What is the most ADVANCED nation in the world today? (unemployment rate, incomes)

[yowps3]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Do you feel other nations like the UAE and China are fast catching up/superseding Japan? For instance China has the world's first operational mag-lev service, something I don't think Japan has. Japan has been in economic recession in 20 years so I wonder if it will remain at the forefront of technological advancement and innovation.

UAE relies on foreign investment.. They have oil money..

Japan actually exports technology..

China may seem good on paper, but they don't have the technological capability of Japan.. Look at history ww2.. Japan which is much much smaller nation than China easily walked over them.. Who knows what Japan does today that t doesn't unveil to the world.. Not to mention they've signed many treaties that prohibit them from warfare technology developement etc..

It's not all about GDP numbers.. China has more then a billion people and along with India is the only reason they have the GDP numbers..

[ErikJohnsson]

Originally Posted by DginnWonder

I'd have to agree with you as far as the US is concerned. Although we are at least 10 years ahead of every other country militarily, we lag behind many countries as far as infrastructure and the availability of healthcare, as well as other things. It's pretty aggravating, considering how the US has the potential to completely reenergize its infrastructure, if we could just stop the "every man for himself" mantra

I will say though that considering Japan's upcoming demographic crapstorm, I think that S Korea has it beat in the long run.

Well, things change so quickly. I'd agree, that for at least the next 10 years, it looks like South Korea, China (in the big cities), and Singapore will advance more rapidly than Japan. Japan was quite ahead though and they're still a top dawg, so the differences may not be that noticeable.

[Libohove90]

Originally Posted by GioLM

I think the best thing to do when asking a question like this is to look at the well being of the nations citizens...the access and availability to amenities both necessities and luxuries and the standard of living in general.

I agree.

Also, lack of corruption and state of peace is important too...since participating in war and conflict is at this point backwards and primitive, this all will give you perspective on the political advancement.

Participating in war and conflict is not necessarily backwards and primitive, depending on the situation. For example, there was an ethnic cleansing going on in the Balkans during the 1990s and the major European powers couldn't do squat to stop it. They didn't want to use force, but rather solve the problem diplomatically. Diplomacy didn't get anywhere and there was lack of political will to stop the bloodshed. It took the US to order NATO strikes in order to end the violence. US participated in "war and conflict" and the European powers didn't, but in this case, the US is the reason the violence ended. Being at peace is a good goal, but pragmatic approaches sometimes require force. That's the way the world works.

Then you would look at the productivity and output that a nation gives to the world based on it's resources and population, so per capita, that then will cover the science and technology aspect. These things considered, the Nordic countries are all at the top of the list, as well as other western european countries like switzerland, the NL, and Luxembourg. Singapore, and Japan should not be left out either

Yes, the Nordic countries would come out on top. But it can be very misleading to say that. The US has over 310 million people and the Nordic countries combined have less than 30 million people, a tiny fraction compared to the US. While the Nordic countries may have a higher GDP per capita than the US overall, the massive size difference distorts the statistics. For example, the states of Delaware, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have GDP per capitas roughly equivalent to the Nordic countries, if not slightly higher. The combined population of those states is greater than the population of the whole Nordic region. While averages offer statistical satisfaction, the variations in the US make those averages less relevant. There are plenty of people in the US that have higher material standard of living than those in the Nordic countries, as well as those that have lower standard of living. The deviation is quite considerable.

The US is loaded with natural resources and has a massive amount of output based on that...but it is a corrupt country

The US is corrupt relative to what country(s)? The US is less corrupt than most countries in the world and fare well even with the industrialized countries, although it's not the cream of the crop in this caseanyway. The court of law is very strong and individual property rights are as well.

and it's impact on the world is more tyrannical than productive.

absolutely absurd comment. Don't let the media and television distort the underlying reality by fixating on the wars in Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan to the point where it seems like all the US does is cause war. The reality for the vast majority of the world (and the world is much much bigger than those places I mentioned), the US has been an overwhelmingly positive influence. As the leading proponent of globalization and supplier of financial capital, it is without doubt that the US played a leading role in the vast development of the world economy in the recent decades. Poverty rates have been dropping dramatically in many regions of the world and living standards have been rising. Some 400-600 million people in China escaped severe poverty in the last 30 years, much of that due to Western capital flooding in China. Let's not forget that after WWII, the US played an instrumental role in the development of the Western European economies, in which the high living standards in Western Europe today rests on. To say the US has been more tyrannical than productive is a dangerously ignorant thing to say. Those conflicts in Vietnam and Iraq do not outweigh the positive influence the US had in the world.

It also has one of the lowest average standards of living compared to other first world industrialised nations, and a stagnant monopolised political system.

Absolutely false. The average American enjoys higher living standards than the average person in Western Europe. There are small pockets in Western Europe in which you can say that have equal or higher standard of living. But US as a whole compared to Western Europe as a whole? The US definitely wins. Japan is a modern and advanced economy, but living standards aren't necessarily higher than the US, I'd say on par with the US at the most.

[japanese001]

Takeshi Goda = USA
Suneo Honekawa = UK
Shizuka Minamoto = France
Hidetoshi Dekisugi = Germany
Nobita Nobi = Japan
Doraemon =

[dunno what to put here]

Originally Posted by Libohove90

What are you do desperate to prove?

