Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Monday, March 22, 2021
Why you can't compare Covid-19 vaccines: What a vaccine's "efficacy rate" actually means
Nicely and clearly explained: why all the vaccines will work...if people will just take them!
Wednesday, February 3, 2021
The Economy Does Much Better Under Democrats. Why? by David Leonhardt
Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy?
G.D.P., jobs and other indicators have all risen more slowly under Republicans for nearly the past century.
By David Leonhardt | Graphics by Yaryna Serkez
Mr. Leonhardt is a senior writer at The Times. Ms. Serkez is a writer and graphics editor for Opinion.
Feb. 2, 2021
Since 1933, the economy has grown at an annual average rate of 4.6 percent under Democratic presidents and 2.4 percent under Republicans, according to a Times analysis. In more concrete terms: The average income of Americans would be more than double its current level if the economy had somehow grown at the Democratic rate for all of the past nine decades. If anything, that period (which is based on data availability) is too kind to Republicans, because it excludes the portion of the Great Depression that happened on Herbert Hoover’s watch.
The six presidents who have presided over the fastest job growth have all been Democrats, as you can see above. The four presidents who have presided over the slowest growth have all been Republicans.
The big question, of course, is why. And there are not easy answers.
I have shown the data to multiple economists in recent weeks, and most say they are not sure how to explain it, at least not fully. “We don’t quite get why it’s the case,” Katherine Eriksson, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who specializes in economic history, told me. Marianne Wanamaker, an economist at the University of Tennessee, described the pattern to the graduate students in a class she teaches and asked for their thoughts. “They were sort of stumped,” she said.
Part of the answer surely involves coincidence. Some presidents, like Barack Obama and George W. Bush, take office when the economy is in a downturn, while others, like Harry Truman and Donald Trump, inherit a boom. Some, like Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan, preside over military buildups; others, like Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton, drawdowns. More broadly, the economy’s performance stems from millions of decisions made every day by businesses and consumers, many of which have little relation to government policy.
Still, the pattern is so strong and long-lasting that coincidence alone is unlikely to be the only explanation. Statistical noise, as Mr. Blinder and Mr. Watson wrote in their paper exploring the pattern, does not seem to be the answer.
What, then, are the most plausible theories?
First, it’s worth rejecting a few unlikely possibilities. Congressional control is not the answer. The pattern holds regardless of which party is running Congress. Deficit spending also doesn’t explain the gap: It is not the case that Democrats juice the economy by spending money and then leave Republicans to clean up the mess. Over the last four decades, in fact, Republican presidents have run up larger deficits than Democrats.
That leaves one broad possibility with a good amount of supporting evidence: Democrats have been more willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe — like the supposedly magical power of tax cuts and deregulation. Democrats, in short, have been more pragmatic.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt first ran for president, in 1932, he did not have a fully coherent economic plan. He sometimes argued that reducing the deficit was the key to ending the Depression. Above all, though, he called for “bold, persistent experimentation.” As he explained: “Take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
Over time, he and his advisers came to champion the ideas of John Maynard Keynes. In an economic downturn, when companies and households are caught in a vicious cycle of spending reductions, the government needs to step in. The Keynesian approach has shaped Democratic economic policy ever since.
It has made Democratic presidents much more aggressive in responding to crises than Republicans. Not only was Hoover passive in the face of the Depression, but the first George Bush was slow to fight the 1990-91 recession, and the second George Bush was slow to begin fighting the 2007-9 financial crisis. Mr. Obama and now President Biden, when faced with an economic crisis, have been much bolder.
Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, told me that he believed the overall partisan pattern was mostly coincidence. But, he said, “It is certainly a defensible posture that in periods of economic distress Democrats are more concerned about jobs than Republicans.”
The past year has offered another case study. Mr. Trump repeatedly downplayed the coronavirus pandemic, and the country suffered. The economy would have experienced a downturn no matter who was president, but his scattered response aggravated the pandemic and the recession. In some other countries, life is much closer to normal. In the United States, Mr. Trump became the first president since Hoover to preside over a decline in employment.
