Israel over France and the UK makes pretty good sense. Saudi wouldn't... but as kolp pointed out it's not on here. Maybe you're confusing Saudi Arabia with the United Arab Emirates? I've lost track of how many people I've known who didn't know the difference between the two.
Since everyone is obviously too lazy to make a single click, here's a breakdown of the criteria:
The independent variables in the estimating equation for 2006 include:
Material well-being as measured by GDP per capita (in $, at 2006 constant PPPS)
Life expectancy at birth
The quality of family life based primarily on divorce rates
The state of political freedoms
Job security (measured by the unemployment rate)
Climate (measured by two variables: the average deviation of minimum and maximum monthly temperatures from 14 degrees Celsius; and the number of months in the year with less than 30mm rainfall)
Personal physical security ratings (based primarily on recorded homicide rates and ratings for risk from crime and terrorism)
Quality of community life (based on membership in social organisations)
Governance (measured by ratings for corruption)
Gender equality (measured by the share of seats in parliament held by women)
CLIMATE! yes finally a list that includes that. But... but... wtf!!?? FOURTEEN!!!?? 14 is NOT the ideal temperature. It would be maybe 25. Is this organization based in Iceland?
Material well-being, fine. Though I don't think GDP tells the whole story maybe include happiness index or suicide rates.
I would not count divorce rates as a bad thing. Having a realistic understanding of relationship dynamics and acknowledging that sometimes marriages ought to end is a good thing. Much better than, say, the Philippines where divorce is illegal. Though better to not get married at all.
Unemployment rate: probably as I guessed before a big part of why Spain is omitted.
Not a lot of information is given on the calculation method for climate, but going by some logical metrics, countries scoring well on this criteria would have a climate similar to that of the south of France. Makes it a pretty good benchmark I guess, though still too warm for me.
25 might be the ideal temperature but this is measured as an average deviation. If it were an average deviation from 25 that would mean 60 degrees was as good as -10. I have experienced temperatures of -10 degrees (I think), and though it wasn't anywhere near ideal I didn't die. At 60 degrees (which it has never been anywhere ever on Earth since records began) I think it would be very difficult to survive for extended periods of time.
-10 and 60 should both be considered unlivable and immediately disqualifying. I've experienced both 0 and 50 before and personally would prefer 50, but both temperatures, if you were left outside without proper equipment or attire for extended periods of time, would kill you. But 0 would actually kill you faster and you would need more to survive it. 10 is too cold and 40 is too hot. 20 to 30 would be great. So I maintain, 25 a much better starting point than meat-locker level 14.
I disagree. To me the ideal mean annual temperature would be around 16˚C for a temperate climate, given that there should be an annual range of roughly ±15 to 20˚C. This means that during the height of summer the average high would be around 31 to 36˚C (quite to considerably hot), and average low around 0˚C to slightly below freezing in the winter (which would be a mild winter compared to sub-Arctic/polar climates). 25˚C would slightly too hot for me given the annual fluctuations - although I come from a tropical country. It has been shown that the ideal mean temperature for a country with high wealth and quality of life is around 16˚C.
There are many regions of the world where people live in climates where temperatures drop far below -10˚C and survive perfectly well. Very few people would prefer a climate of 50˚C to 0. 14˚C is most definitely not 'meat-locker' level or frigid - I'm from Malaysia and find this temperature ideal when wearing two layers of clothing.
Jack: I think you are a different species than me. That's nuts. 14 C is only suitable for caribou, not humans. Also places with huge swings in temperature are awful. Bad for my joints. Bad for my skin. Bad for my seasonal allergies. I don't understand why everyone doesn't just move to Hawaii honestly. But if forced to live in a place with huge swings in temperature, as stated above, 50 is still better than 0. 50 isn't even that bad if you just plant some trees, get in the shade, drink lots of pina coladas. You wouldn't want to go outside on a day that was 50 degrees out, but when it's 0 you can't get away from that even inside it gets in your bones. But honestly forget 0 and 50 both are horrible- 25 all year round plus or minus 7 degrees maximum would be perfect.
Homicide rates: fair to look at. Though, while insecure Europeans *desperate* to find anything to cling to to prop up their sanctimonious condemnation of Americans as inferior love to jump on the lower homicide rates in *some* European countries as justification for her smugness, the difference in probability that you will be murdered in any of these countries is absolutely minuscule. The chance that you'll be the victim of terrorism is even less. Yes, even in Israel.
governance: hard to measure accurately.
gender equality: Good to include. But I can think of far better ways to measure this.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate , only two European countries (Russia and Ukraine) have a higher intentional homicide rate than the U.S. The U.S. is still in the upper quartile with regards to IHR. Only 7 seven other (World Bank) high-income country out of 79 have a higher IHR.
if by "Palestinian" you mean Israeli Muslim or Israeli Christian or Israeli who self-identifies as "Arab"... it's still far, far better to be born in Israel than in... Egypt, or Lebanon, or Jordan, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or the Islamic State, or Sudan, or Somalia, or Djibouti, or Eritrea, or Libya, or Iran, or Turkey, or Armenia.... those are your options in the area.
