2018 World Happiness Report - U.S. #18

[Canadian Visitor]

Every year for the last several years the U.N. has put out a report called the World Happiness Report.

The report seeks to evaluate the actual happiness of different populations by country.

Of course, one can always debate how well it achieves this goal, but the underlying data the report uses, as well as how the results for various countries change over time can be quite interesting and discussion worthy.

Report Link Here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-r...18/WHR_web.pdf

Top 20 Rankings [[happiest to least happiest)

1. Finland [[7.632)
2. Norway [[7.594)
3. Denmark [[7.555)
4. Iceland [[7.495)
5. Switzerland [[7.487)
6. Netherlands [[7.441)
7. Canada [[7.328)
8. New Zealand [[7.324)
9. Sweden [[7.314)
10. Australia [[7.272)
11. Israel [[7.190)
12. Austria [[7.139)
13. Costa Rica [[7.072)
14. Ireland [[6.977)
15. Germany [[6.965)
16. Belgium [[6.927)
17. Luxembourg [[6.910)
18. United States [[6.886)
19. United Kingdom [[6.814)
20. United Arab Emirates [[6.774)

Of note for our respective Countries [[U.S and Canada)

The U.S. ranked #11 in the first survey a few years ago and has slipped since to #18 today.

Canada's rank has also slipped from a high of #5 to #7 today.

Discuss.

[Honky Tonk]

Every year for the last several years the U.N. has put out a report called the World Happiness Report.

The report seeks to evaluate the actual happiness of different populations by country.

Of course, one can always debate how well it achieves this goal, but the underlying data the report uses, as well as how the results for various countries change over time can be quite interesting and discussion worthy.

Report Link Here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-r...18/WHR_web.pdf

Top 20 Rankings [[happiest to least happiest)

1. Finland [[7.632)
2. Norway [[7.594)
3. Denmark [[7.555)
4. Iceland [[7.495)
5. Switzerland [[7.487)
6. Netherlands [[7.441)
7. Canada [[7.328)
8. New Zealand [[7.324)
9. Sweden [[7.314)
10. Australia [[7.272)
11. Israel [[7.190)
12. Austria [[7.139)
13. Costa Rica [[7.072)
14. Ireland [[6.977)
15. Germany [[6.965)
16. Belgium [[6.927)
17. Luxembourg [[6.910)
18. United States [[6.886)
19. United Kingdom [[6.814)
20. United Arab Emirates [[6.774)

Of note for our respective Countries [[U.S and Canada)

The U.S. ranked #11 in the first survey a few years ago and has slipped since to #18 today.

Canada's rank has also slipped from a high of #5 to #7 today.

Discuss.

https://youtu.be/2U-rBZREQMw

[Jimaz]

It must suck to live in Burundi.

[Canadian Visitor]

There are many things that could be factors here.

But one that struck me as possibly being relevant is paid vacation time.

Americans work more hours than anyone else in the developed world.

On that note, a list of the same 20 countries, by minimum level of annual paid vacation, by law.

Country	Mandated Paid Vacation
France	5 weeks [[25 days)
Denmark	5 weeks [[25 days)
Sweden	5 weeks [[25 days)
Finland	5 weeks [[25 days)
Luxembourg	5 weeks [[25 days)
Germany	4 weeks, 4 days [[24 days)
Iceland	4 weeks, 4 days [[24 days)
Austria	4 weeks, 2 days [[22 days)
New Zealand	4 weeks [[20 days)
Belgium	4 weeks [[20 days)
Switzerland	4 weeks [[20 days
Australia	4 weeks [[20 days)
Netherlands	4 weeks [[20 days)
Ireland	4 weeks [[20 days)
UK	4 weeks [[20 days)
UAE	4 weeks, 2 days [[22 days)
Israel	2 weeks, 2 days [[12 days) [[Add 2 per year)
Canada	2 weeks [[10 days) [[in 9 provinces)
Costa Rica	2 weeks [[10 days)
US	Zero

[Ray1936]

"But one that struck me as possibly being relevant is paid vacation time."

Could be. I'm retired. I'm very happy.

[Honky Tonk]

https://youtu.be/d-diB65scQU?t=1

[Pam]

https://youtu.be/d-diB65scQU?t=1

There's a guy who committed suicide in that video. Thanks for bumming me out man.

