UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS

F&C wrote:

> 8 United States
> 9 Switzerland

ROTFL

"JuanElorza" <juan-Elorza@tiscali.ve> kirjoitti
viestissä:455735cb$0$165$a3f2974a@nnrp1.numericabl e.fr...
>
> The GDP of poor Finland (29951$GDP/capita) compares very well (within
> 1.2%) with Australia (30331$GDP/capita), within the currency fluctuation
> margins.
>
Keep in mind that this survey is not for "standard of living" nor GDP (even
less so). For instance the PPP adjusted GDP as the CIA factbook compiles
them for the year 2005 places Australia at position seventeen. But as said
the survey has little to do with GDP.

JuanElorza wrote:
> F&C wrote:
> >> And when it comes to the 113% of enrolment ratio in schools, I do not
> >> really understand its real meaning. I suspect that non homogenous
> >> statistics could somewhat introduce a bias in the comparison.
> >
> > The high enrolment is probably because so many people have access to
> > university in Australia. People from all walks of life can go to
> > university, young and old.
> >
> > Whereas in a poorer country like Finland, you have to brutally compete
> > to get into a university. And after that you face sky-high unemployment
> > rates.
> But the soviet like 113% is a good indication that this statistic has
> not the same meaning in every surveyed country. In the country I live,
> very few could possibly attend two complete school cursus the same year,
> and even if they did it, they would be counted one time. 100% is
> completely unreachable. But it could be easily the case by including the
> children who attend a music school.

Lets say it's calculated by "number of people enrolled in any type of
school" divided by "number of children ages 5-17". If the first number
included colleges and graduate schools (medicine, law, etc.), then it
is quite likely that many developed countries would be over 100%.

"VainGlorious" <vaingloriousDUMP@THIS> wrote in message
news:oecfl2dukpl9tcnin9hcephkj367uh93vk@...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:29:02 +1000, F&C <none@hottmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Australia likely deserves third place, but the country is full of
> poisonous animals and indecipherable English. When it comes to the
> "likelihood to be killed by poisonous animals" index, Europe leaps
> ahead.

Gotta watch those poisonous cattle and sheep.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:38:04 +0100, Dave Frightens Me
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:17:09 +1300, Daisy <DaisyL@emailaccount.com>
>wrote:

>>What gets me in New Zealand that this country is ranked 20! We have
>>very low unemployment and a high standard of living.
>>
>>What criteria do these UN researchers use?
>
>The number of people that want to live in another country perhaps?
>Kiwis do exceedingly well in that area.

Good point.

I read a book by an American ex-pat now living outside Auckland. He
waxed eloquent about all things NZ: stunning landscapes; easygoing
people; no poisonous animals; stable economy; progessive culture and
recreational funsies. But he also mentioned the Kiwi habit of fleeing
the islands at the first available opportunity. Few Kiwis leave for
good, but according to this writer most NZers enjoy getting away very
much, even if it's just a shopping jaunt to Sydney.

I suppose if I spent 30-odd years having traveled no further than NZ,
I'd want to ramble, too. I've traveled and lived all over North
America - a sizable continent - and I continue to yearn for foreign
shores.

- TR