PDA

View Full Version : Norway the best place to live: UN


Sam L
Nov 3rd, 2011, 12:07 PM
UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations on Thursday named oil-rich Norway as the country with the best quality of life, while Asia has made the biggest strides in recent decades.
The UN's annual A-to-Z of global wealth, poverty, health and education highlighted however that it is becoming ever more difficult to break into the rich club of nations.
Norway -- with its 81.0 years of life expectancy and average annual income of 58,810 dollars -- has now topped the Human Development Index (HDI) for all but two years since 2001.
It does not top any individual category -- average income in Liechtenstein is a wallet-busting 81,011 dollars and Japan's life expectancy is 83.6 years -- but Norway's all-round performance gave it superiority in the UN Development Programme (UNDP) 20th annual rankings.
Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Ireland followed at the top of the standings.
Zimbabwe came in last among the 169 nations ranked, behind Mozambique, Burundi, Niger and Democratic Republic of Congo.
In stark contrast to the leaders, in Zimbabwe life expectancy is just 47 years and per capita income 176 dollars.
DR Congo, Zambia and Zimbabwe are the only three countries to see their HDI value fall below 1970 levels.
"These countries offer lessons on the devastating impact of conflict, the AIDS epidemic and economic and political mismanagement," said UNDP chief Helen Clarke, the former New Zealand prime minister.
The study aims to give a broader assessment of quality of life than just income -- by including, health, education, gender equality and political freedom -- and its lead writer Jeni Klugman said most of the world has seen "dramatic progress" since 1970.
Average life expectancy rose from 59 to 70 years, primary school enrollment grew from 55 to 70 percent, and per capita incomes doubled to more than 10,000 dollars. Poor nations have made particular progress.
Overall countries "are healthier, more educated and wealthier and more power to appoint and hold their leaders accountable than ever before," said Klugman.
"But some countries have suffered serious setbacks, particularly in health -- sometimes erasing the gains of several decades," she added.
The nations which have risen most up the rankings include "growth miracles" such as China, which has risen eight places in the last five years to 89th, Indonesia and South Korea.
East Asia and the Pacific had the strongest performance of any region over the past 40 years -- twice the average worldwide progress.
China, the second highest index achiever since 1970, has been successful mainly because of income rather than health or education, the report said.
China's per capita income increased 21-fold over four decades, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. Yet its school enrollment has dropped since 1970 and life expectancy has not improved as much as other nations.
Klugman highlighted that "economic growth alone does not automatically bring improvements in health and education."
Nepal surprisingly emerged as one of the most improved nations, despite its longstanding civil war. A child born today in Nepal can expect to live 25 years longer than a child born in 1970.
In six sub-Saharan African countries and three in the former Soviet Union, life expectancy is now below 1970 levels. Mainly because of the HIV epidemic and tougher conditions for adults in former communist nations.
And even though incomes have grown dramatically, poor nations are not making the same economic strides as they are in health and education.
"On average rich countries have grown faster than poor ones over the past 40 years," said the report.
"The divide between developed and developing countries persists: a small subset of countries has remained at the top of the world income distribution and only a handful of countries that started out poor have joined that high income group," it concluded.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gCCwbqupKO5YeHJ4I2GDkrMu-CUw?docId=CNG.844dababfa6a3430536f7fcdf984d1d8.131

ElusiveChanteuse
Nov 3rd, 2011, 12:11 PM
I thought the massacre would somehow affect its reputation but anyway, it's still a great place to live indeed.

Sam L
Nov 3rd, 2011, 12:26 PM
I thought the massacre would somehow affect its reputation but anyway, it's still a great place to live indeed.
What massacre?

ElusiveChanteuse
Nov 3rd, 2011, 12:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
:shrug: I guess safety and peace aren't a part of quality of life.:shrug:

Tripp
Nov 3rd, 2011, 01:24 PM
I thought the massacre would somehow affect its reputation but anyway, it's still a great place to live indeed.

Those were isolated events caused by a lunatic man. I don't see how they affect political freedom or Norway's reputation.

Elwin.
Nov 3rd, 2011, 01:40 PM
The Netherlands at #3 :D

Mary Cherry.
Nov 3rd, 2011, 01:42 PM
I thought the massacre would somehow affect its reputation but anyway, it's still a great place to live indeed.

I think that's why the attacks came as such a shock, because Norway is such a great country.


Trust most of the media to cover the Amy Winehouse story instead :o

Dani12
Nov 3rd, 2011, 01:43 PM
The massacre shouldn't affect Norway's reputations, most countries have things like this happen anyway...This was just recent.