And how exactly does the US enjoy higher living standards than the average person in western Europe? What planet do you live on? I like Americans, but damn, many of you on City Data just seem incapable of accepting the US is not the greatest place on planet Earth.

[DginnWonder]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnsson

Well, things change so quickly. I'd agree, that for at least the next 10 years, it looks like South Korea, China (in the big cities), and Singapore will advance more rapidly than Japan. Japan was quite ahead though and they're still a top dawg, so the differences may not be that noticeable.

I agree that S Korea's got a good future, and if they ever rejoin N Korea to be one country, its overall future would be even better (although unification, if Germany is any sign, is a thorny and difficult process to get "right").

I guess I'm in the minority, but I've always been a little skeptical of China.

Isn't Singapore already really crowded? What's next for such a small city-state?

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by DginnWonder

I agree that S Korea's got a good future, and if they ever rejoin N Korea to be one country, its overall future would be even better (although unification, if Germany is any sign, is a thorny and difficult process to get "right").

I guess I'm in the minority, but I've always been a little skeptical of China.

Isn't Singapore already really crowded? What's next for such a small city-state?

You're right Singapore can only grow so big. It's limited not only by it's tiny size but by it's reliance on resources from elsewhere. Most everything is imported into Singapore, for a start, so it's pretty vulnerable.

[Judge_Smails]

I'm going to say Finland. Not just because I live here, but given its size, its location, its history and the resources its given, this country has achieved a remarkably high standard of living over the past century.

And for a puny country of 5 million, we punch well above our weight in terms of patents, industrial design, and technology.

And let's also not forget that for the past century, no country has a better track record than Finland in managing its national budget and making good on its debts. If Japan and Germany had actually paid off their astounding debts to the world, with interest, one wonders if they'd rate as highly as other advanced countries.

[GioLM]

Originally Posted by Libohove90

I agree.



Participating in war and conflict is not necessarily backwards and primitive, depending on the situation. For example, there was an ethnic cleansing going on in the Balkans during the 1990s and the major European powers couldn't do squat to stop it. They didn't want to use force, but rather solve the problem diplomatically. Diplomacy didn't get anywhere and there was lack of political will to stop the bloodshed. It took the US to order NATO strikes in order to end the violence. US participated in "war and conflict" and the European powers didn't, but in this case, the US is the reason the violence ended. Being at peace is a good goal, but pragmatic approaches sometimes require force. That's the way the world works.



Yes, the Nordic countries would come out on top. But it can be very misleading to say that. The US has over 310 million people and the Nordic countries combined have less than 30 million people, a tiny fraction compared to the US. While the Nordic countries may have a higher GDP per capita than the US overall, the massive size difference distorts the statistics. For example, the states of Delaware, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have GDP per capitas roughly equivalent to the Nordic countries, if not slightly higher. The combined population of those states is greater than the population of the whole Nordic region. While averages offer statistical satisfaction, the variations in the US make those averages less relevant. There are plenty of people in the US that have higher material standard of living than those in the Nordic countries, as well as those that have lower standard of living. The deviation is quite considerable.



The US is corrupt relative to what country(s)? The US is less corrupt than most countries in the world and fare well even with the industrialized countries, although it's not the cream of the crop in this caseanyway. The court of law is very strong and individual property rights are as well.



absolutely absurd comment. Don't let the media and television distort the underlying reality by fixating on the wars in Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan to the point where it seems like all the US does is cause war. The reality for the vast majority of the world (and the world is much much bigger than those places I mentioned), the US has been an overwhelmingly positive influence. As the leading proponent of globalization and supplier of financial capital, it is without doubt that the US played a leading role in the vast development of the world economy in the recent decades. Poverty rates have been dropping dramatically in many regions of the world and living standards have been rising. Some 400-600 million people in China escaped severe poverty in the last 30 years, much of that due to Western capital flooding in China. Let's not forget that after WWII, the US played an instrumental role in the development of the Western European economies, in which the high living standards in Western Europe today rests on. To say the US has been more tyrannical than productive is a dangerously ignorant thing to say. Those conflicts in Vietnam and Iraq do not outweigh the positive influence the US had in the world.




Absolutely false. The average American enjoys higher living standards than the average person in Western Europe. There are small pockets in Western Europe in which you can say that have equal or higher standard of living. But US as a whole compared to Western Europe as a whole? The US definitely wins. Japan is a modern and advanced economy, but living standards aren't necessarily higher than the US, I'd say on par with the US at the most.

You think you are not talking out of your ass just as I don't believe I was talking out of my ass. I have a lot of first hand experience on a personal level regarding lving standards in both the US and Western Europe. You have a completely different idea on what constitutes as an advanced nation, a high living standard, and you do not fully agree with my first statement as you said, your ideas focus around capital and not the health of a society as a whole. I cannot come back with a piece by piece response with someone like you because neither one of us will alter the others viewpoint nor make anything sound profound or intelligent to eachother.

[ubringliten]

How can the US be the most advanced when you have religion running rampant, being gay is sinful, 1/6 people live in poverty, obesity rate is at 30%, the infrastructure is like crap, worst healthcare system amongst the most industrialized nations, education ranked at 17th, and have one of the worst work benefits? Where is high speed rail? On and on.