The pragmatism gap isn’t only about recessions, either. Democrats have also been more aggressive about making job-creating investments — in medical research and clean energy, for example — that the private sector does not make when left to its own devices. Occasionally, a Democratic president has even been willing to go against type in order to encourage growth. Mr. Clinton, persuaded that deficit reduction could bring down interest rates and accelerate growth, scrapped some early spending plans and raised taxes. Interest rates fell, and the economy boomed.
Some past Republican presidents took a similarly pragmatic approach. Despite being conservative, both Eisenhower and Nixon were nonetheless comfortable using government to help the economy when needed. The elder George Bush signed a tax increase that contributed to the deficit reduction that, in turn, fueled the 1990s boom.
For the most part, however, Republican economic policy since 1980 has revolved around a single policy: large tax cuts, tilted heavily toward the affluent. There are situations in which tax cuts can lift economic growth, but they typically involve countries with very high tax rates. The United States has had fairly low tax rates for decades.
The evidence now overwhelmingly suggests that recent tax cuts have had only a modest effect on the economy. G.D.P. grew at virtually the same rate after the 2017 Trump tax cut as before it. If anything, the Clinton tax increase of 1993 has a better claim on starting a boom than any tax cut since.
One possibility is that the two parties are both responding to the interest groups that support and finance them, suggested Ms. Wanamaker, who worked in the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Trump administration. But the Democratic-leaning groups (like labor unions and civil-rights organizations) may favor policies that lift broad-based economic growth, while Republican-leaning groups (like the wealthy) favor policies that mostly shift income toward themselves.
These explanations are almost certainly not complete. Much of the partisan gap remains mysterious. At the end of their academic paper on it, Mr. Blinder, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman and Clinton administration official, and Mr. Watson encourage other economists to study the issue.
But if the causes are not fully clear, the pattern is. The American economy has performed much better under Democratic administrations than Republican ones, over both the last few decades and the last century. And as Ms. Wanamaker said, “Administrations do certainly have the ability to affect economic outcomes.”
Link to original article:
G.D.P., jobs and other indicators have all risen more slowly under Republicans for nearly the past century.
By David Leonhardt | Graphics by Yaryna Serkez
Mr. Leonhardt is a senior writer at The Times. Ms. Serkez is a writer and graphics editor for Opinion.
Feb. 2, 2021
A president has only limited control over the economy. And yet there has been a stark pattern in the United States for nearly a century. The economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic presidents than Republican ones.
It’s true about almost any major indicator: gross domestic product, employment, incomes, productivity, even stock prices. It’s true if you examine only the precise period when a president is in office, or instead assume that a president’s policies affect the economy only after a lag and don’t start his economic clock until months after he takes office. The gap “holds almost regardless of how you define success,” two economics professors at Princeton, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, write. They describe it as “startlingly large.”
It’s true about almost any major indicator: gross domestic product, employment, incomes, productivity, even stock prices. It’s true if you examine only the precise period when a president is in office, or instead assume that a president’s policies affect the economy only after a lag and don’t start his economic clock until months after he takes office. The gap “holds almost regardless of how you define success,” two economics professors at Princeton, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, write. They describe it as “startlingly large.”
The big question, of course, is why. And there are not easy answers.
I have shown the data to multiple economists in recent weeks, and most say they are not sure how to explain it, at least not fully. “We don’t quite get why it’s the case,” Katherine Eriksson, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who specializes in economic history, told me. Marianne Wanamaker, an economist at the University of Tennessee, described the pattern to the graduate students in a class she teaches and asked for their thoughts. “They were sort of stumped,” she said.
Part of the answer surely involves coincidence. Some presidents, like Barack Obama and George W. Bush, take office when the economy is in a downturn, while others, like Harry Truman and Donald Trump, inherit a boom. Some, like Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan, preside over military buildups; others, like Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton, drawdowns. More broadly, the economy’s performance stems from millions of decisions made every day by businesses and consumers, many of which have little relation to government policy.
