3 ms·

I wonder. Are there metrics by which the US is on top? By world standards, the US is a very nice place. It makes the top 10 or top 20 by typical metrics. But i

I wonder. Are there metrics by which the US is on top? By world standards, the US is a very nice place. It makes the top 10 or top 20 by typical metrics. But it usually doesn't take the top spot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index http://www.ffp.statesindex.org/rankings-2013-sortable http://www.ffp.statesindex.org/rankings-2013-sortable (reversed)

happyscrappy 12y ago
Compare Denmark to the U.S. Now compare the EU to Massachusetts. See the problem? It is hard to act smug if you compare the US to the EU.
hollerith 12y ago
well in your list of countries by GDP (PPP) the US is and has long been the top large-population country.
- andrepd 12y ago
  The fact that that doesn't translate to actual benefits in metrics such as happiness or healthcare or income equality just goes to show how little raw money actually means.
  - henrikschroder 12y ago
    On the contrary, the 1% that has the bulk of the raw money are extremely happy and healthy.
    - saraid216 12y ago
      Do you have any evidence for this claim? Because the first thing I think of when I see your claim is this 2011 (i.e., pre-Occupy) article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/308419/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-f...
  - philwelch 12y ago
    A larger and more heterogeneous country is going to have less equality almost by definition. However, 150 years ago we decided that it was crucially important to keep states like Mississippi[1] in the union; if that went the other way, the metrics would look a lot better. [1] There's a saying among states that rank 49th out of 50 in these kinds of metrics: "Thank God for Mississippi".
IkmoIkmo 12y ago
GDP per capita isn't the best measure for citizen's wealth when you don't take equality into account. It's much better to look at median wages, I think. As for the HDI, I have my reservations about it. It feels like one giant expression of wealth. That's bad because wealth isn't a direct measure of quality of life, it's indirect. One can be rich in a country where you have no freedom of the press or horrible gender relations or restrictions on sexual or ideological preference, for example. Of course every metric is a function of wealth in some way, but the HDI more than others. For example, it measures education by years of education, not quality of education. The US does fine on years of education, but it hides the fact that test scores compared to the rest of the world are poor, or that the higher educational system leaves students with mountains of debt that have financial and non-financial consequences. The second metric is income. Again, income an expression of wealth that's not a direct measure of quality of life, and again one that doesn't take into account wage-equality (and thus skews equal or even better towards countries with a very rich minority and a poor majority versus countries with a middle-class majority, while the latter is generally preferred. And lastly Life expectancy at birth is a pretty decent metric. But even here there are plenty of more granular metrics. For example, a 22nd century medical system can keep alive much more obese and sick people. This showcases the notion that a sophisticated healthcare system can attain high life expectancy yet hide the fact that general health is in poor condition. While in countries where people die of lack of vaccinations reducing the life expectancy by a few years on average, people are otherwise much healthier. On all these metrics the US skews more positively, I think. Income for one - the US is richer than most, but its middle class isn't. US kids get plenty of years in school, but test worse on virtually all subjects compared to their peers in other developed economies. And the US has good life expectancy, yet its healthcare system doesn't rank in the top 10, is more expensive by a wide margin and less accessible, and insane statistics like 2 out of every 3 people being overweight or obese are well known. Actually reading further, my suspicion seems valid as they did an inequality-adjusted ranking too, one that looks at the average (median) level of development (i.e. loosely what you'd call middle class standard of living). US is at Nr 28. But again the HDI is extremely thin in its metrics, it's only used well because it's a global UN effort and it's so easy to get metrics from every country as opposed to comparing more granular metrics for which data may not exist in tens of countries around the world. But if you compare OECD countries on granular metrics (e.g. something specific like a math test score, or teenage pregnancies), you'll find the US also ranks quite poorly. Your last link ranks the US around nr. 20. That was kind of my point, US not on top, top 5 or even top 10, usually in the 20-30 range, but does very well given its size.

happyscrappy 12y ago

Compare Denmark to the U.S. Now compare the EU to Massachusetts. See the problem? It is hard to act smug if you compare the US to the EU.

hollerith 12y ago

well in your list of countries by GDP (PPP) the US is and has long been the top large-population country.

andrepd 12y ago
The fact that that doesn't translate to actual benefits in metrics such as happiness or healthcare or income equality just goes to show how little raw money actually means.
- henrikschroder 12y ago
  On the contrary, the 1% that has the bulk of the raw money are extremely happy and healthy.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    Do you have any evidence for this claim? Because the first thing I think of when I see your claim is this 2011 (i.e., pre-Occupy) article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/308419/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-f...
- philwelch 12y ago
  A larger and more heterogeneous country is going to have less equality almost by definition. However, 150 years ago we decided that it was crucially important to keep states like Mississippi[1] in the union; if that went the other way, the metrics would look a lot better. [1] There's a saying among states that rank 49th out of 50 in these kinds of metrics: "Thank God for Mississippi".

IkmoIkmo 12y ago

GDP per capita isn't the best measure for citizen's wealth when you don't take equality into account. It's much better to look at median wages, I think. As for the HDI, I have my reservations about it. It feels like one giant expression of wealth. That's bad because wealth isn't a direct measure of quality of life, it's indirect. One can be rich in a country where you have no freedom of the press or horrible gender relations or restrictions on sexual or ideological preference, for example. Of course every metric is a function of wealth in some way, but the HDI more than others. For example, it measures education by years of education, not quality of education. The US does fine on years of education, but it hides the fact that test scores compared to the rest of the world are poor, or that the higher educational system leaves students with mountains of debt that have financial and non-financial consequences. The second metric is income. Again, income an expression of wealth that's not a direct measure of quality of life, and again one that doesn't take into account wage-equality (and thus skews equal or even better towards countries with a very rich minority and a poor majority versus countries with a middle-class majority, while the latter is generally preferred. And lastly Life expectancy at birth is a pretty decent metric. But even here there are plenty of more granular metrics. For example, a 22nd century medical system can keep alive much more obese and sick people. This showcases the notion that a sophisticated healthcare system can attain high life expectancy yet hide the fact that general health is in poor condition. While in countries where people die of lack of vaccinations reducing the life expectancy by a few years on average, people are otherwise much healthier. On all these metrics the US skews more positively, I think. Income for one - the US is richer than most, but its middle class isn't. US kids get plenty of years in school, but test worse on virtually all subjects compared to their peers in other developed economies. And the US has good life expectancy, yet its healthcare system doesn't rank in the top 10, is more expensive by a wide margin and less accessible, and insane statistics like 2 out of every 3 people being overweight or obese are well known. Actually reading further, my suspicion seems valid as they did an inequality-adjusted ranking too, one that looks at the average (median) level of development (i.e. loosely what you'd call middle class standard of living). US is at Nr 28. But again the HDI is extremely thin in its metrics, it's only used well because it's a global UN effort and it's so easy to get metrics from every country as opposed to comparing more granular metrics for which data may not exist in tens of countries around the world. But if you compare OECD countries on granular metrics (e.g. something specific like a math test score, or teenage pregnancies), you'll find the US also ranks quite poorly. Your last link ranks the US around nr. 20. That was kind of my point, US not on top, top 5 or even top 10, usually in the 20-30 range, but does very well given its size.