Timeline for Are people of Nordic Nations "happier, healthier" with "a higher standard of living overall than Americans"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:41 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 7, 2018 at 16:20 | comment | added | reirab | @PoloHoleSet Median household disposable income (as defined by OECD, at least) does correctly measure standard of living. Better than pure median income data, actually. At any rate, both measures are relevant, but one has reliable data, while the other does not (at least that I could find when I wrote the answer.) Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Nov 7, 2018 at 15:16 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | If there isn't information you deem reliable enough for the relevant metric, the solution is not to use reliable data for a metric that does not even correctly measure what we're trying to examine. If I have more to offer, I'll hop over to chat. | |
| Nov 7, 2018 at 3:21 | comment | added | reirab | @PoloHoleSet For purposes of comparison, while the Gallop poll uses a value of $43,585 for U.S. median household income, the correct figure is currently $61,372, which is much higher than Gallop found for any country. Also, the Gallop poll doesn't list Finland ahead of the U.S. in median household income, even when using the grossly underestimated value. If you want to discuss further, please use the chat link in the comments above. | |
| Nov 7, 2018 at 3:06 | comment | added | reirab | Also, the answer itself mentions the Gallop poll you linked. It's linked in the answer. As far as OECD is concerned, if anything, it leans left in terms of policy goals, but their data is usually very reliable. | |
| Nov 7, 2018 at 3:05 | comment | added | reirab | @PoloHoleSet Pretty much everything you said has already been mentioned in the comments and chat here. There isn't much reliable data for comparison on median income. The Gallop poll was self-reported figures and is known to be way off for the U.S. compared to official, scientific sources such as the U.S. Census. Unfortunately, I couldn't find such official data for the European countries or would have included it. Also, the median disposable income figure already accounts for things like social safety nets. It's from OECD, which is about as reliable of a source as it gets for international. | |
| Nov 6, 2018 at 20:25 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | When I wrote the above comment, I had no idea what the median household incomes or median per-capita incomes were. I just looked, and Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark and Finland all come in above the USA in median household income and median per-capita income. I think the claim that the Scandinavian nations having a higher standard of living as not being supported by data is questionable. news.gallup.com/poll/166211/… | |
| Nov 6, 2018 at 20:22 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | I found this interesting because my first thought about accurate measurements that would not be horribly skewed by inequality would be: No, for average per capita GDP, yes for median income. The answerer ignored median income and went with median disposable income, which seems odd because if I have less disposable income, but have a certain amount of fiscal security provided by social safety nets, I don't need that disposable income in case of a likely financial crisis in my lifetime (almost everyone gets ill or needs medical care, for instance). Seems like cherry-picking, a bit. | |
| Jan 16, 2017 at 13:22 | comment | added | LetMeSOThat4U | @DJClayworth It is more appropriate to say that the notion of happiness is arbitrary. For instance, it is difficult to square Denmark's supposed to be the happiest country in the world with the fact that over a fifth of its population systematically using anti-depressants. Apparently if you want to make people happy, all you have to do is introducing policy to that effect and the country jumps to the top of happiness ranking, but that is hardly meaningful or reasonable. | |
| Jan 14, 2017 at 23:46 | comment | added | reirab | @Tgr No, that's not the relevant number, but rather the size of the household is. A household of a given size has the same standard of living whether its income is earned by one person making $100k or two people each making $50k, for example. At any rate, it's true enough that real standard of living will fall somewhere between median household disposable income and median household disposable income per capita. If you have reliable data for that and wish to compare it, feel free to write an answer. If you want to discuss further, please use the chat link above. | |
| Jan 14, 2017 at 22:06 | comment | added | Tgr | As I wrote, Norway has less earners per household, which is the relevant number. | |
| Jan 14, 2017 at 21:21 | comment | added | reirab | @Tgr That would only explain a difference if Norway actually had less adults per household. A household of a given size with 2 people earning $100k each would indeed have twice the pre-tax income of a household of the same size with only 1 such earner (though not quite twice the disposable income, thanks to progressive income taxes.) | |
| Jan 14, 2017 at 20:39 | comment | added | Tgr | Note that household income is somewhat misleading. Two people making $100K each do not suddenly become twice as rich when they marry, but their household income does double. US has on average 1.3 earners per household and Norway has 1.0 (worldsalaries.org), which would explain most of the ~40 percentage points difference between the GDP per capita and disposable household income per capita (not median, as claimed in the answer). | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 15:06 | comment | added | reirab | To summarize the responses to Paul's comment, that depends on what measure of poverty rate that you use. In order to make a comparison between different countries, statistics that define 'poverty' as being below a set standard of living and compare each country to that same standard would be necessary. Saying that the U.S. has "15% poverty" is rather misleading in this context when almost 50% of Iceland's population is below the standard set for that measure. | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 8:40 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Everyone: reminder to stick to the evidence and not your opinions on the matter | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 16:27 | history | edited | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added summary to definition section, since the definition still seems to be a common point of confusion.