[Johnnny5]

Top 20 Rankings [[happiest to least happiest)

1. Finland [[7.632)
2. Norway [[7.594)
3. Denmark [[7.555)
4. Iceland [[7.495)
5. Switzerland [[7.487)
6. Netherlands [[7.441)
7. Canada [[7.328)
8. New Zealand [[7.324)
9. Sweden [[7.314)
10. Australia [[7.272)

Discuss.

Apparently well off white people are the happiest.

[Canadian Visitor]

Apparently well off white people are the happiest.

I think you could have left it at well-off and been entirely accurate.

There are still very few countries that are not Caucasian majority that would compare on wealth/average income.

Japan, South Korean and Singapore would strike me as three exceptions off the top of my head.

All three are known for intense work cultures, which is understandable is as far as those nations have spent the last few decades playing catch-up.

Happiness will come as they shift not to creating the spoils, but to sharing them fairly.

Though, I should add, UAE is in the 20 and is Arab.

Its not about the background per se; its about having achieved enough wealth, that if you share it wisely you have security; discretionary income, and free-time.

[Canadian Visitor]

I'll add to that and say, the reason[[s) many non-Caucasian countries find themselves behind include the actions of former colonial empires; and current dominant powers.

But that is changing.

China should fully join the developed world shortly; and truthfully, already has in its major urban centres. Its merely that they still have a large rural poor that holds back the numbers.

India is a bit further behind, but gaining quickly.

Others are not so far behind, or at least have the potential to close the gap.

[Honky Tonk]

There's a guy who committed suicide in that video. Thanks for bumming me out man.

Don't worry, be happy...

[coracle]

I'll add to that and say, the reason[[s) many non-Caucasian countries find themselves behind include the actions of former colonial empires; and current dominant powers.

If the many non-Caucasian countries hadn’t experienced the actions of the former colonial empires they would be even father behind than they currently are.

The big difference now between the two groups, is that when the colonials found they were no longer wanted they left, whereas the non-Caucasians that have invaded Caucasian countries never leave. They are still not building the their own countries and they’re not enhancing the countries they invade.

[Bong-Man]

The big difference no one wants to acknowledge is that people from cold weather countries are generally happier than any in the tropics. Going through an annual Winter is a humbling plus for the human condition. It causes people to bond, to organize efficiently, to have a sense of community, and to work together. They cuddle more too.

[Canadian Visitor]

If the many non-Caucasian countries hadn’t experienced the actions of the former colonial empires they would be even father behind than they currently are.

The big difference now between the two groups, is that when the colonials found they were no longer wanted they left, whereas the non-Caucasians that have invaded Caucasian countries never leave. They are still not building the their own countries and they’re not enhancing the countries they invade.

Aside from a rather overt display of bigotry and ignorance, did your post have a point?

Which non-Caucasian countries have invaded the United States? [[answer: Zero).

There are citizens who have immigrated to the United States, legally, by invitation, and who accordingly are now American.

Not an invading force.

Illegal immigration is not a state-sponsored activity, so not an invasion, moreover, its historically an issue w/hispancs in the United States......who are Caucasians [[you knew Spain was in Europe, right?); and that Mexicans are principally descended from Spain?

***

My point in my post was neither demonization nor glorification of colonial past; it was an explanatory note that links employment standards to wealth, and happiness.

Further it illustrated why some nations are only now catching up in terms of wealth, and that in turn reflects less employment standards and lesser degrees of personal happiness.

***

As a final note, which colonial powers voluntarily left the moment any opposition appeared?

I might have been under the mistaken impression most of the colonial independence came as a result of civil strife, demonstrations, revolutions, lower economic utility to former colonial empires and nation's like the UK being highly indebted after WWII and not being able to afford to sustain an empire.

Of course.....I could be wrong [[but its not likely)

PS, I don't feel any guilt, not a snowflake, don't think we should waste time demonizing previous generations for policies or actions we would no longer sponsor.

But that doesn't mean we should 'white-wash' history and pretend it was different than it was, either.

[Richard]

^ so you do not feel sanctuary cities are not in essence state sponsored illegal immigration?

[oladub]

.
Illegal immigration is not a state-sponsored activity

Wrong,invasions do not have to be a state-sponsored activity. See the second and third definition.

definition of 'invasion' from Google dictionary
1) an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
2)an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
3)an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

There are economic invasions, bug invasions, home invasions, etc..

[Canadian Visitor]

Wrong,invasions do not have to be a state-sponsored activity. See the second and third definition.

definition of 'invasion' from Google dictionary
1) an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
2)an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
3)an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

There are economic invasions, bug invasions, home invasions, etc..