Still, the pattern is so strong and long-lasting that coincidence alone is unlikely to be the only explanation. Statistical noise, as Mr. Blinder and Mr. Watson wrote in their paper exploring the pattern, does not seem to be the answer.
What, then, are the most plausible theories?
First, it’s worth rejecting a few unlikely possibilities. Congressional control is not the answer. The pattern holds regardless of which party is running Congress. Deficit spending also doesn’t explain the gap: It is not the case that Democrats juice the economy by spending money and then leave Republicans to clean up the mess. Over the last four decades, in fact, Republican presidents have run up larger deficits than Democrats.
That leaves one broad possibility with a good amount of supporting evidence: Democrats have been more willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe — like the supposedly magical power of tax cuts and deregulation. Democrats, in short, have been more pragmatic.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt first ran for president, in 1932, he did not have a fully coherent economic plan. He sometimes argued that reducing the deficit was the key to ending the Depression. Above all, though, he called for “bold, persistent experimentation.” As he explained: “Take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
Over time, he and his advisers came to champion the ideas of John Maynard Keynes. In an economic downturn, when companies and households are caught in a vicious cycle of spending reductions, the government needs to step in. The Keynesian approach has shaped Democratic economic policy ever since.
It has made Democratic presidents much more aggressive in responding to crises than Republicans. Not only was Hoover passive in the face of the Depression, but the first George Bush was slow to fight the 1990-91 recession, and the second George Bush was slow to begin fighting the 2007-9 financial crisis. Mr. Obama and now President Biden, when faced with an economic crisis, have been much bolder.
Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, told me that he believed the overall partisan pattern was mostly coincidence. But, he said, “It is certainly a defensible posture that in periods of economic distress Democrats are more concerned about jobs than Republicans.”
The past year has offered another case study. Mr. Trump repeatedly downplayed the coronavirus pandemic, and the country suffered. The economy would have experienced a downturn no matter who was president, but his scattered response aggravated the pandemic and the recession. In some other countries, life is much closer to normal. In the United States, Mr. Trump became the first president since Hoover to preside over a decline in employment.
The pragmatism gap isn’t only about recessions, either. Democrats have also been more aggressive about making job-creating investments — in medical research and clean energy, for example — that the private sector does not make when left to its own devices. Occasionally, a Democratic president has even been willing to go against type in order to encourage growth. Mr. Clinton, persuaded that deficit reduction could bring down interest rates and accelerate growth, scrapped some early spending plans and raised taxes. Interest rates fell, and the economy boomed.
Some past Republican presidents took a similarly pragmatic approach. Despite being conservative, both Eisenhower and Nixon were nonetheless comfortable using government to help the economy when needed. The elder George Bush signed a tax increase that contributed to the deficit reduction that, in turn, fueled the 1990s boom.
For the most part, however, Republican economic policy since 1980 has revolved around a single policy: large tax cuts, tilted heavily toward the affluent. There are situations in which tax cuts can lift economic growth, but they typically involve countries with very high tax rates. The United States has had fairly low tax rates for decades.
The evidence now overwhelmingly suggests that recent tax cuts have had only a modest effect on the economy. G.D.P. grew at virtually the same rate after the 2017 Trump tax cut as before it. If anything, the Clinton tax increase of 1993 has a better claim on starting a boom than any tax cut since.
One possibility is that the two parties are both responding to the interest groups that support and finance them, suggested Ms. Wanamaker, who worked in the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Trump administration. But the Democratic-leaning groups (like labor unions and civil-rights organizations) may favor policies that lift broad-based economic growth, while Republican-leaning groups (like the wealthy) favor policies that mostly shift income toward themselves.
These explanations are almost certainly not complete. Much of the partisan gap remains mysterious. At the end of their academic paper on it, Mr. Blinder, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman and Clinton administration official, and Mr. Watson encourage other economists to study the issue.
But if the causes are not fully clear, the pattern is. The American economy has performed much better under Democratic administrations than Republican ones, over both the last few decades and the last century. And as Ms. Wanamaker said, “Administrations do certainly have the ability to affect economic outcomes.”
