US Doesn’t Make Cut for Happiest Nations List

Michael B. Sauter et al., MSNBC, June 6, 2011

What makes people happy? The question, which has been debated by philosophers for centuries, now is being tackled by international bureaucrats and the results are interesting, to say the least.

24/7 Wall St. analyzed the new Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Better Life Index to objectively determine the happiest countries in the world. The Index is based on 11 measurements of quality of life including housing, income, jobs, community, education, the environment, health, work-life balance, and life satisfaction. We made “life satisfaction” the cornerstone of our index because it is as good a proxy for “happiness” as the survey provides. We then compared “life satisfaction” scores to the other measurements to find those economic and socio-political realities that had the highest and lowest correlation to happiness.

The happiest people in the developed world get loads of social services without having to work too hard. Having abundant natural resources, a thriving services sector and a fairly homogeneous population helps as well. The OECD study no doubt would have had different results had it included politically unstable countries in the Middle East or large emerging economies where political unrest threatens to bubble over such as China.

{snip}

Old, stable nations of northern Europe took five of the top 10 spots on our list. These include Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark. Switzerland is also on the list and has many characteristics in common with the Scandinavian countries. The resource-rich, English-speaking countries of Australia and Canada made the cut as well. Noticeably absent from the list are any OECD nations in Latin America, southern and eastern Europe and Asia. {snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Question Diversity

    Another version of this story I read last week states that the U.S. finished in dead last place in this survey. That doesn’t compute with me, for every immigrant we receive is by definition leaving a more happy country for a less happy one. Why would they want to deprive themselves of happiness?

  • Ga. Cracker

    Whitey, do you have any happiness left at all? Our enemies call that “unearned White privilege,” and they are dedicated and well funded and fully empowered to steal it or beat it out of you. A happy Whitey, called a “raciss,” is proof positive that the Civil Rights struggle “has come far, but still has much more work to do”.

    Unless you are miserable and fully dispossessed, you are an obstacle to blacks achieving the American Promise that Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and Lincoln made to them.

  • Tim Mc Hugh

    “These include Finland, Sweeden, Norway and Denmark.” The people that voted these countries in are too busy still reading Hans Christian Anderson to have checked out any recent You-Tube videos…

  • Rick

    “The happiest people in the developed world get loads of social services without having to work too hard.”

    I don’t know about you, but I work very hard and don’t ever “get loads of social services”. Another plug for socialism by our comrades in the controlled media. I love the homogeneous conclusion.

  • Anonymous

    Happiness for yourself is a short term goal indicative of poor social awareness.

    Happiness as a belief in the potential of a good future for your children and your kind is a different and ultimately more prophetic, marker of both present status and an understanding of which way the trends in your world are pointing.

    Europe will not be a ‘happy’ place if they don’t understand that misery in the Mediterranean states with massive influxes of poor African and SWA’ian Islamics is sure and certain proof of what their own disastrous population policies are pointed towards.

    Sweden, Norway and Finland in particular have gone whole heartedly into the ‘Scandinavian Marriage Mode’ of 1.25-1.6 fertility and limited commitment _from women_ to their their partners as family supporters.

    Because the state will provide for almost every aspect of socialized child rearing. Provided you pay 50-70% taxes to enable it-

    >

    Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step–the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures–or higher tax rates–than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It’s easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.

    The taxes necessary to support the welfare state have had an enormous impact on the family. With taxes so high, women must work. This reduces the time available for child rearing, thus encouraging the expansion of a day-care system that takes a large part in raising nearly all Swedish children over age one. Here is at least a partial realization of Simone de Beauvoir’s dream of an enforced androgyny that pushes women from the home by turning children over to the state.

    Yet the Swedish welfare state may encourage traditionalism in one respect. The lone teen pregnancies common in the British and American underclass are rare in Sweden, which has no underclass to speak of. Even when Swedish couples bear a child out of wedlock, they tend to reside together when the child is born. Strong state enforcement of child support is another factor discouraging single motherhood by teens. Whatever the causes, the discouragement of lone motherhood is a short-term effect. Ultimately, mothers and fathers can get along financially alone. So children born out of wedlock are raised, initially, by two cohabiting parents, many of whom later break up.

