Quality of Life placements by the UN (HDI)

[Kari]

Also, about immigrants... Immigration here in Canada is pretty high, roughly 17-18% of the population are immigrants.  35% in toronto and 42% in vancouver.

We still manage to rank 4th...

Maybe it has to do with the way immigrants are treated?

Where are your immigrants from? As ADMG noted, a huge portion of ours are from Mexico - and I'm sure you already know what conditions are like there. And let's face it, the US actually treats immigrants very well. Hell, the vast majority of illegal immigrants have no need to worry about being deported, and many have access to things such as welfare, Medicaid, and their children get access to our school system and more.

Unless, of course, you expect us to hand them everything they want on a gold platter? Sorry, no can do. (And, frankly, I'm of the opinion that anyone not here legally should be forcibly removed. There are plenty of ways to come here, and stay here, legally, if they want to try.)

[Alastar]

Some 1.8 million immigrants arrived in Canada between 1991-2001, and 58 percent came from Asia; 20 percent from Europe; 11 percent from the Caribbean, Central and South America. Canada in 2001 had 13.4 percent or four million "visible minorities." Mainland China was the single biggest source of immigrants in the 1990s, with 85,000 arrivals, followed by 80,000 from India and 55,000 from the Philippines and Hong Kong.

Most of the immigrants- 73 percent- settled in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. In Vancouver, 49 percent of residents are immigrants; in Toronto, 43 percent. In Miami, 40 percent of residents are foreign-born, in Sydney and Los Angeles, 31 percent each, and in New York City, 24 percent.


I'm sure you treat them all well and everything, but then why blame them for the low placement in the HDI chart?  IF they have access to welfare and school systems, then their lifespan and education level should be the same no?


I'll grant you this, a high percentage of immigrants that come in Canada have university education.  Guess we attract that kind of people.

[Kari]

I'm sure you treat them all well and everything, but then why blame them for the low placement in the HDI chart?  IF they have access to welfare and school systems, then their lifespan and education level should be the same no?

Interesting information. Good to know, too.

I don't blame them for the placement - that's ADMG's theory, not mine. (Personally, I blame our government for reducing the quality of our schools and accepting a lower and lower average level of actual education with each 'graduating' class.) But my point was that a lot of the immigrants come as adults - they're not going to school. Their kids are, sure, but they aren't, so whatever schooling they got back 'home' is what they have and much of the time, they don't see any need to waste time and money (since adults don't get free public education) going to school to fill in the gaps, as it were.

[Alastar]

True, true, and I mean, US, according to the HDI, is still the second best country to live in in the americas, it's not a living hell you know!!!

I'd be interested to know what share of the population the mexicans occupy in the US.  Think you could dig that up for me Kari?

Sorry for the wrong assignation of theory.

The first 12 placers are mostly heavily left leaning countries though, there might be something to that too...

[Tshern]

I'm sure you treat them all well and everything, but then why blame them for the low placement in the HDI chart?  IF they have access to welfare and school systems, then their lifespan and education level should be the same no?

Interesting information. Good to know, too.

I don't blame them for the placement - that's ADMG's theory, not mine. (Personally, I blame our government for reducing the quality of our schools and accepting a lower and lower average level of actual education with each 'graduating' class.) But my point was that a lot of the immigrants come as adults - they're not going to school. Their kids are, sure, but they aren't, so whatever schooling they got back 'home' is what they have and much of the time, they don't see any need to waste time and money (since adults don't get free public education) going to school to fill in the gaps, as it were.

Kari... Did we just find some common ground?

My point calling all Americans (well, virtually all) immigrants is indeed an outdated one, but the point is the 'immigrants ruin our country' argument has the very same flaw. If the richest country in the world cannot actually afford to keep these people in decent conditions, then resources are being misallocated.

It is actually quite interesting to follow the criteria the HDI is formed of. Have a look at the democracy figures, quality of education and income in separate countries as separate values. I find these results to be a lot more interesting than the HDI value, that seems to largely concentrate on disposable income.

[Kari]

True, true, and I mean, US, according to the HDI, is still the second best country to live in in the americas, it's not a living hell you know!!!

I'd be interested to know what share of the population the mexicans occupy in the US.  Think you could dig that up for me Kari?

Sorry for the wrong assignation of theory.

The first 12 placers are mostly heavily left leaning countries though, there might be something to that too...

Um. I don't even know where to look, honestly. Except maybe Wikipedia. 

I'm sure you treat them all well and everything, but then why blame them for the low placement in the HDI chart?  IF they have access to welfare and school systems, then their lifespan and education level should be the same no?

Interesting information. Good to know, too.