If by "Palestinian" you mean non-Israeli citizen born to parents from the "West Bank"... well... even if you live out your entire life in Ramallah or Nablus, you're going to be much better off than the average Syrian, Egyptian, Iraqi or resident of Daesh and you'll enjoy much better freedoms and opportunities than residents of Saudi Arabia or Iran. And you would also have greater opportunity to become an Israeli citizen than residents of Beirut or Amman which, if you pursued, would make your life better.
If by "Palestinian" you mean resident of Gaza, yeah, that would suck.
If Napoleon Bonaparte can find time to whisper from the great beyond his thoughts on what it means to be born in Israel, I can find time to answer back with my own.
Thank the lord for Kalby. He (for he must be a he, surely Shirley) is a much needed JP eccentric. It gives him a role, if nothing else...gawd bless ya KB!
America is pretty far down the list in the minds of whoever created this list. It's the most guessed answer however, so I think we can see who's winning in the court of public opinion :-)
Poeple who do not know much about the UAE need to educate themselves. You will be surprised how good they have it there in the UAE, esp. Dubai. Dubai is like a paradise....15 million tourist every year visit it. They are surely doing something right.
Social welfare is incredibly strong... probably to the point of being excessive there. The government is very wealthy. It's GDP per capita score is probably the thing that gives it the most points on the above criteria. There are other problems with the UAE, though, and it falls short in most of the other metrics used for the list.
Interesting...USA comes in at 16th, but then why in heck does everybody and their cousins try to get in here by hook or crook, risking their lives in many cases?
Both the Americans crying about the USA placing less than 1st, and the Europeans crying about the USA placing at all or above whatever country they happen to be from: you both look pathetic. And most of the people here commenting on the Middle East appear simply ignorant. Not going to reply to every one of you individually so this takes care of all of them...
Most of the countries are pretty obvious except for Israel. It doesn't really seem like a safe country...
And it might be a good idea to clarify that "small" country refers to population not area and maybe add the exact cutoff point. Otherwise excluding Iceland for being too small but including Singapore doesn't make any sense.
It's an extremely safe country. Beautiful. Vibrant. Full of friendly people. Well developed. Clean. Rich in history and culture. I lived there for a while. Have you ever been?
If by "most of" you're speaking purely in terms of geographic area I think I probably agree with you. If by "most you" you're talking about the urban and suburban areas where the majority of Americans are born, then I think you're probably wrong. However, I would much rather be born in Japan than in the United Arab Emirates. If this list were based on opinion and not a simple calculation then I would find this odd.
See my post above about the criteria. It's objective and based on numbers, not opinion. You've been brainwashed into hating your own country or falsely believing that the grass is greener elsewhere.
Thanks for having the courage to admit that, Geo. You've taken the first step toward recovery. Looking at the world with an open mind in an objective and properly skeptical way is an exciting thing when you do it for the first time so I envy you. Good luck!
Based on the criteria I detailed above if I had to guess I would say 1. high divorce rate 2. lower GDP per capita than many other countries on the list (using Purchasing Power Parity, due to the high cost of living in the UK) 3. higher crime rates than many Western European countries (though the difference is even more negligible than the difference between the US and those same Western European countries) 4. and they were probably docked points for climate due to all the rain.
Wikipedia should never be used as a source because it's always citing another source itself. In this case, it's citing an Economist article from 2012 making predictions about the best places to be born in 2013. The data was already kinda stale when this quiz was made in 2017. Beyond that, there was highly subjective primary research done and even the objective secondary research is rife with cultural biases. But what it does do really, really well is start conversations about these sorts of ideas and what we should be valuing, and that is important.
This quiz should be in 2 parts: 1) Which country is it best to be Born Rich in? ....... 2) Which country is it best to be Born Poor in? ........ Many so called poor countries have the richest people living the life of Gods ..... and some 'Rich countries' have plenty of poverty.
Apparently, this list (not the quiz) is limited to "best" conditions for "western-lifestyle males who happen to practice the dominant religion imposed in their country or that are so rich that religion is not an issue"
yeah... back after stalwart Republican and noted conservative Franklin Roosevelt and his famous Same Old Deal did nothing to change the country, right? Back when the highest marginal tax rate on the wealthy was 90%, just like Grover Norquist always advocates for.
Oh the 50s. When taxes were the highest ever, government spending was through the roof, the social safety net was being expanded, the GI Bill was sending thousands of young men to college, and the government was pursuing vast infrastructure projects. On the economic side of things, the 50s were a liberals dream. What we've been living in since the 80s is a conservative dream.
I think most conservatives looking back at the 50s have some Ozzie and Harriet fantasy of how things actually were. They ignore the prevailing politics and economics of the age and instead look to things like the socially conservative culture, and perhaps racial and gender inequality (though that's not most of them), as the things that made the 50s great. But mostly it's just nostalgia and rose-colored glasses.