Link to original article:
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Monday, May 30, 2016
Memorial Day 2016
"We are always at war. We spend twice as large a share of our GDP on the military as the world does in general. It’s the longest sustained period of open-ended combat in our nation’s history. And yet the country as a whole is barely affected. We have halftime ceremonies honoring the heroes. We let them get onto commercial airlines earlier, but we don’t think seriously about what they’re doing, the missions we’re asking them to undertake.
And, as a result, in my view, we have embarked on a series of unwinnable wars. We call people heroes and then send them to do things they can’t do....
When I was a kid in the ’50s and ’60s and then older in the ’70s, American pop culture reflected a country familiar enough with its military to make fun of it at times. You had shows like 'Gomer Pyle,' or 'Hogan’s Heroes,' or 'McHale’s Navy.'
You had works of art like 'South Pacific' or novels like 'Catch 22' and even movies like 'MASH,' respected the importance of the military and the important things it did that were heroic in the large scale, like World War II, but it was still made of real people with their real foibles.
But we — now we have started to have this artificially reverent view of the military that’s also distant and disengaged."
--James Fallows
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Minimal Maps by Michael Pecirno
Michael Pecirno, a multi-disciplinary designer based in London, has created something he calls Minimal Maps. These maps are a fascinating way to share a specific piece of information that most maps miss. By focuisng on one statistic, he shows us new ways to perceive not only land but the people and cultures that live on it. Here he shows us shocking visual information about the United States.
http://www.michaelpecirno.com/minimal-maps
http://www.michaelpecirno.com/minimal-maps
Monday, April 1, 2013
Thursday, May 24, 2012
The Ten Happiest Countries In The World 2012
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, with 24/7 Wall St., have released their annual "Top Ten Happiest Countries In The World" list. What fascinates me is that five--HALF--of the countries in the top ten are Scandinavian countries! What are they doing right? (Could this account for the influx of amazing music coming out of these countries now? ;-) ) Of course they have universal health care, unlike here in the United States (we are, shamefully, the ONLY country in the industrialized world who does not offer health care to its citizens), and they are generally thought of as "Socialist" nations, which makes the brains of the insane conservatives here in the US explode. The Scandinavians must look at the US and shake their heads in disbelief. (To be fair, the US did come in 11th according to the data.) Are any of my readers from the countries on this list?
From 24/7 Wall St.'s news release:
The OECD measured more than 30 sets of data in 11 different categories, including education, health and employment. The study also asked residents of each country to rank, on a scale of 1 to 10, their general satisfaction with their lives. 24/7 Wall St. examined the 10 countries with the highest life satisfaction scores to find the strongest factors related to happiness.
1. Denmark
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.8
-- Employment rate: 73% (6th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 71% (17th highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 1.92% (4th lowest)
-- Disposable income: $23,213 (15th lowest)
-- Educational attainment: 76% (18th lowest)
-- Life expectancy: 79.3 (11th lowest)
Denmark tops the OECD ranking as the country with the most satisfied citizens among the countries studied by the OECD. At first glance, the reason is not obvious. Denmark ranks no higher than fourth in any of the categories that appear to correlate strongly with overall satisfaction. Yet, in addition to the OECD, organizations such as the World Map of Happiness and the World Database of Happiness have consistently put Denmark at the top of their list of the world’s happiest countries. A high employment rate of 73% and a low percentage of 1.92% of employees working long hours contribute to high satisfaction levels. But overall, it is hard to pin down why those Danes are so darn happy.
2. Norway
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.6
-- Employment rate: 75% (4th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 80% (8th highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 2.66% (5th lowest)
-- Disposable income: $30,465 (3rd highest)
-- Educational attainment: 81% (tied - 15th highest)
-- Life expectancy:81.2 (10th highest)
Of all the nations examined in the OECD’s report, Norway is among the most financially secure. Of working-age adults, 75% are employed — the fourth-best rate. Also, the average household disposable income is $30,645, the third highest among OECD nations. Norway also significantly outspends almost all other surveyed nations on health care, allocating $5,003 per person per year. This is well above the average for OECD nations of $3,060 per person per year. Norway also has one of the healthiest populations, with a life expectancy of 81.2 years and 80% claiming to be in “good” or “very good” health. Showcasing its economic strength, Norway is able to provide quality public health and education services while maintaining a budget surplus of 162.5% of GDP and an AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s Rating Services.
