Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You need to be more careful when you evaluate happiness rankings. First off, some of them include irrelevant factors such as ecological footprint. Secondly, some of them are too old. That is not representative, because life satisfaction in the EU has declined a lot the recent years.
Well how I determine happiness is entirely dependent on the things that make me happy. You cannot discount something that makes me happy, because you think it's irrelevant. Nor can you discount the elderly, they're part of the population just the same as everyone else.
Basically you cannot cherry pick the factors that people choose to determine how happy they are with their lives because you happen to disagree with them, or remove sections of the populations because again you don't agree with them. If you disagree with the reviewing organization, why pick them as a source?
The OECD has an infographic on the home page indicating "life satisfaction", Denmark is #1, US is #12 behind Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden in Europe, and also Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel globally.
Whether you would be happier in a European country than the US only you can discover, whether someone from a European country would be happier in the US only they can discover. One thing is pretty guaranteed, no one anywhere is complaining that they're too happy, or could be a little less happy with their lives. I want to be more depressed is something said by nobody ever.
Well how I determine happiness is entirely dependent on the things that make me happy. You cannot discount something that makes me happy, because you think it's irrelevant. Nor can you discount the elderly, they're part of the population just the same as everyone else.
Basically you cannot cherry pick the factors that people choose to determine how happy they are with their lives because you happen to disagree with them, or remove sections of the populations because again you don't agree with them. If you disagree with the reviewing organization, why pick them as a source?
The OECD has an infographic on the home page indicating "life satisfaction", Denmark is #1, US is #12 behind Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden in Europe, and also Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel globally
First off, I am not cherry picking. I included the whole scandinavia because they are relevant to the discussion. The remaining countries are the ones who are more known in europe. I disregarded both countries who do better (Finland, Iceland and Netherlands) and countries who do worse (Estonia, Slovenia, Belgium, Austria, etc.)
Secondly, what I gave you was the raw data. The data you mention include inequality of happiness. But I don't like adding extra factors, because people can do that themselves. However, even when we include inequality of happiness it doesn't change the results much.
Thirdly, I am aware many non-european countries are beating the US. But that should be a given since I mention those countries as potential places to emigrate to, if it wasn't so difficult.
But I can include all european OECD countries. The results are the same, a few european countries does slighlty better than the US, but on average they do worse. Woof claim that europeans are happier than americans have no basis in reality.
Denmark 7.5
Iceland 7.5
Switzerland 7.5
Finland 7.4
Norway 7.4
Netherlands 7.3
Sweden 7.2 United States 7.2
Germany 7
Ireland 7
Austria 6.9
Belgium 6.9
Luxembourg 6.9
Czech Republic 6.5 European average: 6.5
France 6.5
Spain 6.5
Slovak Republic 6.1
Italy 6
Poland 5.8
Slovenia 5.7
Estonia 5.6
Portugal 5.1
Hungary 4.9
Greece 4.8
Good for you. I hope you like the government taking almost all of your money and controlling your life. If that makes you happy, then you should move there. Consider this;
• Danes making over $75,000 are hit with 57% payroll taxes.
• On top of that, their sales tax rate is 25% and is not deductible.
• Then their car sales tax rate is 180%, which makes cars out of reach except for the wealthy. That’s why they have one of the lowest car ownership rates in the world.
• And members of the government church pay an additional 1.5% income tax.
So, if you make $75,000 per year, the governments take $42,750 ($43,875 if you are a church member) before you get your money. Then every time you buy a $600 iPhone, you pay the government an additional $150. And when you buy that new Toyota Camry for $25,000, you have to pay the government an additional $45,000 in taxes which makes your new Camry cost $70,000.
And then, to make life even more miserable, Denmark has the highest ratio of household debt to net disposable income in the world at 315%. This compares to the USA at 114%.
We know household savings is bad in the USA at positive 5%, but it’s golden compared to Denmark at negative 6.28%.
Now let’s compare household net worth. The USA is the highest in the OECD at $142,500 as compare to Denmark at $58,116.
Move there? No thanks. Denmark would be one of the last places I would move.
