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.
Having a "decent job", "good food", and "time to relax" actually has very little to do with happiness. Though they are connected to those things which do make us happy.
Not true. If that was the case, then we wouldn't have seen the large drop in Europe due to the economic crisis. For instance Portugal, Greece, Italy and Ireland has dropped by a lot.
Also, if that was true, then we wouldn't see the correlation between income and happiness. By order of happiness this how the regions compare
1. North Europe
2. United States/Autralia/Canada
3. Central Europe/Latin America
4. South Europe
5. East Asia
6. Eastern Europe/rest of the world
There is a clear correlation between income and happiness. Inside a country you will see the same trend, people without college degrees have lower life satisfaction. There are some exceptions, but that is not because income is irrelevant, but because there exist other factors.
Quote:
Particularly if we look at "decent job". What you really mean is "decent income". And why is having a decent income a key to happiness? Not because having some arbitrary level of income makes us happy on its own. You don't continue to get happier as you get richer. After about $70k a year, greater income actually lowers our happiness.
If it was just inequality, then why do the French score so poorly? Yes, you don't get happier going from $70k to $140K, but you certainly do get happier going from $20K to $40K. Decent income to get happy, is enough income so you can go out and enjoy life.
Quote:
And humans were happier in the past than we are today, even when we were much much much poorer.
And you are basing that on what sources? I have only seen data since the 70s, but there has been no large increases in wages since the 70s.
It is certainly not true today, most poor countries have low life satisfaction. The only continent who can compete with the western world is Latin America, but that is because of their easy going culture.
Your argument has been rendered mute by the simple fact that you have cherry picked statistics so much so that you are comparing a city of 15,000 (Jamestown, ND) to a city of more than 100,00 (Linköping, Sverige). Of course Linköping is more dense.
He might not have picked some good comparisons, but here is some for you.
Ã…lesund: (45K people)
Sacramento: (1.7 million).
And this density, certainly does help to improve public transport.
Quote:
You are also making huge assumptions about Scandinavian culture. Apartment living is popular in Scandinavian cities as it is popular in American cities. Oslo has large swaths of residential housing and you don't have to travel far from either Stockholm or Copenhagen to find housing either. It certainly exists. I could name at least 10, probably 20 US cities off the top of my head that are as dense, if not more so than Copenhagen yet Copenhagen has far better transportation.
You are right that many in Scandinavia want to live in houses, but the reason they don't do it is because houses are too expensive. For instance average wages (before taxes) for full time workers in Oslo is about $55K dollars. In the US, it is about $40K. But a starting house in an average american city cost about $150K, while it cost $600K in Oslo. It is simply too expensive for many people in Scandinavia to buy a house.
Also, Copenhagen has a population density of 18K per square mile, New York has 28K. Good luck naming the remaining 19.
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?
Because making individual cities dense to make public transportation more feasible is not that expensive.
He might not have picked some good comparisons, but here is some for you.
Ã…lesund: (45K people)
Sacramento: (1.7 million).
And this density, certainly does help to improve public transport.
You are right that many in Scandinavia want to live in houses, but the reason they don't do it is because houses are too expensive. For instance average wages (before taxes) for full time workers in Oslo is about $55K dollars. In the US, it is about $40K. But a starting house in an average american city cost about $150K, while it cost $600K in Oslo. It is simply too expensive for many people in Scandinavia to buy a house.
Also, Copenhagen has a population density of 18K per square mile, New York has 28K. Good luck naming the remaining 19.
Not quite sure where you get your statistics but the Norsk Statistisk Sentralbyrå reports that housing prices in Norway for Q1 in Norway average slightly above USD 400,000.
Still expensive, but often times families will choose to live a house just outside the city rather than in an apartment inside it. Urban housing can be incredibly expensive in Oslo and is very scarce in Stockholm.
In Norway property tax is quite low so in fact living in houses is fairly popular.
Also posting pictures is not scientific. Taking a picture taken right over the center of Ã…lesund and a picture of Sacramento taken from some distance promotes the fallacy that Ã…lesund is more dense than Sacramento. In fact, Sacremento has a density of 1800/km whereas Ã…lesund has a density of 482.5/km.
Not quite sure where you get your statistics but the Norsk Statistisk Sentralbyrå reports that housing prices in Norway for Q1 in Norway average slightly above USD 400,000.
That includes lots of small cities (< 10000) where people obviously live in houses.