3. Netherlands
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.5
-- Employment rate: 75% (tied - 3rd highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 77% (11th highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 0.68% (2nd lowest)
-- Disposable income: $25,740 (13th highest)
-- Educational attainment: 73% (15th lowest)
-- Life expectancy: 80.8 (14th highest)
The Dutch government is heavily involved in internal economic affairs, playing a “significant role … pertaining to almost every aspect of economic activity,” according to the U.S. Department of State. Judging by Netherlands’ 75% employment rate — the third highest among those surveyed — this regulated, monitored economy has thrived in recent years. Of those employed, only 0.68% work longer than 50 hours a week — the second-lowest percentage among those surveyed. By contrast, 10.86% of U.S. workers eclipse the 50 hour mark. The Dutch also rank among the top 15 in self-reported good health, life expectancy and disposable income.
4. Switzerland
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.5
-- Employment rate: 79% (1st highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 87% (4th highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 5.87% (17th highest)
-- Disposable income: $27,756 (5th most)
-- Educational attainment: 87% (8th highest)
-- Life expectancy: 82.6 (2nd highest)
The most salient statistic with respect to well-being for the fourth ranked country on the list is employment. Switzerland tops the list in terms of working age employment rate at a whopping 79%. Switzerland also cracks the top five in three other categories: disposable income ($27,756), self-reported good health (87%) and life expectancy (82.6 years). Given these stellar numbers, it is easy to see why, according to the U.S. Department of State, “Switzerland consistently ranks high on quality of life indices.” The Swiss also have very high rates of insurance coverage and computer and Internet usage.
5. Austria
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.5
-- Employment rate: 72% (8th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 69% (17th lowest)
-- Employees working long hours: 9.02% (10th highest)
-- Disposable income: $27,541 (7th highest)
-- Educational attainment: 82% (tied - 12th highest)
-- Life expectancy: 80.7 (22nd lowest)
Austria stands out in many economic categories. Ranking within the top 10 in both employment rate and disposable income, the Austrians have certainly had some measure of financial success. Disposable income, in particular, stands out as a strong factor in happiness for Austrians. The country’s average annual disposable income is $27,541, while OECD nations average $22,387. This disparity may be in part attributable to the number of citizens working in excess of 50 hours a week, which, at 9.02%, ranks 10th among OECD nations.
6. Israel
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.4
-- Employment rate: 60% (11th lowest)
-- Self-reported good health: 81% (7th highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 18.92% (3rd lowest)
-- Disposable income: n/a
-- Educational attainment: 82% (tied - 12th highest)
-- Life expectancy: 81.7 years (6th highest)
Israelis have a life expectancy of 81.7 years — sixth highest among OECD nations. The country also has a low obesity rate of 13.8%, while 81% of those surveyed report their health to be “good” or “very good.” By comparison, Americans’ life expectancy is 78.7 years, and they also have a higher obesity rate of 33.8% among adults. Despite the constant security concerns in the country, the homicide rate in Israel is in line with the OECD’s average of 2.1 murders per 100,000 people. In addition, 70% of Israelis surveyed feel safe walking home at night. Although Israelis work long hours, with 18.92% working at least 50 hours a week, life satisfaction remains high.
7. Finland
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.4
-- Employment rate: 68% (14th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 68% (15th lowest)
-- Employees working long hours: 3.66% (8th lowest)
-- Disposable income: $24,958 (14th highest)
-- Educational attainment: 82% (tied - 12th highest)
-- Life expectancy: 80.2 years (16th lowest)
According to OECD figures, the Finns value their free time. They devote 14.9 hours per day to leisure on average, the ninth highest among developed nations. Americans, on the other hand, rank 20th with only 14.27 hours of leisure time each day. Finland also has the eighth-lowest percentage of employees working more than 50 hours per week, at only 3.66%. When they are not working, many Finns like to indulge by taking a sauna — so many, in fact, that a country with a population of 5.3 million has 2 million saunas, much more than the number of cars in the country.