I don't blame them for the placement - that's ADMG's theory, not mine. (Personally, I blame our government for reducing the quality of our schools and accepting a lower and lower average level of actual education with each 'graduating' class.) But my point was that a lot of the immigrants come as adults - they're not going to school. Their kids are, sure, but they aren't, so whatever schooling they got back 'home' is what they have and much of the time, they don't see any need to waste time and money (since adults don't get free public education) going to school to fill in the gaps, as it were.

Kari... Did we just find some common ground?

My point calling all Americans (well, virtually all) immigrants is indeed an outdated one, but the point is the 'immigrants ruin our country' argument has the very same flaw. If the richest country in the world cannot actually afford to keep these people in decent conditions, then resources are being misallocated.

It is actually quite interesting to follow the criteria the HDI is formed of. Have a look at the democracy figures, quality of education and income in separate countries as separate values. I find these results to be a lot more interesting than the HDI value, that seems to largely concentrate on disposable income.

Uh... Damnit! No! We can't agree! I... oh, RATS.

I really have no problem with immigration, as long as it's done properly. Especially here in the US - hell, it's our strength, or a large part of it, anyway. I just have a problem with the ones who come here illegally, or remain illegally, specifically because they do use a lot of resources that are taxpayer funded, and they don't pay taxes. It's not right, and it can and does take away from those who do live here legitimately. Especially frustrating is when our own politicians want to extend benefits to these same illegals, but that's a whole 'nother rant.

[Tshern]

We will find another dispute soon, don't worry. I am already dying to find one.

The illegal immigration has its reasons as well. One of the major ones being the rich countries who force crappy standards of living on the poorer ones. It's the responsibility of those countries to clean the shit they pour down and immigration is not merely enough. And certain countries have, for example, all the healthcare benefits applies to everyone within the borders of said country...

[Johannixx]

The first 12 placers are mostly heavily left leaning countries though, there might be something to that too...

Certainly:  a heavily left-leaning bias on the part of the survey writers, perhaps?

I have to agree with Tshern, though (as much as it pains me ), we're dumbing down our schools in the name of 'self-esteem'.  There are plenty of places that won't give F's (Failing grades, to those who use a different system) for fear of either hurting the students' feelings, or hurting their own academic rankings (and thus their federal funding).  Unfortunately, self-esteem can't be given, only earned.  What is the use of telling someone they're smart and capable, when they're neither?  When I went through grade school, the smartest kids got to go to a few classes all by themselves, learning at a more rapid pace.  We thrived in that environment.  When I got to high school (age 15-18), we were forced back into the 'normal' classes, studying things we'd learned years before.  We were not allowed to continue our educations, because the parents of the less-gifted or less-driven kids were upset at the 'elitism' of having a gifted learning program at all.

People will always have different skill sets, and different overall levels of skills.  We should be encouraging each person to grow to their fullest potential.  For some people, that's flipping burgers at McDonald's.  For others, it's particle physics.  We shouldn't expect people to all be the same in terms of ability or skill, because it just won't happen.  People should have equal rights, but by no means are they truly equal in all ways.  It's a shame that the purveyors of 'diversity' in the US can't see that simple truth. 

[EjoThims]

The first 12 placers are mostly heavily left leaning countries though, there might be something to that too...

Certainly:  a heavily left-leaning bias on the part of the survey writers, perhaps?

Or the far more rational idea that a left leaning government is likely better at fostering the ideals measured in the study.

Because the alternative you suggest implies intentional deception and/or skewing of data, a pretty hefty claim without personal inside knowledge of how it was run.

[Kari]

Because the alternative you suggest implies intentional deception and/or skewing of data, a pretty hefty claim without personal inside knowledge of how it was run.

Nearly all groups and governments tend to skew data one way or another. (I'm not saying this group does, or did. Just that most do. Even so, I doubt it would have been enough to make a difference.)

[Johannixx]

The first 12 placers are mostly heavily left leaning countries though, there might be something to that too...

Certainly:  a heavily left-leaning bias on the part of the survey writers, perhaps?

Or the far more rational idea that a left leaning government is likely better at fostering the ideals measured in the study.

Because the alternative you suggest implies intentional deception and/or skewing of data, a pretty hefty claim without personal inside knowledge of how it was run.

Kind of like the Nobel Peace Prize? 

[EjoThims]

Because the alternative you suggest implies intentional deception and/or skewing of data, a pretty hefty claim without personal inside knowledge of how it was run.

Nearly all groups and governments tend to skew data one way or another. (I'm not saying this group does, or did. Just that most do. Even so, I doubt it would have been enough to make a difference.)

Right. But very few credible (being the key word) ones do it through blatant deception. Most do it by portraying wholly (or nearly wholly) true facts in a light that makes them seem to support their already existing ideas.

