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.
Wrong? It says "adjusted". That means the first column does not consider it.. so the 2nd and the 3rd is the adjusted HDI.
.
It does say "adjusted" thats true sorry.
The gender equality one however looks like a poor atempt to show how the standard of living might be for a women in each country, . The big problems for places like the USA NZ, Canada Ireland and Australia etc on that index seem to be, they have higher fertility and teen pregancy rates, that the women are more likely to stay at home and look after the kids, and they vote in less Female Politicians.
It totally ignores the fact that a lot of women and their children would live with higher income earning men, and as such have a standard of living much closer to the leading HDI, or IHDI index's. Hears the methodolgy and a comment from the UN itself
Yes, I'm saying the IHDI is the one we should pay more attention to unless you're quite wealthy. Therefore the HDI score without inequality adjustment is misleading.
I don't think I buy that. For one some income inequality is by age. An average American might be able to rise to something better than an average Slovakian or British person by the time he or she is 40. For another some of the inequality is by region rather than just by class. A person at the poverty level for Maine is likely to be in a better place than one in Mississippi. Lastly the inequality goes by three measures. If one values one form of inequality more than another the US goes up or down. If you adjust only for "life-expectancy loss due to inequality" the US goes even lower, but does end up higher than Slovakia.
To be honest I think their IHDI figure is slightly curious. When I go to "build your own index", and adjust for every factor they have under "inequality", the US came out as eleventh. If I add to that every gender-inequality measure they have the US comes out twelfth. There are combinations I found in gender+inequality that get the US below 20, but I don't think I found any that gets what they're listing.
The gender equality one however looks like a poor atempt to show how the standard of living might be for a women in each country, . The big problems for places like the USA NZ, Canada Ireland and Australia etc on that index seem to be, they have higher fertility and teen pregancy rates, that the women are more likely to stay at home and look after the kids, and they vote in less Female Politicians.
It totally ignores the fact that a lot of women and their children would live with higher income earning men, and as such have a standard of living much closer to the leading HDI, or IHDI index's. Hears the methodolgy and a comment from the UN itself
A good example, in the final table is to compare the USA and Germany, dispite the USA having far better secondary education and and labor force participation rates than germany accross both sexs, the USA is 40 places below germany in the end results, simply because US females are far more likely to have children (not such a bad thing when you consider most of europe has problems with declining populations), German females are more likley than German males to complete secondary school (lets just ignore the fact that the Germany's overall female completion rate is still below the level of the female completions in the USA) and the Germans are far more likley to vote a female into their parliment.
Which only reinforces my opinon that the much more used and quoted first column is the far more relevant measure of quality of life than the third one. The second Column im not going to mention, its being debated enough already.
Anyway we are forgetting what the UN does this for in the first place. It's not for the richest countries to get bragging rights, but to give the poorest ones a guide on where they need to improve.
Last edited by danielsa1775; 11-13-2011 at 05:02 AM..
A good example, in the final table is to compare the USA and Germany, dispite the USA having far better secondary education and and labor force participation rates than germany accross both sexs,
Yes, I'm saying the IHDI is the one we should pay more attention to unless you're quite wealthy. Therefore the HDI score without inequality adjustment is misleading.
2009 and prior to that they did factor in inequality in the HDI score and only had one score, not two like they have now (since 2010). 2009 and before the United States had been ranking around the same as the 2010 IHDI ranking. The US suddenly jumps (from #12 in the 2010 IHDI to #4 in the HDI) when you take out income inequality in the score calculation. The jump is even more drastic this year, from #23 to #4. That's because all the good stuff the US has is still there, just fewer and fewer people can make full, or any, use of it.
It's not misleading ( and what you quoted is not what I said ), it's just not as precise. A high HDI still means it's a wealthy country.
And as I already told you, even those who you think " can not make full use of it" actually still do. For instance, they do have to treat you and can't kick you out of the emergency room etc. You still get much better care than someone in a developing country/3rd world country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielsa1775
It does say "adjusted" thats true sorry.
The gender equality one however looks like a poor atempt to show how the standard of living might be for a women in each country, . The big problems for places like the USA NZ, Canada Ireland and Australia etc on that index seem to be, they have higher fertility and teen pregancy rates, that the women are more likely to stay at home and look after the kids, and they vote in less Female Politicians.
I think it has more to do with less women running for office.