As per your meaning #3 and in reference to the poster to whom I was responding, the implication is that the 'invasion' is an un-wanted intrusion. Specifically by non-Caucasians.

As I pointed out those 'invaders' are LEGAL immigrants overwhelmingly.

Your illegal immigrants [[a portion of your Hispanic community) are in fact Caucasian.

***

Your point #2 uses the word 'incursion' and as illustrated by references to bugs and home invasions is again about unwelcome.

Which I will once more point out is preposterous.

LEGAL immigrants were INVITED by the United States, they filed paper work, awaited approval, paid fees etc. There was no incursion.

Your government has always been capable of closing off such immigration, but has not chosen to do so. The public policy merits aside, that is the responsibility of voters.

Aside from that, your immigration level is relatively low by comparison to Canada's and much lower to the Detroit area.....the invasion rhetoric isn't merely offensive and racist and it is both; its also grossly misplaced and not representative of any real phenomenon.

[coracle]

Obviously Canadian Visitor, you are not Caucasian.

[Meddle]

I thoroughly despise Winter in all forms, so 8 of the top 9 are out.

[Canadian Visitor]

Obviously Canadian Visitor, you are not Caucasian.

Not that it should matter.

But in point of fact, I am.

1/2 Scottish, 1/2 Quebecois, Toronto-born, blond hair [[at least what's left of it, LOL)

Your perception is clouded by your xenophobia and racism.

I grew up around a rainbow of colours, it doesn't threaten me.

My identity is not tied up in my complexion, its the food I cook, the sports I play, my job, where I live etc.

Not who I look like.

[Canadian Visitor]

All of this race-baiting nonsense is taking us well away from the original theme of this thread which is which nations citizens are happiest, and why.

Clearly, sadly, Michigan's happiness is adversely affected by the number of overt racists and xenophobes who are paranoid that the presence of non-white people will somehow cause them to wilt and their fortunes flounder.

Such weakness of mind and character is sad.

Happens everywhere, but I'm shocked both by the shamelessness of the posters and the failure of others to call them out more aggressively.

The answer to the challenges facing Michigan having nothing to do w/non-white people in Michigan. They have everything to do w/poor education as well exemplified in this thread, xenophobia not merely of people but of ideas from elsewhere, a resistance to change and unwillingness to modernize everything from land-use, to employment standards.

[coracle]

Thanks, that explains it CV. I thought you were a visitor to Canada whereas you are Canadian making visits. Say no more! Regards to Trudeau and continue to enjoy your diversity [[their’s nothing else you can do).

Eventually we’ll have to build a wall on that border as well!

[Richard]

Not that it should matter.

But in point of fact, I am.

1/2 Scottish, 1/2 Quebecois, Toronto-born, blond hair [[at least what's left of it, LOL)

Your perception is clouded by your xenophobia and racism.

I grew up around a rainbow of colours, it doesn't threaten me.

My identity is not tied up in my complexion, its the food I cook, the sports I play, my job, where I live etc.

Not who I look like.

Colors or colours as in the British version?

If you really did not view in colors they would not exist and you would not refer to them,correct?

Your identity is defined by who you are as a person and how you treat others,the materialistic identity is a class warfare snobbish front.

I am educated so I am better then you,you cannot buy class.

[oladub]

Canadian Visitor, Your quote was,"Illegal immigration is nat a state-sponsored activity, so it is not an invasion." The dictionary definition says you are wrong whatever you meant.

Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the power to write uniform naturalization laws. Obama was acting as dictator, without congressional authority, in his own words, when he let DACA 'children' stay. "Invasion" is not off base when corrupt Chinese officials opened the gates of the Great Wall to let in Mongols. 'Invasion' is not off base when a President goes rogue and writes executive orders in violation of the Constitution to let in economic invaders.

I see at least two reasons for, as Obama did, encouraging an invasion of foreigners. The first is economic and is well described by the UN Migration Minister in 2012: From his viewpoint, it was necessary to break down local cultures by opening up immigration. "The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said. It was for the good of the EU economy of course "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states". He wasn't speaking about the US but this is the explanation some have long given for our own open borders. Economically, it is not as good for US or EU workers as it is for the 1% who can manage a cheaper more manageable labor market. Like Obama, Justin Trudeau is a useful operative promoting an economic invasion. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

Second, Western countries usually have a liberal party or coalition of parties that invites in foreigners for their own political advantage. If your party can't depend on citizens to get itself elected, bring in enough foreigners to turn the election. Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary's former top aide and executive vice president for communications and advocacy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, called on Democrats to make the fight for DACA recipients a “moral imperative” or else risk jeopardizing their chances in 2018.“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” the memo reads.

