-
UN Human Development Report: 2007
I'm not quite sure if this is backroom material or not (i.e. how controversial it is) but I thought it was interesting. I was looking something up on wikipedia when I noticed this map, rating countries on their score on the U.N.'s Human Development Index, a rather complicated means of determining living standards that takes into account things like GDP per capita, education, life expectancy, etc. It's not perfect, but as the wikipedia article notes, it's better than the old method of just looking at GDP per capita.
Does anyone else find some of the results surprising? For example, that Germany and the UK are in the second tier (although with the latter very close to the first). Things also seem to have changed since I was in college, since Japan has shot up to 8th (although, finishing the article they were in first once in 1991, must have hit a slump in the late 90's when my geography book was written). Brunei in the top 30 was a pleasant surprise.
I'm not sure this is really debate worthy, but I thought it was kind of interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
Oh I'll make it Backroom.
These imperialist capitalist pig-dog countries in the top tier got there by exploiting the labor and resources of undeveloped countries. If it wasn't for the slave labor from non-Christian countries they ruthlessly exploited they wouldn't be nearly as advanced.
:clown:
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
These imperialist capitalist pig-dog countries in the top tier got there by exploiting the labor and resources of undeveloped countries. If it wasn't for the slave labor from non-Christian countries they ruthlessly exploited they wouldn't be nearly as advanced.
:clown:
But Vlad old fruit, there's naught controversial in that assertion...
:wink:
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
Almost freaked out when I saw Iceland beating us in that article, luckily I checked their sources, which gave this ranking:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...elopment-index
Phew. Back to normal....
EDIT: don't even try pointing out that the site is older and Iceland has beaten us now...
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
In the top 40 (#36). Why do you ask?
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
Because annoying poles is great fun why else?
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
Hey, poles have all the fun at strip joints. :belly:
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
I'm very glad that this map in particular did not place Russia at the Same level as The Shiny Happy Democratic Republic of Congo.
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Hey, poles have all the fun at strip joints.
You're talking to a dutch guy....
Also I got my nickname from something the Poles excelled in, they also helped save Europe from the Ottoman invasion. Granted they lacking a bit lately but nothing bad about their attempts to catch up. :2thumbsup:
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
Indeed, we have all the poles in stripjoints
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Indeed, we have all the poles in stripjoints
Ok, I'm confused. Did my joke translate? :stupido2:
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Ok, I'm confused. Did my joke translate? :stupido2:
It did...
It's just that they lack proper education and language skills, being #12 and #20 on the human development index. They aren't quite developed... :beam:
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
-
Re : UN Human Development Report: 2007
Oh God, not the UN Human development index again. :rolleyes:
Bunch of bureacrats, making a pointless list that has no relevance to the actual lives of actual human beings whatsover. People don't care about their abstract 'development' according to theoretical social models by bureacratic number crunchers. What people care about is their income, their health, safety, freedom, the quality of their surroundings.
Here is the important list, the quality of life index:
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
Whoa! France has more freedom and a lower cost of living than the US? And why is the UK so far down on the list?
Compare it to the Democracy Index. Interesting.
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
The main difference seemed to be the UK cost of living, which was 5! I guess that means were a really expensive place to live....
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
Louis, that's a very silly list.
The methodology is hard to fathom - as one assumes the larger the number the better in the ranking, and the explanation doesn't clarify - so Japan, one of the most expensive places to live has a Cost of Living index of 14. I must be being dull. :huh:
And Ireland has a worse quality of life than Colombia. Or maybe that's because the estate agents that compiled the figures enjoy Colombian Marching Powder more than our kind of craic.
(I would also think that a country like ours that apparently costs nothing at all to live in would be popular...)
It must hurt that France is outscored by Italy on Culture. ~;p
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
The UK a more expensive place to live than Sweden? I don't think so. Our economy score is bizarrely low too.
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
I prefer the first list.Louis list doesnt seem to make any sense.:drama1:
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
The Human Development Index is basically just an average of a country's GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy/enrolment. It does not capture everything one values in life - "culture" or what have you - but it does cover some fundamentals. I don't find it very useful for comparing rich countries - as they differ less in these basics - but it does bring home the gap between them and the poorer countries.
Ironically, it was developed because folk figured there was more to life than GDP per capita, but when people did the maths, it ended up giving very similar rankings to GDP per capita.
Personally, I don't find much value in the overall composite number for HDI or quality of life (as the aggregation hides so much information), but looking at the components is fascinating. For example, it is interesting to see Iraq and Afghanistan bottom of the list for security. Not exactly mission accomplished.
-
Re: Re : UN Human Development Report: 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Oh God, not the UN Human development index again. :rolleyes:
Bunch of bureacrats, making a pointless list that has no relevance to the actual lives of actual human beings whatsover. People don't care about their abstract 'development' according to theoretical social models by bureacratic number crunchers. What people care about is their income, their health, safety, freedom, the quality of their surroundings.
Here is the important list, the
quality of life index:
If whoever made this list has an agenda, I can't figure out what it is.
-
Re: Re : UN Human Development Report: 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Oh God, not the UN Human development index again. :rolleyes:
Bunch of bureacrats, making a pointless list that has no relevance to the actual lives of actual human beings whatsover. People don't care about their abstract 'development' according to theoretical social models by bureacratic number crunchers. What people care about is their income, their health, safety, freedom, the quality of their surroundings.
Here is the important list, the
quality of life index:
Another list of numbers. :rolleyes:
-
Re: UN Human Development Report: 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I prefer the first list.Louis list doesnt seem to make any sense.:drama1:
France is #1. :france:
:laugh: Iraq: Freedom 0