The data is what it is. You could say the criteria is dumb (such as claiming the ideal climate is 14 C, that's pretty dumb), but there's nothing wrong with the data.
I didn't read the 'not including small countries' until after I finished and I spent like 20 seconds trying to work out how Israel made it in where as Luxembourg didn't
especially Japan should be high on all the criterias plus alpha.
UAE!! It is an absolute monarchy country, you cant be a politician, you dont have bar on the streets, no horse racing betting, and the food was the worst ever etc.
Very disputable ranking indeed. Being born in the UAE will not be a walk in the park for women for decades. Whereas even in relatively "macho" countries such as Italy, France or Spain, not only was their situation better in the first place, but it is improving significantly, thanks to a small thing called "democratic debate" and "freedom of the press". Unless it doesn't count, of course.
"Does not include small countries such as iceland" I would not call iceland a small country, it being 100.250km² !! yet singapore is included with 687km² . (And israel, taiwan, belgium, netherlands, south korea, austria, ireland, denmark, switzerland and UAE are all smaller countries)
to me it is like asking which person is taller, but excluding some people because they are poorer. Followed by something like; yea but people with more money are "bigger" because they are more important.
If you are talking about small population say small population, not the size of the country.
I would much more prefer to be born in Spain or Portugal than the UAE, since I'm gay. Wouldn't even want to visit that country before they have equal rights!
As 1/10 people are Gay - 1/10 can't live in UAE or Singapore - if 1/10 people literally cannot live somewhere it's not really a top place to live now is it?
USA with all the mass shootings? And Israel would definitely not make the cut anymore. Even though the source was debatable to begin with, things have got to be worse off than 10 years ago.
Plus the stipulations are flawed, when "small countries" are discounted, eg Iceland and Luxembourg. If they meant small population, it should have been stated, rather than expecting people to just *know* they didn't mean small area, since that's how it reads.
The independent variables in the estimating equation for 2006 include:
Material well-being as measured by GDP per capita (in $, at 2006 constant PPPS)
Life expectancy at birth
The quality of family life based primarily on divorce rates
The state of political freedoms
Job security (measured by the unemployment rate)
Climate (measured by two variables: the average deviation of minimum and maximum monthly temperatures from 14 degrees Celsius; and the number of months in the year with less than 30mm rainfall)
Personal physical security ratings (based primarily on recorded homicide rates and ratings for risk from crime and terrorism)
Quality of community life (based on membership in social organisations)
Governance (measured by ratings for corruption)
Gender equality (measured by the share of seats in parliament held by women)
CLIMATE! yes finally a list that includes that. But... but... wtf!!?? FOURTEEN!!!?? 14 is NOT the ideal temperature. It would be maybe 25. Is this organization based in Iceland?
Material well-being, fine. Though I don't think GDP tells the whole story maybe include happiness index or suicide rates.
I would not count divorce rates as a bad thing. Having a realistic understanding of relationship dynamics and acknowledging that sometimes marriages ought to end is a good thing. Much better than, say, the Philippines where divorce is illegal. Though better to not get married at all.
Unemployment rate: probably as I guessed before a big part of why Spain is omitted.
governance: hard to measure accurately.
gender equality: Good to include. But I can think of far better ways to measure this.
If by "Palestinian" you mean non-Israeli citizen born to parents from the "West Bank"... well... even if you live out your entire life in Ramallah or Nablus, you're going to be much better off than the average Syrian, Egyptian, Iraqi or resident of Daesh and you'll enjoy much better freedoms and opportunities than residents of Saudi Arabia or Iran. And you would also have greater opportunity to become an Israeli citizen than residents of Beirut or Amman which, if you pursued, would make your life better.
If by "Palestinian" you mean resident of Gaza, yeah, that would suck.
Includes Singapore
Haha
WHOOOO HOO!
Well, it is done by an US organisation I suppose...
:')
And it might be a good idea to clarify that "small" country refers to population not area and maybe add the exact cutoff point. Otherwise excluding Iceland for being too small but including Singapore doesn't make any sense.
especially Japan should be high on all the criterias plus alpha.
UAE!! It is an absolute monarchy country, you cant be a politician, you dont have bar on the streets, no horse racing betting, and the food was the worst ever etc.
Ive lived in all 3 countries plus US of course.
to me it is like asking which person is taller, but excluding some people because they are poorer. Followed by something like; yea but people with more money are "bigger" because they are more important.
If you are talking about small population say small population, not the size of the country.
By small country they prolly meant the seychelles
The quiz is about being born in the country, not the experiences you've had while visiting.
(although it's ranking would definitely be higher if it had better gun restrictions)
Long live my Switzerland ❤️
apparently it's so bad that even CUBA is barely ahead of us according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
USA with all the mass shootings? And Israel would definitely not make the cut anymore. Even though the source was debatable to begin with, things have got to be worse off than 10 years ago.
Plus the stipulations are flawed, when "small countries" are discounted, eg Iceland and Luxembourg. If they meant small population, it should have been stated, rather than expecting people to just *know* they didn't mean small area, since that's how it reads.
...
Singapore