8. Australia
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.4
-- Employment rate: 72% (9th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 85% (5th highest)
-- Employees working long hours:13.99% (4th highest)
-- Disposable income: $26,927 (9th highest)
-- Educational attainment: 71% (tied - 12th lowest)
-- Life expectancy: 81.8 years (5th highest)
Of the countries with high life satisfaction, Australia’s citizens have comparatively little leisure time. They tend to work long hours, with nearly 14% of the population working 50 hours a week or more. Australians are healthier than most, with a life expectancy of 81.8 years — the fifth highest in the OECD. Additionally, 85% of Australians report their health to be either “good” or “very good.” The national economy has also fared well in recent years, with a post-financial crisis peak unemployment rate of only 5.7%. Presently, the Australian unemployment rate is 4.9%. Another sign of economic strength is the low government debt that stands only at 4.9% of GDP. Comparatively, the U.S. government debt represents 73.8% of GDP.
9. Canada
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.4
-- Employment rate: 72% (7th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 88% (3rd highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 3.91% (11th lowest)
-- Disposable income: $27,138 (8th highest)
-- Educational attainment: 88% (5th highest)
-- Life expectancy: 80.8 years (13th highest)
Canada’s score of 7.4 has much to do with the success of its health care system, a socialized plan that provides coverage to all of its citizens. As many as 88% of Canadians report their health to be “good” or “very good,” which ranks third among all nations surveyed. Canada also ranks among the top 15 nations in life expectancy. Other factors that may be contributing to Canadians’ high life satisfaction level are education and employment levels. Some 88% of Canadians have at least a high school diploma — the fifth-highest rate among the nations the OECD reviewed. Also, 72% of working-age citizens are employed — the seventh-highest rate. By comparison, Italy — one of the poorer-performing countries in these categories — has a working-age employment rate of 57%, and only 54% of its population has at least a high school diploma.
10. Sweden
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.3
-- Employment rate: 73% (5th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 79% (9th highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 1.28% (3rd lowest)
-- Disposable income: $26,633 (11th highest)
-- Educational attainment: 86% (9th highest)
-- Life expectancy: 81.5 years (7th highest)
In the OECD’s latest Better Life Index report, Sweden scores 7.3, the 10th-best score. Sweden has a life expectancy of 81.5 years, which is the seventh highest in the OECD. The country has extremely low pollution levels as well. According to the Better Life Index data, 97% of Swedes are satisfied with the quality of their drinking water — the second most among developed countries. The country also has the lowest levels of air pollution in the OECD. In the country, leisure is a priority for the working population as just 1.28% of Swedish employees work in excess of 50 hours per week. By comparison, 10.86% of U.S. employees work that much each week.
The original article can be seen here:
http://247wallst.com/2012/05/22/the-happiest-countries-in-the-world-2/
http://www.oecd.org/home/
http://247wallst.com/
From 24/7 Wall St.'s news release:
The OECD measured more than 30 sets of data in 11 different categories, including education, health and employment. The study also asked residents of each country to rank, on a scale of 1 to 10, their general satisfaction with their lives. 24/7 Wall St. examined the 10 countries with the highest life satisfaction scores to find the strongest factors related to happiness.
1. Denmark
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.8
-- Employment rate: 73% (6th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 71% (17th highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 1.92% (4th lowest)
-- Disposable income: $23,213 (15th lowest)
-- Educational attainment: 76% (18th lowest)
-- Life expectancy: 79.3 (11th lowest)
Denmark tops the OECD ranking as the country with the most satisfied citizens among the countries studied by the OECD. At first glance, the reason is not obvious. Denmark ranks no higher than fourth in any of the categories that appear to correlate strongly with overall satisfaction. Yet, in addition to the OECD, organizations such as the World Map of Happiness and the World Database of Happiness have consistently put Denmark at the top of their list of the world’s happiest countries. A high employment rate of 73% and a low percentage of 1.92% of employees working long hours contribute to high satisfaction levels. But overall, it is hard to pin down why those Danes are so darn happy.
