Canada Ranked Among Top Ten in 'Happiness Index'

[Bonam]

I think money has very little to do with happiness past the threshold of having enough money to be reasonably secure in having adequate food and shelter. I don't see any evidence to suggest that the ultra-rich are on average any happier than the middle class, for example.

[Sir Bandelot]

I think money has very little to do with happiness past the threshold of having enough money to be reasonably secure in having adequate food and shelter.

That could be the answer to this dilemma. If people in a society come to believe that happiness is obtained by purely materialistic means, in the end they will be disappointed. Spiritually bereft, always chasing the elusive carrot but never obtaining it. Or even, upon obtaining it finding it's not the fulfillment they thought it would be. Is this what the American dream has awoken up to?

Bill Clinton made some critical comments in this regard quite recently. Something like, the government has to realize that its role in providing Americans with a better life cannot come from creating wealth alone.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think money has very little to do with happiness past the threshold of having enough money to be reasonably secure in having adequate food and shelter. I don't see any evidence to suggest that the ultra-rich are on average any happier than the middle class, for example.

Agreed, as described by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Focusing on money or wealth as the foundation for happiness is part of another agenda entirely.

[g_bambino]

Another recent poll shows Canada in the top ten list of countries with the happiest people.

Here is a list of the top ten countries in this study-

1. Denmark

2. Canada

3. Norway

4. Australia

5. Netherlands

6. Sweden

7. Switzerland

8. Finland

9. Israel

10. Austria

All of the top six - 60% of the total - are constitutional monarchies. The numbers are typically similar for standard of living indexes and the like.

I'm not entirely convinced there's a correlation, but not unconvinced, either. The representation of constitutional monarchies in the list is entirely disproportionate to their percentage of the total number of countries in the world. Is it that a fully constitutional monarchy tends to better maintain stability over time, whereas even the most stable republic has more wobbly moments because politics, and the conflict that comes with it, invades all of the highest offices of government? The presence of Israel on that list, on the other hand, would tend to indicate that the stability of the state has little to do with achieving a place in the top ten.

Sorry, just thinking out loud.

[sp]

Edited June 14, 2011 by g_bambino

[WIP]

You'd likely be surprised - I'm guessing there are people in 'poor' nations who are a lot happier than people in our upper and middle economic classes. If money is the determinant, then what you are saying is correct. However, it's true that money can't buy happiness. Perhaps those with more money have more stress than someone who has a lower stress/lower paying job. So which person is "happier?"

As I said before, who determines what makes one happy? Different things make different people happy and that's why I think a poll to determine which country is happiest is pretty meaningless. Happiness is very subjective and how happy one would rate them self is also subjective - two people who in reality are just as happy may answer the question(s) differently.

I posted some stuff a while back written by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett - who've done some exhaustive analysis on quality of life information around the world - The Equality Trust and the general rule of thumb is that self-perceived happiness and personal satisfaction is tied to relative equality, not absolute numbers on per capita income etc. This explains why a citizen of Costa Rica has physical and mental health stats that are on par with many nations in Western Europe, and better than here in North America, where per capita incomes are 2 to 3 times higher. Over the last 30 years, the hollowing out of the middle class has created a society where everyone else is a competitor, and we have fewer and fewer people we regard as peers. Whatever methods are chosen, quality of life will not improve no matter how much the libertarians think they can "grow" the economy. Satisfaction will be determined by halting the growing gaps in income and wealth, and reducing them back to pre-Reagan levels.

[Sir Bandelot]

Is it that a fully constitutional monarchy tends to better maintain stability over time, whereas even the most stable republic has more wobbly moments because politics, and the conflict that comes with it, invades all of the highest offices of government? The presence of Israel on that list, on the other hand, would tend to indicate that the stability of the state has little to do with achieving a place in the top ten.

Good point! It might well be a factor. Ideally speaking, the role of the Monarch is to protect the rights of the individual. That is why having a monarch can be important, and advantagous over a republic- this person is provided with everything they could possibly need, for the purpose of insulating them from all monetary temptations. They are essentially "uncorruptable" by those who might try to use their wealth to persuade the actions of government. But remember I am speaking in purely ideological terms here...