Neither 1% economic control nor Party advantage nor opposition to them are necessarily racist. They could be though. Identity politics begets identity politics.

[Canadian Visitor]

Canadian Visitor, Your quote was,"Illegal immigration is nat a state-sponsored activity, so it is not an invasion." The dictionary definition says you are wrong whatever you meant.

Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the power to write uniform naturalization laws. Obama was acting as dictator, without congressional authority, in his own words, when he let DACA 'children' stay. "Invasion" is not off base when corrupt Chinese officials opened the gates of the Great Wall to let in Mongols. 'Invasion' is not off base when a President goes rogue and writes executive orders in violation of the Constitution to let in economic invaders.

I see at least two reasons for, as Obama did, encouraging an invasion of foreigners. The first is economic and is well described by the UN Migration Minister in 2012: From his viewpoint, it was necessary to break down local cultures by opening up immigration. "The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said. It was for the good of the EU economy of course "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states". He wasn't speaking about the US but this is the explanation some have long given for our own open borders. Economically, it is not as good for US or EU workers as it is for the 1% who can manage a cheaper more manageable labor market. Like Obama, Justin Trudeau is a useful operative promoting an economic invasion. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

Second, Western countries usually have a liberal party or coalition of parties that invites in foreigners for their own political advantage. If your party can't depend on citizens to get itself elected, bring in enough foreigners to turn the election. Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary's former top aide and executive vice president for communications and advocacy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, called on Democrats to make the fight for DACA recipients a “moral imperative” or else risk jeopardizing their chances in 2018.“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” the memo reads.

Neither 1% economic control nor Party advantage nor opposition to them are necessarily racist. They could be though. Identity politics begets identity politics.

First off, if YOUR elected leader does something to invite or allow people, that is not an invasion sponsored by a FOREIGN state.

YOU elect your leaders. Mexicans, Africans, Asians [[or Canadians) do not.

They speak on YOUR behalf.

If you feel that they are bought off or misrepresenting your interests, how about you get the money out of your politics?

If you don't, that's surely not the problem of anyone from anywhere else.

***

Second, you conflate a limited move to temporarily legalize a small number [[in relative terms) of illegal immigrants, with an invasion.

The 'Dreamers' category is about people who were brought into the United States by their parents, when they were not yet legal adults [[and possibly young children or babies) and who have never known or don't remember their country of origin, and may not even speak the language [[presumably Spanish)

This is not about legalizing the adults [[parents) who came in illegally, for better or worse.

This is about acknowledging an undue burden on people who had no choice as to whether they crossed a border.

That said, they are ALREADY in your country, and since they didn't have any choice in their arrival, one can hardly call a group whose median age at immigration was 7 an invading force.

****

You and I don't disagree on the motivations for lax regulations which have facilitated or allowed illegal immigration in the past. [[ I say in the past, because there is little evidence of current 'net' migration to the US from Mexico.)

Regardless, undoubtedly, both parties failed to the tackle the issue for reasons that were not beneficial to the 'blue collar' class. But WTF does that have to with what we talking about in the first place?

And how is any of that the fault of people who either legally immigrated or crossed a border in a 'facilitated' way to improve their economic livelihood, or escape rampant
violence?

The focus on this angle and the fetishization of it is deeply disturbing. YOU elect your government, not anyone else.

YOU are responsible for the conduct of your government. Not anyone else.

Want to fix it? Stop blaming everyone else, and get off your ass and vote! Don't stop there either. Get involved in the primaries. Write emails or make phone calls to your House reps and your Senators.

Instead of tolerating the current BS nonsense on NAFTA which will you get you nothing at all. [[read the WTO regulations for one reason why); Demand a deal that liberalizes trade unions in Mexico, and raises their minimum wage from the among the lowest in the Americas, to at least the 3rd highest, after Canada and the U.S.

That will slow down the reallocation of jobs.

Then demand more affordable post-secondary education so that the next generation can do something other than factory labour which is increasingly automated no matter what else you do.

A factory that once employed 4,000 now employs 800 for the same output.

Newsflash, that's going to drop to 400 within the next 5 years, and 200 within the next 10.

Your kid or grandkid cannot count a job where they hand-weld or drill in screws.

Nothing wrong w/that, there's just going to be a lot less of it.

The way to economic success involves designing and programming the machines that build stuff, not building stuff.

Just saying.