I got to find my happy place!!!

[unionguy]

World's Happiest Places: Canada Made It, U.S. Didn't
New Report Lists Top 10 Happiest Countries

Where in the world do people feel most content with their lives?

According to a new report released by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based group of 30 countries with democratic governments that provides economic and social statistics and data, happiness levels are highest in northern European countries.

Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively. Outside Europe, New Zealand and Canada landed at Nos. 8 and 6, respectively. The U.S. did not crack the top 10. Switzerland placed seventh and Belgium placed tenth.

The report looked at subjective well-being, defined as life satisfaction. Did people feel like their lives were dominated by positive experiences and feelings, or negative ones?

To answer that question, the OECD used data from a Gallup World Poll conducted in 140 countries around the world last year. The poll asked respondents whether they had experienced six different forms of positive or negative feelings within the last day.

Some sample questions: Did you enjoy something you did yesterday? Were you proud of something you did yesterday? Did you learn something yesterday? Were you treated with respect yesterday? In each country, a representative sample of no more than 1,000 people, age 15 or older, were surveyed. The poll was scored numerically on a scale of 1-100. The average score was 62.4.

Why did the northern European countries come out looking so good? Overall economic health played a powerful role, says Simon Chapple, senior economist from the Social Policy Division of the OECD, which put together the report.

While the global economic crisis has taken a toll on every nation, the countries that scored at the top still boast some of the highest gross domestic product per capita in the world. Denmark, which got the highest score, is not only a wealthy country, it's also highly productive, with a 2009 GDP per capita of $68,000, according to the International Monetary Fund. The United States' GDP per capita, by contrast, is $47,335. Though the U.S. got an above-average score of 74, it did not break the top 10.

Wealth alone does not bring the greatest degree of happiness. Norway has the highest GDP per capita on the list--$98,822--yet it ranked ninth, not first. On the other hand, New Zealand's happiness level is 76.7 out of 100 on the OECD list, but its 2009 GDP per capita is just $30,556.

According to a 2005 editorial, published in the British Medical Journal and authored by Dr. Tony Delamothe, research done in Mexico, Ghana, Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K. shows that individuals typically get richer during their lifetimes, but not happier. It is family, social and community networks that bring joy to one's life, according to Delamothe.

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/Story?id=7585729&page=1)- May 15, 2009


Happiest places? How could all those free health care socialists be happier then us? :D We live in a country with so much potential and no limits. Here in America you are free to live as poor as you want with out no stinking welfare net to hold you back.

Why live in a country as a middle class citizen when you can live in a place that has such extremes. Life is best when you live your entire life working 60 hours a week living in a fantasy world that you will someday hit the lottery or win American Idol. Isn't life happiest when you drudge to work everyday with less pay, expensive ineffective health care, and no job protection with the knowledge that there is less government restrictions on how much the CEO and stock holders of your company make every year?

Don't those free college education "Lenin lovers" know that struggling and suffering builds character. True happiest is knowing that if things "go south" that you have a government, that you have been paying taxes to your entire life, won't be there for you.

Those crazy Marxist Europeans that have government enforced 30 day paid vacations have to realize is that we all have to make sacrifices. We need to do with less so we can keep a deregulated free market alive so we can make sure our rich remains rich (or becomes richer).

We, the struggling, need to take more of the tax base because if we tax a rich person more, they might lose some innovation to produce a cheaper product in a factory with slave labor in a third world country half way across the world. :eek:

We are a nation of free loving libertarians. We need to accept needless deaths from unsafe products and foods because we can't put more regulation on "our corporate daddies". It might impact their profits. What would we become? "rabid communists" :D

[johnr]

Keep the Faith UG, Keep the Faith;)

[unionguy]

Keep the Faith UG, Keep the Faith;)

Yeah, thanks johnr. I have to keep the faith because I can really feel the swelling waves of change crashing into my feet.:D LOL (that was me being sarcastic)

To be fair, we must note, not everyone in socialist Europe is in their happy place.



Cool Britannia? Brits are angriest Europeans: poll

LONDON (AFP) - - Britons get angry more often than any of their European counterparts, while the Danes are the most relaxed, a new poll published Friday showed.

According to the survey, the average Briton admits to being angry four times a day, while adults in Denmark say they get angry just once every 10 days.

Italians are peeved 3.5 times per day, the French get angry three times a day, and Germans are annoyed 2.4 times a day, the survey said.

Britons were most likely to be angered by queue jumpers, Italians were most annoyed by poor driving, and the French were likely to be riled by bad food and service in restaurants.

Swedes and Norwegians, by contrast, were most likely to be angered by people mocking their countries.

Six thousand adults in Austria, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden were questioned for the survey, which was carried out by 72 Point for broadcaster GOLD.