[dre]

I think money has very little to do with happiness past the threshold of having enough money to be reasonably secure in having adequate food and shelter.

I dont buy that. Theres a HUGE relationship between wealth and health. Health and lifespan has increased around the world in lock step with growing incomes, and the countries with the lowest average incomes today still have a lifespan of well under 50 years. Theyre poor, but their also sick and thats a recipy for misery.

Heres a great video that compares health and wealth.

[WIP]

I dont buy that. Theres a HUGE relationship between wealth and health. Health and lifespan has increased around the world in lock step with growing incomes, and the countries with the lowest average incomes today still have a lifespan of well under 50 years. Theyre poor, but their also sick and thats a recipy for misery.

Heres a great video that compares health and wealth.

That was a good presentation by Hans Rosling -- except that he is assuming that progress will continue based on his examination of the past 200 years. I don't know about Hans Rosling's background, but I suspect that it's not in environment or resource management, since the world has reached Peak Oil - and we are experiencing increasing energy costs as a result; declining availability of water resources, and the early impacts on agriculture of climate change -- all of which lead to the problem that we are at peak food production globally. Those rising numbers that Rosling is showing on his chart are likely already falling, and by the end of this decade and the next, there will be a precipitous decline in wealth and average life spans in many parts of the world!

Here's what makes me a pessimist about our global predicament: Global Food Prices to Double by 2030, OXFAM Predicts In brief, Oxfam is looking at the dilemma of increasing populations with rising food prices, and predicting a return to widespread famines that hadn't been seen in the last couple of decades. As noted in the Guardian article -- the poorest people in the world already spend over 80% of their incomes on food, where are they going to come up with the money to pay for food that has doubled or tripled in price?

[Pliny]

Here's what makes me a pessimist about our global predicament: Global Food Prices to Double by 2030, OXFAM Predicts In brief, Oxfam is looking at the dilemma of increasing populations with rising food prices, and predicting a return to widespread famines that hadn't been seen in the last couple of decades. As noted in the Guardian article -- the poorest people in the world already spend over 80% of their incomes on food, where are they going to come up with the money to pay for food that has doubled or tripled in price?

Inflation alone will double the price s othey will probably be right but that is no indication that supply will be less.

[Oleg Bach]

Be thankful...all it takes to be happy is food and a clean bed. The rest are trimmings. In Canada everyone eats and everyone has lodging unless they are crazy...and if they are crazy we let them wander about happy as a loon till they expire.

[Bonam]

All of the top six - 60% of the total - are constitutional monarchies. The numbers are typically similar for standard of living indexes and the like.

I'm not entirely convinced there's a correlation, but not unconvinced, either. The representation of constitutional monarchies in the list is entirely disproportionate to their percentage of the total number of countries in the world.

All the nations listed are rich western nations inhabited primarily by people of European extraction. Reduce your list of the total countries of the world to just Western and Northern Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and Israel, and the 60% number becomes a lot closer to representative. I think being a rich western democracy is the main factor here, not necessarily being a constitutional monarchy.

[Bonam]

I dont buy that. Theres a HUGE relationship between wealth and health. Health and lifespan has increased around the world in lock step with growing incomes, and the countries with the lowest average incomes today still have a lifespan of well under 50 years. Theyre poor, but their also sick and thats a recipy for misery.

Heres a great video that compares health and wealth.

Wealth and health are certainly related, but only to a point. Someone living in Canada, or even in the US, can access top notch health care even only being middle class. I would guess that being super rich in Canada or any of the other nations on this list provides very little additional bonus to your life span.

Obviously, when you compare to countries that have life expectancies of lower than 50 years, much of the population tends to be malnourished, poorly sheltered, afflicted with AIDS, etc. I believe my statement, which you quoted, stands.

Do you really think that people in Canada that make, say, $90,000, are on average significantly happier than people that make, say, $60,000? I for one don't think so. The 90k person might have more stuff, but more stuff doesn't mean more happiness.

