3 ms·

A 2014 UN study on the happiest populations* doesn't even include the US in the top 10 (it scored #17). All of the countries in the list have some form of a mix

by josho 12y ago

A 2014 UN study on the happiest populations* doesn't even include the US in the top 10 (it scored #17). All of the countries in the list have some form of a mixed economy (ie. not full on socialism, but a much stronger social support system in place than the US). So, there isn't even that much experimentation required to get a better system in the US. Rather, I'd say American's have thoroughly been indoctrinated against social support constructs that you only have yourselves to blame (you only need to look at how underfunded the public school systems, police, college are). *http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-visit/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-v...

kasey_junk 12y ago
I'm not arguing against the idea of mixed economies, but I don't find the argument that a bunch of countries produce happy citizens and the same countries have mixed economies very compelling. For instance, you don't mention the inverse. How do mixed economies due on the unhappiness scale? Is there some bare standard of mixed economy (for instance the US does have a mixed economy with a social support system at many levels)? Is there something else that is more related than their economic model for happiness? I personally look at that data set and find it telling that those are all small countries by population size, wealthy and have lots of mineral resources per capita. For instance, are people in Iceland more happy than people in Corpus Cristi, Tx (which gets routinely rated as a happy US city and is bigger than Iceland).
- josho 12y ago
  You are right, my conclusion was linking happiness with mixed economies, that was not from the report--the link is intuitively obvious to me, but likely hard to prove. I've seen a study in the past showing the relationship between happiness and financial income. It showed that happiness largely peaked when you had enough money to support your basic needs and do a few extra fun things. Any additional income didn't do much to help people feel happier. So, my conclusion based on that was that a mixed economy where everyone's basic needs are largely met seems like a good way to keep it's population basically happy. The study seemed to validate that somewhat. In contrast in the US where the growing bottom percent of the population faces stress over basic needs, and many in the middle class are one health care diagnosis away from bankruptcy seemed like a good indicator that the current American economic system is not ideal, and has a clear direction that it could take to solve these issues.
xrange 12y ago
From the looks of it, it seems like the amount of racial homogeneity appears to be well correlated to the happiness quotient. Maybe that is the bigger factor in happiness. And a more homogeneous society might be one that tolerates more socialism. Another interesting question is what is cause and what is effect here. Does the amount of happiness of a society determine what kind of economic structures the members prefer? Or does the nature of the economic structures drive happiness? And how close are they coupled? And what makes happiness the right metric to optimize for, compared to say contentedness, or equality? And in what sense are US schools underfunded? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-globa...
- josho 12y ago
  If you look at the numbers closely we see that 12% less is put into the public system in the US than the OECD average. This pattern is true of most things in America, you put more dollars into health care and education than other countries, but most of that ends up in private systems. So, if you have money you get the best education or healthcare in the world. If, you however you don't fit into that bucket what you get is far less. My experience from those that I know in the US (middle class) either have their children in private schools, or they choose where to live based on which neighbourhoods have a good public school. This behaviour, as far as I am aware, is unheard of in those countries in the top 10. Regarding the questions you raise, some can be answered if you follow the link to the original report. What bothers me the most about your response is to completely discount a well researched report because it doesn't answer all possible questions. Sure, maybe race plays a role. But, if you want to answer that you need to ask different questions than this report did. What you need to do is look at the report as a whole and reflect on it. Sure the US may have the greatest GDP, but in so many other factors lags behind other countries, is optimizing for financial return really what we as a nation need to strive for?--That is the takeaway that you should contemplate, not nitpicking over answers that the report didn't set out to address.
  - xrange 12y ago
    I guess I'm old-school. Asking questions doesn't discount anything. If people can't ask questions, it seems like conversations become boring one-sided monologues. Your mileage apparently varies.

by josho 12y ago

kasey_junk 12y ago

I'm not arguing against the idea of mixed economies, but I don't find the argument that a bunch of countries produce happy citizens and the same countries have mixed economies very compelling. For instance, you don't mention the inverse. How do mixed economies due on the unhappiness scale? Is there some bare standard of mixed economy (for instance the US does have a mixed economy with a social support system at many levels)? Is there something else that is more related than their economic model for happiness? I personally look at that data set and find it telling that those are all small countries by population size, wealthy and have lots of mineral resources per capita. For instance, are people in Iceland more happy than people in Corpus Cristi, Tx (which gets routinely rated as a happy US city and is bigger than Iceland).

josho 12y ago
You are right, my conclusion was linking happiness with mixed economies, that was not from the report--the link is intuitively obvious to me, but likely hard to prove. I've seen a study in the past showing the relationship between happiness and financial income. It showed that happiness largely peaked when you had enough money to support your basic needs and do a few extra fun things. Any additional income didn't do much to help people feel happier. So, my conclusion based on that was that a mixed economy where everyone's basic needs are largely met seems like a good way to keep it's population basically happy. The study seemed to validate that somewhat. In contrast in the US where the growing bottom percent of the population faces stress over basic needs, and many in the middle class are one health care diagnosis away from bankruptcy seemed like a good indicator that the current American economic system is not ideal, and has a clear direction that it could take to solve these issues.

xrange 12y ago

From the looks of it, it seems like the amount of racial homogeneity appears to be well correlated to the happiness quotient. Maybe that is the bigger factor in happiness. And a more homogeneous society might be one that tolerates more socialism. Another interesting question is what is cause and what is effect here. Does the amount of happiness of a society determine what kind of economic structures the members prefer? Or does the nature of the economic structures drive happiness? And how close are they coupled? And what makes happiness the right metric to optimize for, compared to say contentedness, or equality? And in what sense are US schools underfunded? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-globa...

josho 12y ago
If you look at the numbers closely we see that 12% less is put into the public system in the US than the OECD average. This pattern is true of most things in America, you put more dollars into health care and education than other countries, but most of that ends up in private systems. So, if you have money you get the best education or healthcare in the world. If, you however you don't fit into that bucket what you get is far less. My experience from those that I know in the US (middle class) either have their children in private schools, or they choose where to live based on which neighbourhoods have a good public school. This behaviour, as far as I am aware, is unheard of in those countries in the top 10. Regarding the questions you raise, some can be answered if you follow the link to the original report. What bothers me the most about your response is to completely discount a well researched report because it doesn't answer all possible questions. Sure, maybe race plays a role. But, if you want to answer that you need to ask different questions than this report did. What you need to do is look at the report as a whole and reflect on it. Sure the US may have the greatest GDP, but in so many other factors lags behind other countries, is optimizing for financial return really what we as a nation need to strive for?--That is the takeaway that you should contemplate, not nitpicking over answers that the report didn't set out to address.
- xrange 12y ago
  I guess I'm old-school. Asking questions doesn't discount anything. If people can't ask questions, it seems like conversations become boring one-sided monologues. Your mileage apparently varies.