Daruma.
Nov 3rd, 2011, 01:45 PM
It's my dream to live in Norway/Finland/Sweden.

spiceboy
Nov 3rd, 2011, 01:53 PM
Leading the A-to-Z of global wealth, poverty, health and education = best quality of life? :spit:

I can't really see how anybody would like to live in a country where more than half of the year is buried under the snow, bitter cold and grey skies :tape:

Title is misleading, Norway is definitely not the best place to life. There are more things in life than money.

Talita Kumi
Nov 3rd, 2011, 02:19 PM
lucky Frode :ras:

Sammo
Nov 3rd, 2011, 02:37 PM
It's my dream to live in Norway/Finland/Sweden.

It would be mine too if it wasn't for the freezing cold :rolleyes: But yeah Scandinavian countries have reputation for their polite inhabitants, their gorgeous landscapes, their economy and salaries (http://media.merchantcircle.com/14400786/214998-Royalty-Free-RF-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Greedy-Emoticon-With-Dollar-Symbol-Eyes_full.jpeg), etc.

Mynarco
Nov 3rd, 2011, 02:41 PM
lucky Norwegian - they are like 50 metres ahead of the rest of other people for a 100m sprint

delicatecutter
Nov 3rd, 2011, 03:12 PM
Not with that climate.

pla
Nov 3rd, 2011, 03:43 PM
I am only thinking how to get back to live in the south and people love places like Norway.. I guess there is a place for every taste ;)

Mynarco
Nov 3rd, 2011, 03:47 PM
Not with that climate.

I don't mind the climate if I can get a job and live a happy life there.

Mistress of Evil
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:02 PM
Its too bloody cold there :tears:

Sergius
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:12 PM
People who think it's cold in Norway are soooo delusional :lol: They don't know what cold weather is. Just have no clue :happy: :tears:

Sammo
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:58 PM
People who think it's cold in Norway are soooo delusional :lol: They don't know what cold weather is. Just have no clue :happy: :tears:

Elaborate please

Soliloque
Nov 3rd, 2011, 07:10 PM
Really ? People giving more importance to weather than economic and social ranks ? I knew people were becoming shallow but I did't knew it was that bad.

gentenaire
Nov 3rd, 2011, 07:23 PM
Really ? People giving more importance to weather than economic and social ranks ? I knew people were becoming shallow but I did't knew it was that bad.

It's a combination of factors. There are countries that are only slightly behind Norway when it comes to economic and social rank, but have a far better climate. And it's not just the climate. The lack of daylight in winter would get to me (I hear a lot of Scandinavians get depressed in winter).

It also depends on what you're used to. If you're used to a warm climate, it's very difficult to get used to a colder climate. I'm used to our wet climate so don't mind it as much, but I can easily believe it's difficult to adjust to when you're used to a different climate.

My sister lives in Australia, my Australian BIL has often told me I should move to Australia. It sounds tempting. But at the same time, there are things I'd miss far too much. I'd miss the historical places, I'd miss the cosy shops, the fresh bakery around the corner, I'd miss being so close to everything, etc. There are so many factors come into play when choosing a place to live. The UN addresses only the factors that can be quantified. There's nothing shallow about finding other aspects important too.

Sergius
Nov 3rd, 2011, 07:27 PM
Elaborate please

Ever heard of Siberia? :lol:
Seriously, I've never been to Norway, but I've been to places that have similar climate (e.g. places that have an impact of Gulf Stream) and it's totally bearable.
Actually, Google said to me that January is the coldest month, the minimal temperature being around -17 C degrees.
And imagine you'd live in a place like this :happy:
G_mBqDpg75o

Sergius
Nov 3rd, 2011, 07:31 PM
It also depends on what you're used to. If you're used to a warm climate, it's very difficult to get used to a colder climate. I'm used to our wet climate so don't mind it as much, but I can easily believe it's difficult to adjust to when you're used to a different climate.
This. The older you are, the harder it is to bear a climate change.

Talula
Nov 3rd, 2011, 09:07 PM
That says a lot!

LoveFifteen
Nov 3rd, 2011, 09:23 PM
Okay, yes, Norway isn't Siberia when it comes to weather, but it would still be a tough adjustment for those from hot, sunny places. :shrug:

You can't discount weather and climate as a major factor in enjoying the place you live.

ranfurly
Nov 4th, 2011, 12:46 AM
Good to see New Zealand up there! Kia Kaha!

spiceboy
Nov 4th, 2011, 12:50 AM
This. The older you are, the harder it is to bear a climate change.