    >

    http://goo.gl/bm8cG

    Which is one reason why socialism destroys not just the family but the productivity of the Western Society model. Because without motive to create long term binding family partnerships, we lose our ability to plan and invest in other areas of society (technical innovation) as well.

    Let one thing slip (Norway exhausts it’s North Sea oil riches) and the entire socio-economic model of many of these ‘idyllic’ places will _implode_.

  • E Pluribus Pluribus

    “Having . . . a fairly homogeneous population helps [increase a nation’s happiness] . . .”

    ===

    Reminds of the stunning — to him — discovery of liberal political scientist Robert Putnam:

    “A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists. His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbor to the mayor …” (Financial Times, Oct. 8, 2006)*

    Putnam: “…in the presence of diversity, we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”

    “Prof. Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, ‘the most diverse human habitation in human history’ . . . When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust.”

    SOURCE: “Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity,”

    Financial Times of London, October 08, 2006: http://tinyurl.com/zxmxn

  • Anonymous

    This article should be dismissed as racist propaganda, and the author fired and blacklisted (along with the editor who approved it) for being so impudent as to suggest that homogeneous countries are more desirable to inhabit than diverse countries. One would have to be incredibly ignorant if not outright malevolent to deny that diversity enriches life for us all. Any conclusion to the contrary can only be false.

  • Anonymous

    “a fairly homogeneous population helps”

    This article is from the MSNBC website, and so is that abrasive left-winger Chris Matthews who claims to love Obama and diversity but lives in a lily white Maryland suburb. Liberals like him will use the cliche that they want to “live in a neighborhood with good schools” etc., as a rational for why they live where they do. They’re so blinded by ideology they wouldn’t realize the real reasons for why their neighborhoods are so desirable even if it hit them over the head.

  • Anonymous

    I would love to be a Norwegian or Dane.

  • Anonymous

    I wasn’t at all surprised that this country is on the unhappy list. And sadly, it just seems like it’s not going to get any happier.

  • Crystal

    I am surprized that Sweden and Denmark are on the list. Sweden accepted a large number of Iraqi migrants that they stopped accepting more Iraqis and Denmark has been flooded with Muslim immigrants like other European countries.

  • Follow The Light

    #6 “live in a neighborhood with good schools”

    Liberals speak in ‘racist’ code. They nod and all know what that statement means. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

  • NAVY

    America could be the happiest nation on earth under our constituion.

    The greatest documents since the bible.

    But millions of Americans would rather work and let government do the thinking for them.

    American’s cannot allow stockholders to finance the re-writing of our history and craft a future of sameness and hybridization.

  • Anonymous

    Most of these countries are eagerly importing millions upon millions of immigrants to maximize the country’s diversity. It will be surprising if they still make the happy nation list in 2030.

  • Rob

    I am 52 yr old white dude living in Las Vegas Nevada and every time I try to do the simplest things like shop at a Walmart and I find myself tripping over massive amounts of third world rejects I realize how unhappy I am.

  • Anonymous

    Oh get real! Google ‘OECD’ and if you honestly believe that this NGO can make a legitimate survey, you need to take a good look at yourself. The OECD is the SPLC of economics, so of course Scandinavia, Canada, Australia & Holland are going to be on their happy list bc 3rdWorld swarthoids work the least while getting the most social services in those countries even compared to the Obamoid USA.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Prof. Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, ‘the most diverse human habitation in human history’ … When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust.

    Which means the plans the lefty masters of the NWO put in place 50 years ago are playing out as White dispossession and displacement continue apace at the hands of the NWO battering rams–blacks and hispanics.

    They must be jumping for joy.

    Wonder if they feel safe now.

    Bon

  • John Engelman

    4 — Rick wrote at 5:59 PM on June 6:

    “The happiest people in the developed world get loads of social services without having to work too hard.”

    I don’t know about you, but I work very hard and don’t ever “get loads of social services”. Another plug for socialism by our comrades in the controlled media.

    ——-

    I do not think you can call Forbes, which calls itself “The Capitalist Tool,” a socialist publication. This is what it has to say about the happiest countries:

    http://goo.gl/RUQe