend 60 years on a beach in Mauritius than 80 years on an icy rock.

2. Drink is expensive. I don't care if the GDP per capita is enormous if I have to spend all my bloody money on a night out!

Yes, but the larger the population, the more difficult it becomes to maintain a high HDI, social welfare or not.

Now that's certainly true as well, in some respects. But our higher population gives us a much higher economic base from which to help keep the HDI high. The difficulty comes not with the higher population itself so much as the increased bureaucracy necessary.

Correct. It's Canada. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration#Global_statistics)
Canada has a HUGE problem with this, stated very conviently in the link you gave me:

Canadian society is often depicted as being a very progressive, diverse, and multicultural. Accusing a person of racism in Canada is usually considered a serious slur.[11] All political parties are now cautious about criticising of the high level of immigration, because, as noted by the Globe and Mail, "in the early 1990s, the old Reform Party was branded 'racist' for suggesting that immigration levels be lowered from 250,000 to 150,000."[12]

Also, I like Japan's style....I don't understand why everyone isn't bitching about them being "nazis and KKK and Hitlers" and all that because they don't accept Multiculturalism.....:rolleyes:

Japan accepted just 16 refugees in 1999, while the United States took in 85,010 for resettlement, according to the UNHCR. New Zealand, which is smaller than Japan, accepted 1,140 refugees in 1999. Just 305 persons were recognized as refugees by Japan from 1981, when Japan ratified the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to 2002. [13] [14] Japanese Minister Taro Aso has called Japan a “one race” nation.[15]

Correct. It's Canada. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration#Global_statistics)

Don't pull that BS because the most number of immigrants came to the US. The per capita argument is getting old.

I hear that Baghdad is beautiful around this time of year..... ;)

Therein lies the rub. It seems to be so hard to simply find a country where one can get sunshine and cheap booze without getting shot at.

Therein lies the rub. It seems to be so hard to simply find a country where one can get sunshine and cheap booze without getting shot at.
Costa Rica?

LOL, very wise of you to send me a wiki link, or else I would have asked all sorts of questions!

My g.f. lives there.

Therein lies the rub. It seems to be so hard to simply find a country where one can get sunshine and cheap booze without getting shot at.

Hahahahahaha, I know right!

My g.f. lives there.

Aaaaaaah, that explains it, lol


that's ALWAYS a pretty good reason to want to move somewhere ;)

Also, I like Japan's style....I don't understand why everyone isn't bitching about them being "nazis and KKK and Hitlers" and all that because they don't accept Multiculturalism.....:rolleyes:

Maybe because it's racist xenophobia with no basis in anything sensible? Sure, it's more understandable in the case of the Japanese--they've had such an isolated homogeneous society for so long it's no wonder they're the most xenophobic people on the planet--but it's not anymore excusable.

Especially since it makes it hard on the rest of us for a lot of things, like video games. Have you seen the number of special editions of video games Square Enix has released only for the Japanese? They ignore the rich North American market that would easily give them even more profit, but nooo, their xenophobia keeps them from it. :(

But seriously, it is a problem, as I'm sure NERVUN can attest to.

Aaaaaaah, that explains it, lol


that's ALWAYS a pretty good reason to want to move somewhere ;)

:D

And if I were in charge of the HDI, they would be near the top.

Well when you've got a tropical paradise at your disposal, who cares about HDI? DRINKS ALL AROUND!!!!!!!!!

Costa Rica?

And if I were in charge of the HDI, they would be near the top.

Don't pull that BS because the most number of immigrants came to the US. The per capita argument is getting old.


Europe has the most immigrants. In 2006, around 64 million immigrants lived in Europe, while "only" 44,5 million in Northern America.

Those numers came from here: http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/europese_unie/artikel/asp/artnr/93439/zoeken/ja/index.html

Note: that site is in Dutch, they got their information from: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/pop944.doc.htm

Don't pull that BS because the most number of immigrants came to the US. The per capita argument is getting old.

According to the UN numbers: 64 Million immigrants in 2006 lived in Europe, while "only" 44,5 million lived in North America.

Numbers from : http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/europese_unie/artikel/asp/artnr/93439/zoeken/ja/index.html (Dutch site)
They got their numbers from: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/pop944.doc.htm

Don't pull that BS because the most number of immigrants came to the US. The per capita argument is getting old.

OK, I'll try to keep this simple.

Per capita is the most meaningful way of calculating it. A country with a population of 300,000,000 can absorb a greater intake in purely numerical terms than a country with a population of 33,000,000. If you claim the opposite, you're being dishonest.