Yeah right. Ask all those Norwegians (and Northern European in general) who retire in Spain :lol:

delicatecutter
Nov 4th, 2011, 12:56 AM
^^And all the Northeasterners who retire in Florida. :lol:

spiceboy
Nov 4th, 2011, 12:57 AM
Ever heard of Siberia? :lol:


Ever heard of the Sahara? :weirdo: Let's not go to extremes.

And it is not only the cold weather, but having winter days of just a few hours of sun I can't actually see how that is "the best place to live". Maybe I'm too biased as I grew up in Spain where we enjoy sun even in winter but having lived in the UK I can tell you that sun is something that really matters.

delicatecutter
Nov 4th, 2011, 01:02 AM
After doing some research earlier today, Oslo isn't even colder than Omaha. But there is much more snowfall plus I'm assuming the sunlight issues as well. And I would never consider Omaha the best place to live so I'm definitely not considering Oslo either. :lol:

Whitehead's Boy
Nov 4th, 2011, 01:05 AM
There's also the cost of living. Prices are outrageous. For example, 8 bucks for a Big Mac, http://www.financialjesus.com/fun/the-big-mac-index/ Some people just never eat out because it's too expensive. Combine that with the shitty weather, it's simply just not the best place to live, far from it. Like gentenaire mentioned, some places are just slightly behind for other factors but have a far better climate (and sometimes a better cost of living too). Those studies are just flawed. It's like Vancouver consistently being ranked at the top when housing cost are reaching absurd level (2m for a shitty house) and it's raining 8 months a year. To be clear, I love Vancouver but let's be lucid for a second. There is much more to life than what those studies consider as parameters.

Sergius
Nov 4th, 2011, 08:26 AM
Ever heard of the Sahara? :weirdo: Let's not go to extremes.

And it is not only the cold weather, but having winter days of just a few hours of sun I can't actually see how that is "the best place to live". Maybe I'm too biased as I grew up in Spain where we enjoy sun even in winter but having lived in the UK I can tell you that sun is something that really matters.

Well, the video was an extreme, but overall what's so weird about my statement?
My point is 1) a lot of people live in places where the climate is more severe than in Norway 2) a lot of people live in places with the climate similar to the Norwegian one :shrug: (In fact, if my Google search doesnt deceive me, today it is colder in most of parts of Canada than in Oslo), so there were no point to say 'omgaawd it is so cold there'

Yeah right. Ask all those Norwegians (and Northern European in general) who retire in Spain :lol:
Good for them, I guess :lol:
Anyway, as far as I know, there is less oxygen in the Northern areas, and it affects persons who live there, they get used to it. So a climate change can be sufferable. But I'm not a doctor, correct me if I'm mistaken.

azdaja
Nov 4th, 2011, 09:26 AM
the way i understand the text it says that norway tops the human development index list which is not exactly the same as "the best country to live". i check out these un reports every other year and some of the factors taken into account don't affect quality of life in any meaningful way and doesn't take into account some of the things that do affect it directly. basically, norway is the most evenly developed country.

There's also the cost of living. Prices are outrageous. For example, 8 bucks for a Big Mac, http://www.financialjesus.com/fun/the-big-mac-index/ Some people just never eat out because it's too expensive. Combine that with the shitty weather, it's simply just not the best place to live, far from it. Like gentenaire mentioned, some places are just slightly behind for other factors but have a far better climate (and sometimes a better cost of living too). Those studies are just flawed. It's like Vancouver consistently being ranked at the top when housing cost are reaching absurd level (2m for a shitty house) and it's raining 8 months a year. To be clear, I love Vancouver but let's be lucid for a second. There is much more to life than what those studies consider as parameters.
i actually think those lists are fairly accurate for cities. they take into account costs of living and natural hazards which would include at least the climatic extremes. most of the cities that top the lists usually have moderate climate anyway and i don't think climate overrules some of the things that are very much relevant in cities - quality of water, polution levels etc. plus the heat can be a huge problem in big cities.

at the end of the day it boils down to what you want. for someone a city can be "dynamic" for others the same city is "hectic". nevertheless, it is far easier to be objective about the quality of life in a city than in a country because a city is a more compact unit and cities don't differ as much in the sense of what they offer and should offer to their populations.

canuckfan
Nov 4th, 2011, 01:18 PM
the way i understand the text it says that norway tops the human development index list which is not exactly the same as "the best country to live". i check out these un reports every other year and some of the factors taken into account don't affect quality of life in any meaningful way and doesn't take into account some of the things that do affect it directly. basically, norway is the most evenly developed country.




Yeah it's not really "best place to live". They take the GDP per capita, life expectency and education level and they put it in a math formula.

Norway is first because their GDP per capita is ridiculously high compared to most western nations. Take away their oil and Australia is probably ranked first.