2. Norway
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.6
-- Employment rate: 75% (4th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 80% (8th highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 2.66% (5th lowest)
-- Disposable income: $30,465 (3rd highest)
-- Educational attainment: 81% (tied - 15th highest)
-- Life expectancy:81.2 (10th highest)
Of all the nations examined in the OECD’s report, Norway is among the most financially secure. Of working-age adults, 75% are employed — the fourth-best rate. Also, the average household disposable income is $30,645, the third highest among OECD nations. Norway also significantly outspends almost all other surveyed nations on health care, allocating $5,003 per person per year. This is well above the average for OECD nations of $3,060 per person per year. Norway also has one of the healthiest populations, with a life expectancy of 81.2 years and 80% claiming to be in “good” or “very good” health. Showcasing its economic strength, Norway is able to provide quality public health and education services while maintaining a budget surplus of 162.5% of GDP and an AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s Rating Services.
3. Netherlands
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.5
-- Employment rate: 75% (tied - 3rd highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 77% (11th highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 0.68% (2nd lowest)
-- Disposable income: $25,740 (13th highest)
-- Educational attainment: 73% (15th lowest)
-- Life expectancy: 80.8 (14th highest)
The Dutch government is heavily involved in internal economic affairs, playing a “significant role … pertaining to almost every aspect of economic activity,” according to the U.S. Department of State. Judging by Netherlands’ 75% employment rate — the third highest among those surveyed — this regulated, monitored economy has thrived in recent years. Of those employed, only 0.68% work longer than 50 hours a week — the second-lowest percentage among those surveyed. By contrast, 10.86% of U.S. workers eclipse the 50 hour mark. The Dutch also rank among the top 15 in self-reported good health, life expectancy and disposable income.
4. Switzerland
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.5
-- Employment rate: 79% (1st highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 87% (4th highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 5.87% (17th highest)
-- Disposable income: $27,756 (5th most)
-- Educational attainment: 87% (8th highest)
-- Life expectancy: 82.6 (2nd highest)
The most salient statistic with respect to well-being for the fourth ranked country on the list is employment. Switzerland tops the list in terms of working age employment rate at a whopping 79%. Switzerland also cracks the top five in three other categories: disposable income ($27,756), self-reported good health (87%) and life expectancy (82.6 years). Given these stellar numbers, it is easy to see why, according to the U.S. Department of State, “Switzerland consistently ranks high on quality of life indices.” The Swiss also have very high rates of insurance coverage and computer and Internet usage.
5. Austria
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.5
-- Employment rate: 72% (8th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 69% (17th lowest)
-- Employees working long hours: 9.02% (10th highest)
-- Disposable income: $27,541 (7th highest)
-- Educational attainment: 82% (tied - 12th highest)
-- Life expectancy: 80.7 (22nd lowest)
Austria stands out in many economic categories. Ranking within the top 10 in both employment rate and disposable income, the Austrians have certainly had some measure of financial success. Disposable income, in particular, stands out as a strong factor in happiness for Austrians. The country’s average annual disposable income is $27,541, while OECD nations average $22,387. This disparity may be in part attributable to the number of citizens working in excess of 50 hours a week, which, at 9.02%, ranks 10th among OECD nations.
6. Israel
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.4
-- Employment rate: 60% (11th lowest)
-- Self-reported good health: 81% (7th highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 18.92% (3rd lowest)
-- Disposable income: n/a
-- Educational attainment: 82% (tied - 12th highest)
-- Life expectancy: 81.7 years (6th highest)
Israelis have a life expectancy of 81.7 years — sixth highest among OECD nations. The country also has a low obesity rate of 13.8%, while 81% of those surveyed report their health to be “good” or “very good.” By comparison, Americans’ life expectancy is 78.7 years, and they also have a higher obesity rate of 33.8% among adults. Despite the constant security concerns in the country, the homicide rate in Israel is in line with the OECD’s average of 2.1 murders per 100,000 people. In addition, 70% of Israelis surveyed feel safe walking home at night. Although Israelis work long hours, with 18.92% working at least 50 hours a week, life satisfaction remains high.