Such as, for example, basing the quality of life indicators off of criteria that left leaning countries tend to support if you wish to portray left leaning countries as having a higher quality of life.

After all, you can live a long time, being well educated and reading many, many books and still have it be a terrible life. A study that wanted to support more right leaning ideals as a basis for life quality might make a similar study quoting highest national income, religious faith, single mindedness of population, and lowest tax rates as indicators.



As for the Nobel Peace Prize, what exactly was done with intentional deception or skewing of data? They are, after all, allowed to give the thing to anyone they would like. They could award it to a cat named Fluffy next year if they really wanted.

[veekie]

I have to agree with Tshern, though (as much as it pains me ), we're dumbing down our schools in the name of 'self-esteem'.  There are plenty of places that won't give F's (Failing grades, to those who use a different system) for fear of either hurting the students' feelings, or hurting their own academic rankings (and thus their federal funding).  Unfortunately, self-esteem can't be given, only earned.  What is the use of telling someone they're smart and capable, when they're neither?  When I went through grade school, the smartest kids got to go to a few classes all by themselves, learning at a more rapid pace.  We thrived in that environment.  When I got to high school (age 15-18), we were forced back into the 'normal' classes, studying things we'd learned years before.  We were not allowed to continue our educations, because the parents of the less-gifted or less-driven kids were upset at the 'elitism' of having a gifted learning program at all.

People will always have different skill sets, and different overall levels of skills.  We should be encouraging each person to grow to their fullest potential.  For some people, that's flipping burgers at McDonald's.  For others, it's particle physics.  We shouldn't expect people to all be the same in terms of ability or skill, because it just won't happen.  People should have equal rights, but by no means are they truly equal in all ways.  It's a shame that the purveyors of 'diversity' in the US can't see that simple truth. 

Amen to that, though I know I wouldn't be all that high up the resulting scale(knowing the competition), it makes what I DO have worth all the more.

[Tshern]

Certainly:  a heavily left-leaning bias on the part of the survey writers, perhaps?

Then again, the income part is very important in the HDI, which favours the USA. Have a look at the education and democracy rates as separate entities. The USA goes down quite fast (although they are in the top 20, so no need to compete with Zimbabwe or anything).

I have to agree with Tshern, though (as much as it pains me ), we're dumbing down our schools in the name of 'self-esteem'.

This triple entente of you, me and Kari is going too far.

There are plenty of places that won't give F's (Failing grades, to those who use a different system) for fear of either hurting the students' feelings, or hurting their own academic rankings (and thus their federal funding).  Unfortunately, self-esteem can't be given, only earned.  What is the use of telling someone they're smart and capable, when they're neither?  When I went through grade school, the smartest kids got to go to a few classes all by themselves, learning at a more rapid pace.  We thrived in that environment.  When I got to high school (age 15-18), we were forced back into the 'normal' classes, studying things we'd learned years before.  We were not allowed to continue our educations, because the parents of the less-gifted or less-driven kids were upset at the 'elitism' of having a gifted learning program at all.

This sort approach of trying not to confront the children is also one of the reasons American children use more drugs (not the funny ones, but pills for ADHD and whatnot) than countries in Europe and Canada. If I recall correctly the amount of school kids under drugs multiplied between the 1970 and 2000 several times over, which seems to go well with the description you give...

People will always have different skill sets, and different overall levels of skills.  We should be encouraging each person to grow to their fullest potential.  For some people, that's flipping burgers at McDonald's.  For others, it's particle physics.  We shouldn't expect people to all be the same in terms of ability or skill, because it just won't happen.  People should have equal rights, but by no means are they truly equal in all ways.  It's a shame that the purveyors of 'diversity' in the US can't see that simple truth. 

Finally found something to disagree with, but I'll leave my wealth addiction rants to another time.

[Bauglir]

Jeebus, I'm as shocked as Tshern to find myself in agreement on the education thing. I could complain about how the worthlessness of the school system has made my life now that I'm in college somewhat harder, but in all honesty it really is my own damn fault for never learning how to study properly, even if the schools I attended made it entirely unnecessary. Rather, I'll complain about how my brother was denied access to school for a semester because the school fucked up an administrative detail and didn't get it fixed till so far into the semester that he couldn't actually pass any classes. The reasoning, of course, was because they wanted to AVOID a potential lawsuit (it's convoluted and I won't go into it here, but it's bullshit). Oh, and the principal of the high school's an ass who only cares about looking competent, as opposed to BEING competent (managed to get probably the single best teacher to quit by means of incompetence/stupid power struggle, I'm not exactly sure which). And on the subject of actual studies, the fact that ~30% (I'd estimate) of the total time in any class I've taken past grade school, college included, consisted of reviewing things we've learned in previous classes. Now, I understand the concept of refresher lectures or whatever, but that's a bit much.