Yahoo News (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20090515/tts-lifestyle-britain-europe-social-ange-cac1e9b.html)- May 16, 2009

[Bart Lidofsky]

Happiest places? How could all those free health care socialists be happier then us? :D We live in a country with so much potential and no limits. Here in America you are free to live as poor as you want with out no stinking welfare net to hold you back.
Because you don't have a news media and political readers following Saul Alinsky's methodology on convincing everybody how miserable they should be, so that they can take over?

[unionguy]

Because you don't have a news media and political readers following Saul Alinsky's methodology on convincing everybody how miserable they should be, so that they can take over?

Ahhh.......The ignorance is bliss theory. If the corporate news media does not show how people are living in other parts of the world, sometimes better then us here in America, then they can continue to perpetuate the lie that we are still living in the best country in the world. So, "Be Happy"

Insurance companies can continue equating universal health care to socialism or communism and of course that leads to totalitarian oppressive Stalin-type dictatorships :eek: (nevermind Canada, France and the rest of western Europe - "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain")

Speaking of Saul Alinsky........I think he said it best......


"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.

This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."

Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134)- Saul Alinsky(1971)

[unionguy]

With the decline of America because of this 40 year old "greed is good libertarian" policy, it looks like America is not even #1 in the "American Dream" department. :eek:


Looking for the land of opportunity

If top professions in Britain are tough to break into for disadvantaged children, as former UK minister Alan Milburn's report on social mobility found, is there a land of opportunity that can serve as a beacon? Yes, but it's not the US, argues University of Ottawa professor Miles Corak.

The American Dream promises that aspiration, hard work and individual enterprise will be rewarded with prosperity, regardless of family background.

President Barack Obama, the first black president, epitomises this; but all too often the dream fails to match reality.

The truth is that the US sits with the UK at the bottom of the international league table of social mobility.

Family background has as strong an influence on socio-economic opportunity in the classless United States as it does in the supposedly hidebound class-ridden UK.

In terms of giving children a good start in life and having a fair labour market, both countries probably have much to learn from those at the top of the league table - Finland, Norway and Canada, among others.

A generation ago the UK spent less on the education of its children than most other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

This without doubt contributed to the lack of social mobility experienced by today's adults.

Class in the classroom

But Finland spent no more per pupil than the UK; the United States the most.

School financing in the US, based on local property taxes, is a strong force for concentrating advantage across the generations.

More affluent parents in America shop for schools, move neighbourhoods and spend a great deal on private tuition for their children.

This is in sharp contrast to the broad-based and universal structure of the Finnish system.

The UK has a good deal more in common with the US than it does with Finland, but is increasingly recognising that access to good quality education is a playing field that needs to be levelled.

Reform of school financing does not appear to be a priority for the current US administration.

But President Obama's focus on healthcare - if it is truly reformed in a way that will boost access for poorer children - may well pay dividends in promoting social mobility for the long run.

The point is that what matters is not so much the size of the government's social budget, but the degree to which the dollars, pounds or euros are advantageous to the disadvantaged.

In a similar way, removing labour market inequality also helps social mobility.

Nepotism

If the UK and the US have the lowest degree of social mobility it is not only because poorer children don't get the best start in life, but also because the stakes are higher.

In both countries labour markets are more unequal than elsewhere.

The barriers - both implicit and explicit - to entry into particular occupations, sectors and even firms are higher.

Taxes are less progressive and the gap between low and high incomes is greater.

Whether the degree of social mobility is a problem that needs to be addressed by our politicians depends very much upon the underlying causes.

Children are like their parents for all sorts of reasons, some of which are valued by the labour market.

If the reason adult incomes resemble that of their parents has to do with parental values and styles, and instilling motivation, then most of us would also agree there is likely little role for public policy.

But if it also extends to the role of connections, contacts or nepotism most would feel the opposite - that the playing field is not level.

In many advanced economies, most jobs held by young people are found through family and friends, and a good many children will end up working in the same occupation as their parents.

Old boys' network?

Whether it matters or not for social mobility depends upon whether there are other options available to young job seekers, whether the best jobs and occupations are allocated this way, and whether the resulting restrictions lead to excessive incomes.

In Canada - arguably the country whose labour market is closest in structure to the US - about four in 10 young men have worked at some point for the same employer as their fathers.

A significant proportion make careers with the same employer as their father had.

But only at the very top of the income distribution is this excessive, and suggestive of nepotism.

In the US and the UK on the other hand, where all the signs are that to a similar degree, children end up working for the same employer as their parents, the effect on social mobility is much greater.

This is because high-paying jobs are more concentrated within the professions, and the overall level of inequality is higher.

What many of the Nordic countries and Canada have recognised is that the full development of a child's early years - schooling, healthcare, and socialisation - is the first and most necessary prerequisite in developing a socially mobile society.

What they also teach us is that this is only a prerequisite, not a guarantee.