Have you considered the simple fact that countries have immigration policies? A country that allows more immigrants in is going to receive more immigrants than a country that allows in fewer (duh!). Somehow, I would guess Iceland's policy on intake allows for fewer immigrants than the US does. Compare the size and population of Iceland to that of the US, and you may understand why.

Third, the US is among a small number of countries with a policy of actively inviting in immigrants. Heck, when I'm on the Internet, I regularly get adverts and popups from the US government informing me that, as a French citizen, I can apply easily to move to the US. No, thanks. And when I visit the Fiji Times website, there's an advert with the same message for citizens of Fiji. The US is actively trying to draw in immigrants, which should give it an edge. Of course, the fact that the EU receives a greater number of immigrants (despite the lack of such a campaign, and despite more restrictive immigration policies) might tell you something...

I suspect you're actually smart enough to realise that a country of 300,000,000 inhabitants with a huge territory and an active immigration intake campaign accepting more immigrants than a country with one tenth that population size (but a greater per capita intake!) doesn't mean very much. Stop trying to pretend you're stupid.

5. Ireland
Woot! Go Ireland!

No, but that's funny.

We just consider the source and their ranking criteria and realize what a crock this report really is.
The US isn't on top, so it must be bullshit, right?

Look at the real world... Who has the largest net immigration, meaning where do most people see their best future? Hint: It isn't Iceland.

Canada? ;)

Canada has a HUGE problem with this, stated very conviently in the link you gave me:

Canadian society is often depicted as being a very progressive, diverse, and multicultural. Accusing a person of racism in Canada is usually considered a serious slur.[11] All political parties are now cautious about criticising of the high level of immigration, because, as noted by the Globe and Mail, "in the early 1990s, the old Reform Party was branded 'racist' for suggesting that immigration levels be lowered from 250,000 to 150,000."[12]



Actually, the Globe 'n Mail is rather ignoring the fact that this suggestion by the Reform party on reinforced the public's beleif that the Reform Party was racist after a long history of it's members making racist and homophobic remarks, their getting the official endorsement of the Heritage Front (Canadian neo-Nazi group), and - in fact - the Reform Party's leader (Preston Manning) USING Heritage Front members as security personnel during speeches.

For the Globe and Mail to state that the racist label was attached to Reform because of that one policy suggestion is blatantly incorrect.

The US isn't on top, so it must be bullshit, right?


Dear Leader Dubya says that the US is "the greatest country in the world". Therefore anything contradicting Dear Leader Dubya must be filthy lies and communist Islamic terrorist liberal propaganda.

Dear Leader Dubya says that the US is "the greatest country in the world". Therefore anything contradicting Dear Leader Dubya must be filthy lies and communist Islamic terrorist liberal propaganda.

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNO TO.....I mean...eh...TO DEAR LEADER DUBYA!

Iceland must be a great place to live. Why else would the Government of Iceland spend so much, on those adverts with Kerry Katona, to try and put people off moving there?

Iceland never wins the Eurovision Song Contest, but it's won something far more meaningful. The UN's annual Human Development Index ranks Iceland as number 1. Although it's extremely expensive to live there, Icelanders have a very high income and a very high standard of living. And even better: they take care of their children and provide universal access to healthcare and education for all their citizens.

The USA is ranked twelfth. For an advanced industrialized country, the USA has a fairly shameful record. Income distribution is skewed to the rich, access to healthcare is uneven and varies widely by race and income, ditto with the education system. Americans live on average 2-3 years less than people from the top 10 countries on the UN's list.

Reuters sums up Iceland's achievement in the article below. The writer was a bit too enthusiastic, gushing "rich free-market countries dominate the top places". Iceland, Norway, Australia, and Canada are indeed capitalist countries, but are hardly free-market utopias. They are testimony to the enormous success of welfare states. Other countries in the top 10 include Sweden, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands...all with extensive (and expensive) social welfare programs. They work :-)

BRASILIA (Reuters) - Iceland has overtaken Norway as the world's most desirable country to live in, according to an annual U.N. table published on Tuesday that again puts AIDS-afflicted sub-Saharan African states at the bottom.

Rich free-market countries dominate the top places, with Iceland, Norway, Australia, Canada and Ireland the first five but the United States slipping to 12th place from eighth last year in the U.N. Human Development Index.

But the index, blending 2005 figures for life expectancy, educational levels and real per capita income, finds that all 22 countries falling into its "low human development" category are in sub-Saharan Africa, with Sierra Leone last.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but wasn't Iceland also the Country with most suicides per year?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but wasn't Iceland also the Country with most suicides per year?