[Guest American Woman]

g_bambino: All of the top six - 60% of the total - are constitutional monarchies. The numbers are typically similar for standard of living indexes and the like.

I'm not entirely convinced there's a correlation, but not unconvinced, either. The representation of constitutional monarchies in the list is entirely disproportionate to their percentage of the total number of countries in the world.

All the nations listed are rich western nations inhabited primarily by people of European extraction. Reduce your list of the total countries of the world to just Western and Northern Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and Israel, and the 60% number becomes a lot closer to representative. I think being a rich western democracy is the main factor here, not necessarily being a constitutional monarchy.

Of course there's no correlation. The U.S. is a nation that is "happiest" not being a constitutional monarchy. And as I said before, who are these people to determine what makes others happy?

This is also just one study; one list of the "happiest" nations. Looking at others, they've included countries like Columbia and Costa Rica, hardly "rich," while others still do include the United States.

This is but one list, based on what the group compiling the list bases "happiness" on.

One of the common denominators of this list is that they are all small nations. With the exception of Canada and Australia, the top ten nations have a lower population than the state of New York, with half of them having a population less than NYC. I would think that would make it easier for these nations to provide what the researchers see as creating "happiness." It would be like making a list that includes crime figures and home ownership statistics, which some would see as a "happiness factor," and comparing NYC with Mayberry USA and concluding that those living in Mayberry are "happier" than those living in NYC. Yet it's a personal preference.

I see any such list as nothing more than the opinion of those making the list. I would never try to base others' happiness on my criteria for my happiness. Ask ten people what they base happiness on and we will get ten different answers. Ask ten people to rank ten given criteria in order of what makes them happiest, and we will likely again get ten different answers.

The idea that anyone takes this index as any sort of evidence that Canadians are happier than every other nation in the world except Denmark, or that people in those ten nations are the happiest in the world, is ludicrous. Nations/people in different nations have different ways of doing things based on what makes them "happiest."

Edited June 25, 2011 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

All the nations listed are rich western nations inhabited primarily by people of European extraction. Reduce your list of the total countries of the world to just Western and Northern Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and Israel, and the 60% number becomes a lot closer to representative. I think being a rich western democracy is the main factor here, not necessarily being a constitutional monarchy.

But, why is it, then, that so many of the best of the rich, Western democracies are constitutional monarchies; a number always disproportionate to the number of constitutional monarchies in the world? There are rich, Western, democratic republics populated by Euopeans that don't appear on the lists.

I can't say I know the answer. But the question is intriguing.

[bush_cheney2004]

All of the top six - 60% of the total - are constitutional monarchies. The numbers are typically similar for standard of living indexes and the like....

The definition lacks precision....all of the top six are ceremonial constitutional monarchies.

[Sir Bandelot]

They are also countries with stronger elements of socialism.

[bloodyminded]

I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea of the "happiness index," personally.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm having a lot of trouble with the idea of the "happiness index," personally.

In this case it is based on the principle of quality of life. As stated in the OP, "The Index is based on 11 measurements of quality of life including housing, income, jobs, community, education, the environment, health, work-life balance, and life satisfaction." I think the last two points in this list are the most important, but cannot be achieved without having the former points well established. There is a "bottom line", identifying things which are essential to meet the needs of our existence in a communal society. Beyond this one finally achieves such a thing as "leisure time". This is essential to the development of a human being.

Is it not important that we have a good quality of life, and that we understand how that can be achieved? Else what are we, beyond mere existential working machines.

[Oleg Bach]

We have a young Chilean woman staying with us ...she is impressed with the safety of the city..with the fact that people do not barrel around in their cars at top speed knocking you down...that you can wear a gold chain on the street////But she did mention that our woman after 30 years of feminization along with a bit of arrogant man hate were slighly dysfuctional...other than that...Canada is tolerable ---It is a wonderful place...some times as I stroll down my street///which is now gentrified..it looks like a little bit heaven - people eating...white pigeons flutter like doves/// it can be heaven.