It totally ignores the fact that a lot of women and their children would live with higher income earning men, and as such have a standard of living much closer to the leading HDI, or IHDI index's. Hears the methodolgy and a comment from the UN itself
Honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. It just says something about gender inequality, not how well off women would be, could be etc.
Being that pretty much ALL the countries are European or European-based.....
We can safely assume it is a VERY euro-centric based study based on quality of living.
What makes you say this? Europe is wealthy, and it's a lot of countries. Of course you will have more European countries at the top. 27 or so vs. USA, Japan, Canada, Australia and a couple of others. That's pretty much what one would expect. It's released by the UN. The UN's headquarter is in NYC. I hardly doubt it's biased. If anything, we are the ones who love to publish biased rankings ( worldwide College rankings etc. )
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielsa1775
A good example, in the final table is to compare the USA and Germany, dispite the USA having far better secondary education and and labor force participation rates than germany accross both sexs, the USA is 40 places below germany in the end results, simply because US females are far more likely to have children (not such a bad thing when you consider most of europe has problems with declining populations), German females are more likley than German males to complete secondary school (lets just ignore the fact that the Germany's overall female completion rate is still below the level of the female completions in the USA) and the Germans are far more likley to vote a female into their parliment.
Ok, I will have to disagree here, too. I've known many European College students, and as much as I hate saying this, all of them were much better in Math, Physics etc. It's much more rigorous there. Not that this bothers me because I liked it the way it was in the U.S. ( easier for me ). It's just my honest opinion. I just think you have to give credit where credit is due.
Most women who do have children can't afford to stay at home, though. It's just too expensive here. Unless you have money, you will probably go back to work as soon as possible.
What makes you say this? Europe is wealthy, and it's a lot of countries. Of course you will have more European countries at the top. 27 or so vs. USA, Japan, Canada, Australia and a couple of others. That's pretty much what one would expect. It's released by the UN. The UN's headquarter is in NYC. I hardly doubt it's biased. If anything, we are the ones who love to publish biased rankings ( worldwide College rankings etc. )
Everyone has a cultural difference when it comes to what's liveable or not. If it's based in NYC, it's euro-centric.
It were based, in say, Hong Kong, you'd have variables that would weigh it ever so slightly more Pacific Asian oriented and towards their values, etc.
I don't care what any surveys says... USA and Canada are the best countries in the world by FAR! No other countries comes even close, when it comes to overall lifestyle, economy, people, diversity, climate, languages, culture, houses, restaurants, shopping etc.
I lived both in Europe and here in North America. The only pros with Europe is extra vacation time, but who cares when getting extra week or two off if I'm going to be misrable rest of the year. Other places are nice to visit, but to live never.
I don't care what any surveys says... USA and Canada are the best countries in the world by FAR! No other countries comes even close, when it comes to overall lifestyle, economy, people, diversity, climate, languages, culture, houses, restaurants, shopping etc.
I lived both in Europe and here in North America. The only pros with Europe is extra vacation time, but who cares when getting extra week or two off if I'm going to be misrable rest of the year. Other places are nice to visit, but to live never.
Where did you live in Europe? Each country has a different standard of living, pluses and minuses.
Tiger Beer: The Human Development Report is developed by the United Nations. This isn't some quality of living survey based on where rich American expats can expect to have a good life. What an individual experiences will vary anywhere depending on what they do and how much money and skills they have.
Glucorious: I'm tired of arguing over this. I think you're reading that word more negatively than I mean. I'm not using "misleading" as synonymous with "wrong", I mean it gives people an incomplete picture. We have to look at both HDI and IHDI together. I was wrong to say the IHDI is more accurate, I can't really back that up, but I also can't say HDI is more accurate. Similarly when we talk only about unemployment percentage, this is misleading. It doesn't mean it's wrong, just that we also have to look at the percent employed in a country or region, among other factors.
Thomas R.: Is this based on the recent report showing a growing wealth gap between young and old in the US? In most developed countries, people who have careers earn more money the longer they do it. This alone does not explain and justify the massive and growing wealth gap in the US. Young people with college degrees stuck working in service and retail jobs in the US now are not realistically going to be earning the wages of the top 20% as they get older. The career jobs they would have been entering 20+ years ago have disappeared and the few who still have them are the older people who are most qualified. Someone will replace them if those jobs aren't lost completely, but there are not enough of those jobs for anyone to argue this is the path that most educated people can expect to go through now.
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.
). It's just my honest opinion. I just think you have to give credit where credit is due.