But I was talking about larger cities. In the US a lot of people live in houses, while they don't in Norway. That is not because Norwegians love to live in apartments, but because the property prices are too high.
Quote:
Still expensive, but often times families will choose to live a house just outside the city rather than in an apartment inside it. Urban housing can be incredibly expensive in Oslo and is very scarce in Stockholm.
You can't even do that. If you are willing to commute for an hour, then you can live in Asker. But even there a 1500sqf house cost $600K.
Quote:
Also posting pictures is not scientific. Taking a picture taken right over the center of Ã…lesund and a picture of Sacramento taken from some distance promotes the fallacy that Ã…lesund is more dense than Sacramento. In fact, Sacremento has a density of 1800/km whereas Ã…lesund has a density of 482.5/km.
If you don't believe the pictures, use google maps and take a look. Or take a look at Bergen, or Stavanger. They are still more dense than an average american city.
Also, don't be silly. Ã…lesund urban area does not have a population density of 482.5/km. No, Ã…lesund region has a population density of 482.5, because it includes all the mountains around Ã…lesund. And Sacramento does not have a population density of 1800 either, that is the figure for the central areas.
So, stop trying to deny reality. European cities has higher population density in general. That makes it easier to have a good public transport system. I am not saying US shouldn't spend more money on public transport, but please don't try to deny reality
Europeans also do not care about living in 4000 sq ft mcmansions and utilize a well structured public transportation system so they do not need as many cars there.
Additionally, only 18% of Danes believe Jesus "is the savior of the earth".
So much for the "prosperity gospel" of Denmark........
There is a clear correlation between income and happiness. Inside a country you will see the same trend, people without college degrees have lower life satisfaction. There are some exceptions, but that is not because income is irrelevant, but because there exist other factors.
There is a "strong correlation", not a "clear correlation". And lets understand, correlation does not imply causation. The obsession with income as a determinant for happiness, is something of a liberal myth, used to push a materialistic agenda.
The simplest example one can use would be the Amish. They are very poor, or at least, live a lifestyle which denies itself almost all material benefits. And, the men and women work long hours nearly every day of the week, and they never go on vacations.
Yet, the Amish are much happier than pretty much everyone else in this country.
Another easy example, just imagine our ancestors(even our distant ancestors). If wealth makes us happy, our ancestors must have been utterly miserable. Right? How did they ever manage not to kill themselves as a result of their misery?
The truth is, your distant ancestors were actually much happier than you. And much healthier than you.
Also, be careful about what "statistics" you use to base your views of happiness on. Or specifically, what questions they ask. Many happiness polls ask questions which might appear to have economic underpinnings. Asking a question about whether you'll be "better off in the future", is largely an economic question. It basically asks you if you are optimistic that you'll be wealthier in the future.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with your happiness today. Nor is it applicable in a society which is less interested in "economic growth" or finances in general.
This Gallup poll for instance, has the happiest country in the world being Panama, then after that, Costa Rica. With most of Europe being no happier than the Middle-East, Asia, or even Africa.
Another great example is Japan. Japan is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and it is far wealthier than many European countries. Yet Japan tends to score very poorly in happiness statistics. Why?
You can even use the case of China, who has seen its wealth and international status soar over the last couple of decades. Yet, China is less happy now than it was before. Why?
Because income has nothing to do with happiness. Repeat with me, income has nothing to do with happiness. Increasing your income will not make you happier, winning the lottery will not make you happier. It is a myth.
Now, there are two aspects where money does influence happiness. The first can simply be described as "Easterlin's paradox".
What Easternlin's paradox tries to explain, is why happiness hasn't improved in decades(and has even declined somewhat), even though we have become richer and richer at a pace never seen before in history.
The answer? Once your basic needs are met(IE food, housing, healthcare, etc), increases in income have no effect on happiness, at least when you are talking about entire groups(IE countries).
On an individual basis, increases in income beyond basic necessities can improve happiness. But why? This seems to be about "perception". As I said, no one wants to be poor. Or more specifically, "no wants to be on the bottom".
But that is about comparing yourself to other people, or more importantly, about how others perceive you, and about how you think others perceive you. But that is all relative, and mostly seems to have to do with "envy" and "expectations".
If you are poor, and everyone else around you is poor, then you are less likely to even realize that you are poor. But when you're poor, and you're surrounded by rich people, you are constantly aware of your being poor, and you are made to feel inadequate.