I'm slightly off-topic here, so I'll sum up by saying the education system is majorly screwed up. To paraphrase Subnormality, they shouldn't be allowed to do their jobs half-assed, because when they do that, they're screwing up people's LIVES.

[Johannixx]

I'm slightly off-topic here, so I'll sum up by saying the education system is majorly screwed up. To paraphrase Subnormality, they shouldn't be allowed to do their jobs half-assed, because when they do that, they're screwing up people's LIVES.

Now imagine them in charge of your health care...

[Bauglir]

Ah, and here we disagree! I'd rather see them work on becoming competent (as it's been demonstrated in the past that they have been, at least moreso than now), than not bother altogether. Phew, I'm at peace now.

[Johannixx]

Ah, and here we disagree! I'd rather see them work on becoming competent (as it's been demonstrated in the past that they have been, at least moreso than now), than not bother altogether. Phew, I'm at peace now.

The problem is that people need motivation to perform to the best of their abilities, and they tend to gravitate towards those careers that reward them both emotionally and financially.  Right now, being a teacher in the US pays jack shit, and the teachers are so hamstrung in dealing with their students that the kids don't get any discipline.  When I was in school, if I mouthed off to a teacher, I'd be in a world of hurt both at school and when I got home.  Now the kids get away with it left and right, and have no consequences.  The teachers can't do anything to them, and the parents won't do anything (either through apathy or delusion).  So why put up with the hassle for what amounts to a bare minimum wage?  Add to that, the teachers' unions never seem to get better pay or benefits for their employees, but god forbid anyone try to fire a substandard teacher.  And, the perennial reluctance of taxpayers to foot the bill for what it would take to retain competent employees keeps the teacher pay down.

In essence, the whole system is geared towards substandard education, because the 'goals' of the system have nothing to do with churning out educated students capable of thinking critically beyond the next Lady Gaga album, and everything to do with massaging the numbers to get more financing.

[EjoThims]

Now the kids get away with it left and right, and have no consequences.

Seriously, parenting has really fallen by the wayside in this country the past 30-40 years.

As for healthcare, in essence, the whole system is geared towards substandard service, because the 'goals' of the system have nothing to do with improving lives, and everything to do with massaging the numbers to get more financing.

And that is with the current private system.

[Bauglir]

Ah, and here we disagree! I'd rather see them work on becoming competent (as it's been demonstrated in the past that they have been, at least moreso than now), than not bother altogether. Phew, I'm at peace now.

The problem is that people need motivation to perform to the best of their abilities, and they tend to gravitate towards those careers that reward them both emotionally and financially.  Right now, being a teacher in the US pays jack shit, and the teachers are so hamstrung in dealing with their students that the kids don't get any discipline.  When I was in school, if I mouthed off to a teacher, I'd be in a world of hurt both at school and when I got home.  Now the kids get away with it left and right, and have no consequences.  The teachers can't do anything to them, and the parents won't do anything (either through apathy or delusion).  So why put up with the hassle for what amounts to a bare minimum wage?  Add to that, the teachers' unions never seem to get better pay or benefits for their employees, but god forbid anyone try to fire a substandard teacher.  And, the perennial reluctance of taxpayers to foot the bill for what it would take to retain competent employees keeps the teacher pay down.

In essence, the whole system is geared towards substandard education, because the 'goals' of the system have nothing to do with churning out educated students capable of thinking critically beyond the next Lady Gaga album, and everything to do with massaging the numbers to get more financing.

I totally agree. Teachers ought to make pretty damn solid wages, for one thing. And the whole parenting thing, I agree with. I just figure they should fix those things instead of make it privatized or something (I'm not sure if that's the implication you were going for, and after that post I think we're actually in accord over this so I really don't need to say anything).

As for healthcare, I also think the example of countries where it has worked is sufficient to justify trying to work towards a government-subsidized healthcare system. I also think that the government needs a fair bit of an overhaul to work out inconsistencies, corruption, and (possibly most importantly, if only because I think it's the problem that causes the most damage) inefficiencies, and that'd go a long way towards making things run more smoothly. And I think the main problem here is taxpayers not being willing to foot the bill, even though looking at it over the long term you're going to need expensive healthcare at some point in your life. And I think paying maybe 100 bucks extra a year (I'm wildly overestimating for the sake of argument) is an easier burden than an unexpected 3000 bucks all at once. Worst case scenario, you get to feel good about helping out the people around you.

I mean, they do a fine job of running the interstate system, so at least they're not TOTALLY incompetent.