Iceland is 36th for suicides per year, actually. Number 1 is Lithuania. And since I'm at it, the US is 45th, the UK is 60th, Canada is 37th and Antigua and Barbuda, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Jordan and St. Kitts and Nevis are all tied last(95th), reporting 0 suicides per 100,000 people per year. Though apparently the list isn't terribly accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Also, I like Japan's style....I don't understand why everyone isn't bitching about them being "nazis and KKK and Hitlers" and all that because they don't accept Multiculturalism.....:rolleyes:

So why are you highlighting the fact that Japan has accepted so few refugees? Are you saying that they break their international obligations due to political goals?

I bet they have lousy chinese food. Do they have tacos?!? :eek:

I can't live anywhere that doesn't have tacos.

In fact, I don't think you should be able to break the Top 20 without an abundant supply of good mexican, chinese and indian food. *nod*

I bet they have lousy chinese food. Do they have tacos?!? :eek:

I can't live anywhere that doesn't have tacos.

In fact, I don't think you should be able to break the Top 20 without an abundant supply of good mexican, chinese and indian food. *nod*

Doesn't the traditional national delicacy of Iceland consist of sharks'-liver that's been stored under stones on the beach for a while so that it's heavily salted as well as partially-rotted?!? :(

Doesn't the traditional national delicacy of Iceland consist of sharks'-liver that's been stored under stones on the beach for a while so that it's heavily salted as well as partially-rotted?!? :(

As delightful as that sounds, I think I'd rather chew out my own tongue. :p

No, but that's funny.

We just consider the source and their ranking criteria and realize what a crock this report really is.

Look at the real world... Who has the largest net immigration, meaning where do most people see their best future? Hint: It isn't Iceland.


Maybe that just makes Iceland the world's best-kept secret? Think about it... it's tiny, cold, and isolated. So you've got the climate discouraging immigration, which probably doesn't upset the locals that much because the country's only big enough to accommodate so much influx of population. On the other hand, you've got the US with its (mostly) warm climate, *long* land borders with a heavily-populated country that's generally considered to have a lower economic standard of living, and tons of hype.

Ah come on, everyone knows the best place to live in the world is Ireland. Specifically the six counties that happen to be part of the UK.

Ah come on, everyone knows the best place to live in the world is Ireland. Specifically the six counties that happen to be part of the UK.

HELL YEAH

And people seriously overexaggerate Baghdad. Why, I'm thinking of buying a home there. Either there or in the West Bank.

HELL YEAH

And people seriously overexaggerate Baghdad. Why, I'm thinking of buying a home there. Either there or in the West Bank.

I'm not really sure what Northern Ireland, having one of the lowest crime rates in the developed world according to the UN, and Baghdad have in common...

I'm not really sure what Northern Ireland, having one of the lowest crime rates in the developed world according to the UN, and Baghdad have in common...

You tricked me into thinking you were making a sarcastic remark about sectarian violence between Protestants and Catholics.

Thanks for ruining my life.

You tricked me into thinking you were making a sarcastic remark about sectarian violence between Protestants and Catholics.

Thanks for ruining my life.

You mean the violence that never existed between the ordinary person, and hasn't really existed for quite some time? :p

Nah, I spent some time living in NI. The people there are great.

Dear Leader Dubya says that the US is "the greatest country in the world". Therefore anything contradicting Dear Leader Dubya must be filthy lies and communist Islamic terrorist liberal propaganda.

He's not "Dear Leader," he's "Big Brother," get your autocrats right! :mad:


*runs*








:D

You mean the violence that never existed between the ordinary person, and hasn't really existed for quite some time? :p

Nah, I spent some time living in NI. The people there are great.

Aha! We've caught you now! :p


Also, Michigan, just because.

BRASILIA (Reuters) - Iceland has overtaken Norway as the world's most desirable country to live in, according to an annual U.N. table published on Tuesday that again puts AIDS-afflicted sub-Saharan African states at the bottom.

I question that. From a purely economic standpoint it's probably true, and if I were living in Mozambique I would definitely want to move to a country like Iceland. But I think once you're in the top five, maybe even the top twenty, desirability is based on more personal preferences.

Who, in their right mind, wouldn't question that!?! Nice gravedigging, btw. That's the national passtime of Norway.

Why does attention immediately fall on the US? There are actually other countries in the world btw. Why don't we discuss them?

It's interesting to see that Ukraine's quality of life is about on par with China or Thailand and appears to be worse than both Russia and Belarus (I'd have thought it to be the other way around). Oil money does also seem to have done a fair bit in boosting quality of life, Yemen being a notable exception.

Good for Iceland. I'm cool in the US(literally too;its 41 degrees F but it gets a lot colder!) so anyway. Nothing much to say.