The degree of fairness, openness, and equality in labour markets is also a reason some countries are at the top of the league table, while others languish so much further down.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8162616.stm) - 22 July 2009

[unionguy]

Ahhhh.....here we go, good ol' Union posting the happy polls again.:D

Doesn't it make us seethe with anger, that with all the freedoms that we fight so hard for on a daily basis, that we as Americans wouldn't be happier? How could France keep beating us in these polls? Corporate-runned Fox news keeps telling us how miserable it is to live in "commie" France. Bill O'Riley keeps telling me how cowardly the French are and how we have to keep rescuing them from invasion. (even though we couldn't have won the war of independence without them) Those poor souls have to put up with government health care. You know long lines and "death panels (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/27/opinion/main3105523.shtml)". Oh, P.S. Britain took a big hit too, thank you Margaret Thatcher.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/07/article-1240988-07C78566000005DC-153_468x256.jpg


Britain falls to 25th best place to live in the world... behind Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Hungary

Britain has dropped to 25th place on a list of the best places in the world to live - behind countries such as the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Uruguay.
While France tops the poll for the fifth year running, the UK's climate, crime rate, cost of living, congested roads and overcrowded cities have pushed it even further down from last year's ranking at 20.
The Quality of Life Index, published by International Living magazine for the 30th year, says the French live life to the full, while Britons are over-worked.

In all, 194 countries are surveyed on nine criteria, including the cost of living, culture and leisure, environment, safety, culture and weather.
Australia is placed second after France, followed by Switzerland, Germany and New Zealand.
Even former communist countries where unemployment is still rife are considered better places to settle down in than Britain, with Lithuania and the Czech Republic coming in at 22nd and 24th place respectively.

The magazine says the French enjoy everything from Riviera beaches and Alpine ski resorts to what it describes as 'the best health service in the world'.

But it is the country's bon vivant lifestyle that sets it apart.

While the British are infamous for a love of TV dinners and binge drinking, the French savour the finer things in life.
These include two-hour lunch breaks at cheap cordon bleu restaurants, and some of the best wine in the world.
Working hours are far shorter than those of their stressed British neighbours, who have less holiday entitlement too. The French take most of August off, view Sunday leisure as sacrosanct, and have more public holidays, as well as a lower crime rate.
'In France, life is savoured,' said Jackie Flynn, publisher of International Living. 'I don't think anyone will argue that France is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. The French love tidy gardens, pretty sidewalk cafes, and clean streets. Cities are well tended and with little crime.'

Variety is also seen as a major factor in France's appeal, with the survey noting: 'Romantic Paris offers the best of everything, but services don't fall away in Alsace's wine villages, in wild and lovely Corsica, in lavender-scented Provence. Or in the Languedoc of the troubadors, bathed in Mediterranean sunlight.'
Britain does not top a single category in the survey, which is compiled using official government statistics, data from the World Health Organisation and the views of the magazine's editors around the globe.
The U.S. fell from third to seventh place because of the economic crisis last year. A magazine spokesman said: 'Sustaining the American Dream has escalated out of the reach of many.'
Germany is widely praised for its efficiency and leisure facilities, with the magazine noting that 'the Harz Mountains now has a specialist hiking trail for nudists. Germany is arguably the world's most naturist-friendly country'.

Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240988/France-tops-list-best-places-live-world-fifth-year-row--Britain-languishes-25th.html) - January 7, 2010

[bazzer]

Oh, P.S. Britain took a big hit too, thank you Margaret Thatcher.


So... Britain plunges 5 notches over the past year, and it's the fault of someone who left office 20 years ago? Cool. I blame the US's poor showing on Woodrow Wilson.

I also note that recent trends during the past year or two have seen France's government shift right while our own has moved left. That's interesting in the light of this poll, isn't it? (Of course I realize it's all de Gaulle's and Hoover's fault.)

[unionguy]

So... Britain plunges 5 notches over the past year, and it's the fault of someone who left office 20 years ago? Cool. I blame the US's poor showing on Woodrow Wilson.

Yeah, but like Reagan here in the states, Maggie may be gone but her policies live on. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jun/10/labour.uk1) The ideas of Thatcherism, like Reaganomics, are based on 4 pillars (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html).....

Deduct government spending,
Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
Reduce government regulation of the economy,
Control the money supply to reduce inflation

These policies are still alive and well in our government, on both the Democratic and Republican sides.

Thatcherism is often described as a libertarian ideology. Thatcher saw herself as creating a libertarian movement (http://thinkingmansguidetotheworld.blogspot.com/2009/12/mrs-thatcher-and-libertarianism.html) and as we all know, libertarianism is alive and well.


I also note that recent trends during the past year or two have seen France's government shift right while our own has moved left. That's interesting in the light of this poll, isn't it? (Of course I realize it's all de Gaulle's and Hoover's fault.)

There has been a shift to the left??? :confused: (scratching head) Where was I ?? Did I miss it?? I know you are not calling the Obama election a shift to the left?? :confused: I challenge you to name any law passed in the last thirty years that would be considered a "move to the Left".