But, but, but...they have GOOD SOCIAL PROGRAMS that others pay for. (sarcasm folks).
That everybody pays for. And so graduates leave university without crippling debt, people get seen by doctors, kids are fed and housed, mothers and babies get time to bond, that sort of stuff. It's considered worth doing by Danes.
First off, I am not cherry picking. I included the whole scandinavia because they are relevant to the discussion. The remaining countries are the ones who are more known in europe. I disregarded both countries who do better (Finland, Iceland and Netherlands) and countries who do worse (Estonia, Slovenia, Belgium, Austria, etc.)
But your whole rebuttal to Woof was cherry picking of factors you don't consider relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof
Huh .... and yet despite the supposedly horrible economies and astronomical taxes on the wealthy, and the scarcity of late-model cars, European countries for the most part rank consistently much higher than the US on various scales of happiness.
Go figure.
Statement:
"You need to be more careful when you evaluate happiness rankings. First off, some of them include irrelevant factors such as ecological footprint. Secondly, some of them are too old. That is not representative, because life satisfaction in the EU has declined a lot the recent years."
Your argument also depends on one single organization. OECD.
I'm just saying that you're not providing any information that proves your statement, one data point (OECD) and you're undercutting your argument by claiming irrelevance of particular factors.
It's not just OECD that rank several European countries above the US in terms of happiness, it's many.
Personally, instead of claiming that certain factors are irrelevant, or attempting to disassemble why we're not as high as we would like to believe we should be. Why don't we as a country set out to achieve that situation where someone will one day say loudly and proudly, "I want to be more depressed".
But your whole rebuttal to Woof was cherry picking of factors you don't consider relevant.
Cherry picking of which factors exactly? Here is three factors
Life Expectancy
Life Satisfaction
Ecological footprint
I picked life satisfaction (scale 1-10) to represent happiness. You think Life expectancy or ecological footprint is a better way of representing happiness? No, I am not cherry picking factors. I am picking the relevant factor.
Quote:
Your argument also depends on one single organization. OECD.
I'm just saying that you're not providing any information that proves your statement, one data point (OECD) and you're undercutting your argument by claiming irrelevance of particular factors.
It's not just OECD that rank several European countries above the US in terms of happiness, it's many.
Personally, instead of claiming that certain factors are irrelevant, or attempting to disassemble why we're not as high as we would like to believe we should be. Why don't we as a country set out to achieve that situation where someone will one day say loudly and proudly, "I want to be more depressed".
Using one "data point" is common in international comparisons. And there doesn't exist that many alternatives. We got positive experience index, but the result are the same. And we got the "day ranking" from pew research where US beat europe by miles.
Also, I think you are confused. This is not an OECD index, this is a Gallup index. Pretty much all happiness indexes you will find online will use this index. But as I said, some of them include non-happiness factors, and some of them include old data. That is why you might see something else, if you look at news headlines.
And your last paragraph prove to me this is an ideological issue to you. I don't think US should be anywhere, and I am not an american. What I don't like is people blinded by ideology, who feel US should be below Europe. The fact is, according to the raw data, americans are happier than europeans.
Here is an interesting post about the myth of low population density in the US in relation to rail
Measuring density on such a large scale (by state and country) doesn't make much sense with what we are talking about here.
Ohio is a pretty dense state but again (what is this the 4 time now?) the cities are not dense and urban like European cities, idk why you people like to ignore this but its the truth.
Small cities in France are more urban than Cleveland Ohio
American cities sprawl out way more than European cities - this is something urbanist shove down our throats every day but now all of a sudden we are urban enough to handle high speed rail?
They're talking about countries that have a very active hunting culture with a variety of wildlife second to none but one would think they have the perception Scandinavians are all living cheek-by-jowel in stifling discomfort.
Cripes, it beggars the imagination as to how a population of 350 million can have such a preponderance of membership in the "I don't know nuffin" club.
Because they have dense and urban cities, stop looking at countries as a whole and try looking at the cities in these countries.
Passenger trains just don't work well in car dominated environments, get over it.
Do you support the idea of building more pedestrian areas in existing U.S. cities with the goal of eventually connecting them with public transportation?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
