Canada drops to 8th in UN quality of life ranking

Let me guess, Indonesia is No.1

So then why do the report ?

Well, I would still rather we try to learn from Norway instead of whoever is no. 15.

That's easy. Drill more oil and use the proceeds to fund a welfare state. Also don't join any over sized economic or political unions.

Try selling that one to conservatives haha.

That's easy. Drill more oil and use the proceeds to fund a welfare state. Also don't join any over sized economic or political unions.

Try selling that one to conservatives haha.

I don't know if we have to drill more oil or just take more of the profit from it instead of leaving it all to the oil companies. Apparently we're still subsidizing the tar sands to the tune of 2.8 billion a year.

The US has risen dramatically - nobody seems to be talking about that and why. Ireland is above us, even tho they got such a shit kicking in the meltdown, why?

Holy crap Andy I didn't realize. They went from 16th place in 2009 to 4th place. Wow...


I wonder what that's all about. I might actually have to read the report lol.

Interesting, the US is ranked above Canada.

So, uh, when are you guys quitting the UN?

Norway should be the model that Canada strives for.

Ummm.... WHAT??
What are you talking about?

I think they are trying to say that quality of life is more than the material goods you own.

I have to admit that I am quite surprised. Usually rankings along these lines are dominated more thoroughly at the top of the spectrum by European countries, since on average they tend to have much more leisure time than those living in the US, Canada, or even Australia, where people tend to work far more hours (and is one of the reasons why our nations are such behemoths when it comes to economies). Along with more social programs, when I read these, it usually promotes these nations well above Canada, with other countries in the region of Norway usually taking prominence.

To see the US, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and the US so high up on the list to be really the central portion of the top of the top end is really quite shocking. I suppose, as the article says, the shift isn't all that statistically significant between the first couple of sections given the relative lack of difference between each of the spots, but that is just me. The UN report has always been a bit less directed than the general tone of other reports towards those countries (Euro bloc), though, so maybe this is just more of a big deal than usual because of other reports rather than this one for me.

While I can understand that the austerity measures drawing from international aid funds was going to be a point of contention in dropping Canada's ranking, I have to go off on a bit of a tangent and say I really am skeptical about the effectiveness of any of the international aid funds, including those run by the UN, and have been for years. Programs run like the IMF have, with disturbing regularity, waived development goals in favour of transferring funds without much effort in seeing where they go. The long list of African Dictators with massive hidden bank accounts, or the seeming trickle of funds actually making it to any sort of infrastructure in many nations receiving support, should not be very surprising. That continued failure of this method is met every year by the idea of "let's try again in the exact same way, screw oversight" does not promote any optimism in me. I'll give them credit for trying to get oversight in Pakistan, but they backed down far too easily when Pakistan went for loans from other middle east nations instead. I find that many aid programs run along the same lines, and that if Canada wants to use these funds it should focus it more into programs which handle specific functions rather than just sending cash to the nation and hoping internal systems which can barely function will somehow be able to use cash effectively. The IMF debt strategy makes me squirm at times as well.

Likewise, I have programs with a lot of the development panaceas in use, but at least the money will go somewhere and do something which can have tangible, real benefits for people. Baby steps.

Sorry for the confusing structure of this post.

It's all Stephen Harper's fault.

Given the UN's propensity for idolizing petty dictators, despots and third world crap holes, my guess would be Robert Mugabe's heaven on earth, Zimbabwe.

It's the baby boomers fault. Every mess we are in right now we can blame on that generation. They brought on more debt, they supported more social programs while at the same time refusing to be the ones to pay for it. Plus they have very few children, and than raised my generation who care more about their facebook status than contributing to anything