To understand this phenomenon, you can look at statistics on suicide.
From that article, "Although people making less than $10,000 are 50 percent more likely to commit suicide than those with incomes above $60,000, the San Francisco Federal Reserve paper shows that comparing yourself to those around you might have a larger impact on happiness than personal net worth."
Basically, envy makes us miserable. High expectations make us miserable. Lack of security makes us miserable.
Good relationships make us happy. Good health makes us happy. Security makes us happy.
Eddie, I hear what you're saying. Before living in Europe, I thought ... meh, suburban living is just how Americans like to do it. They like urban amenities, but they also like land, space, fresh air, room for their horses, motorcycles, golf courses, gun ranges, gardens -- whatever they're into. So be it.
I hate to tell you this, but where I live has all of these things too!!!! (minus the gun ranges.. which sucks... I'm a supporter of gun owner rights). I am about five miles from the city center. And in many ways you can tell you're in a dense urban area .. in other ways, it's a countryside paradise that any southern or midwestern boy would be happy to be in. Horses? Yep. There are horse trails and people riding them everywehre. Green spaces? Check.. large, well used parks nearby. You like dogs? So does everyone else. They all have them. Gardens? Almost everyone in my neighborhood has largish backyards (strategically placed tall trees and hedges make them very private). You walk down one street and you're on a bustling urban thoroughfare with markets, restaurants and pubs. You walk down another street one block over and you find chicken coops and goats. You'd swear you were somewhere in Alabama or Kentucky.
I'm not telling you this to brag about how great my life is and how wonderful it is here. I'm an American, and I love my country and am looking forward to when I can go home to the good ol' USA, but after seeing how things can be.. I'll never be satsified with what is in the US again.
Have you ever watched the show Hoarders? It's about people who fill their houses with trash and junk. Their living spaces looks like random trash heaps. Constrast that with a well organized, laid out house. Same area -- one is a delight to inhabit, the other just makes you anxious and bothered just to look at it. That's the difference between the US and Europe when it comes to urban and suburban design.
We shouldn't be resigned to this situation. We should roll up our sleeves and start taking more pride in our cities and insisting space is used better and more effeciently. Saying that we can't do that now because it's too far gone is like a hoarder saying his or her house can never be clean... too much junk. I refuse to accept that. Los Angeles is transforming itself, the rest of America can too. I dont' hate cars. They have their place, but the car experiment has failed. We need to admit that and move on. Cities built for cars and cars exclusively just suck to be in.
This isn't a political statement. It's a fact. You could be the most rural country loving, gun toting conservative around, and I bet if you saw what a well designed area feels like you'd be in hog heaven. You can have your bus, train, shops nearby AND horses too.. and hell, we'll throw in a bar you can walk to and meet up with friends if that's you're kind of thing. If not, no worries (there's a Catholic and a protestant church within walking distance from me too).
I know I'm running long here, but I'm passionate about this. I want what they have here for the US. I see no reason why we can't have nice things too. We have a much larger economy than they do, so we can do it even better if we wanted to. There's just a few stupid misconceptions we need to get over. It's not an ether/ or. It's a this AND that.
I wont disagree. There is a big difference though - the US is 3.8M sq mi with a population density of 90.6/sq mi whereas Denmark is 16.5k sq mi with a population density of 339.3/sq mi. Denmark doesn't have a choice but to make efficient use of their land. I don't doubt Denmark has all those things listed, but simply looking at the numbers will tell me they don't have nearly as much of it. To put this in perspective, Denmark is roughly 2x bigger than metro Atlanta with the same population. The US has national parks that combined are 5x bigger than Denmark.
The point is that surely it's easier to do things like build infrastructure in a country on the scale of Denmark compared to one like the US. Denmark has other things going for it too - for one, it doesn't share a huge border with a 3rd world country like Mexico. How much money has the US wasted on border issues, crime, illegals, etc? They also have the whole homogeneous thing going on (~90% Danish decent with a strong sense of national identity). We celebrate the melting pot, but my guess is that it's easier to get things done when issues like race relations aren't even on the radar.
Last edited by eddiehaskell; 08-31-2015 at 01:31 AM..
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,169,902 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
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.
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.
So I should have said specifically Denmark ...... considering the title of this thread. For some reason, they seem to be quite happy with where they live ..... despite higher taxes. Maybe happiness or satisfaction with life doesn't have all that much to do with relative freedom from taxation or driving privately owned cars.
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.