7. Finland
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.4
-- Employment rate: 68% (14th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 68% (15th lowest)
-- Employees working long hours: 3.66% (8th lowest)
-- Disposable income: $24,958 (14th highest)
-- Educational attainment: 82% (tied - 12th highest)
-- Life expectancy: 80.2 years (16th lowest)
According to OECD figures, the Finns value their free time. They devote 14.9 hours per day to leisure on average, the ninth highest among developed nations. Americans, on the other hand, rank 20th with only 14.27 hours of leisure time each day. Finland also has the eighth-lowest percentage of employees working more than 50 hours per week, at only 3.66%. When they are not working, many Finns like to indulge by taking a sauna — so many, in fact, that a country with a population of 5.3 million has 2 million saunas, much more than the number of cars in the country.
8. Australia
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.4
-- Employment rate: 72% (9th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 85% (5th highest)
-- Employees working long hours:13.99% (4th highest)
-- Disposable income: $26,927 (9th highest)
-- Educational attainment: 71% (tied - 12th lowest)
-- Life expectancy: 81.8 years (5th highest)
Of the countries with high life satisfaction, Australia’s citizens have comparatively little leisure time. They tend to work long hours, with nearly 14% of the population working 50 hours a week or more. Australians are healthier than most, with a life expectancy of 81.8 years — the fifth highest in the OECD. Additionally, 85% of Australians report their health to be either “good” or “very good.” The national economy has also fared well in recent years, with a post-financial crisis peak unemployment rate of only 5.7%. Presently, the Australian unemployment rate is 4.9%. Another sign of economic strength is the low government debt that stands only at 4.9% of GDP. Comparatively, the U.S. government debt represents 73.8% of GDP.
9. Canada
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.4
-- Employment rate: 72% (7th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 88% (3rd highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 3.91% (11th lowest)
-- Disposable income: $27,138 (8th highest)
-- Educational attainment: 88% (5th highest)
-- Life expectancy: 80.8 years (13th highest)
Canada’s score of 7.4 has much to do with the success of its health care system, a socialized plan that provides coverage to all of its citizens. As many as 88% of Canadians report their health to be “good” or “very good,” which ranks third among all nations surveyed. Canada also ranks among the top 15 nations in life expectancy. Other factors that may be contributing to Canadians’ high life satisfaction level are education and employment levels. Some 88% of Canadians have at least a high school diploma — the fifth-highest rate among the nations the OECD reviewed. Also, 72% of working-age citizens are employed — the seventh-highest rate. By comparison, Italy — one of the poorer-performing countries in these categories — has a working-age employment rate of 57%, and only 54% of its population has at least a high school diploma.
10. Sweden
-- Life satisfaction score: 7.3
-- Employment rate: 73% (5th highest)
-- Self-reported good health: 79% (9th highest)
-- Employees working long hours: 1.28% (3rd lowest)
-- Disposable income: $26,633 (11th highest)
-- Educational attainment: 86% (9th highest)
-- Life expectancy: 81.5 years (7th highest)
In the OECD’s latest Better Life Index report, Sweden scores 7.3, the 10th-best score. Sweden has a life expectancy of 81.5 years, which is the seventh highest in the OECD. The country has extremely low pollution levels as well. According to the Better Life Index data, 97% of Swedes are satisfied with the quality of their drinking water — the second most among developed countries. The country also has the lowest levels of air pollution in the OECD. In the country, leisure is a priority for the working population as just 1.28% of Swedish employees work in excess of 50 hours per week. By comparison, 10.86% of U.S. employees work that much each week.
The original article can be seen here:
http://247wallst.com/2012/05/22/the-happiest-countries-in-the-world-2/
http://www.oecd.org/home/
http://247wallst.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