|
| Jan 11, 2017 at 19:17 | history | edited | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Expanded section on non-monetary productivity in GDP/capita explanation.
|
| Jan 11, 2017 at 14:23 | comment | added | Paul Smith | Your Wiki definition goes on "The standard of living includes factors such as income, ... poverty rate" and the US has a poverty rate of over 15% (percentage of population below the poverty line) so while you have plenty of millionaires, it is hard to say you have a better standard of living. | |
| Jan 11, 2017 at 2:25 | comment | added | reirab | @bain Good thing I compared that, too, then. :) By the way, that graph is outdated. Here's a more recent graph showing household income. Also, the graph on wiki unfortunately doesn't list its data sources. | |
| Jan 11, 2017 at 1:59 | comment | added | bain | Wikipedia has an article Standard of living in the United States which cites several metrics other than GDP. The included image GDP per capita vs income is interesting. | |
| Jan 11, 2017 at 1:44 | history | edited | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a bit of clarification on distinction between standard of living and quality of life.
|
| Jan 11, 2017 at 1:33 | history | edited | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added more explanation of relative value of GDP/capita and median income data. Removed cite of stale and improperly categorized data from wiki.
|
| Jan 10, 2017 at 18:05 | comment | added | Sklivvz | There's no point discussing the definition of "standard of living". However it's worth noting that GDP per capita is often used as an indicator of living standards, so the answer is correct in this regard. I think it should mention also the criticism against this measure (just quote the wikipedia link above), because right now it's misrepresenting the value of the evidence it presents. | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 15:13 | comment | added | reirab | @SteveJessop I'm not trying to judge the happiness and healthier claims in this answer at present, as stated. It's possible that they are true. The 'healthier' claim seems likely to be true given some of the less-than-healthy habits stereotypical of Americans, but then stereotypes don't always hold up to scrutiny. It's possible that the author meant something other than what he said, but guessing that is out-of-scope here. Regardless of intention, he made a specific claim in an economic discussion with a specific economic meaning. And that claim is false. | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 13:05 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | ... what the claim certainly is, as stated, is vague as to what "standard of living overall" is supposed to mean exactly. If it's even intended to be exact :-) | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 13:02 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | So the claim tested in the question should be changed to "healthier, happier, and with a lower standard of living overall because by definition 'standard of living overall' means 'cash in hand'?" Would that make it an accurate claim? The claim seems to be false only to the extent that "standard of living" means "PPP dollars". Which is a common view of the proper meaning of "standard of living", and well worth pointing out that this is what it means in many contexts, but I think obviously not the meaning intended in the claim. | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 5:34 | history | edited | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed incorrect spelling of Gallup.
|
| Jan 10, 2017 at 4:07 | history | edited | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added explanation of how OECD computes Median Household Disposable Income
|
| Jan 10, 2017 at 3:43 | comment | added | Daniel R Hicks | Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see any accounting for the lowered cost of living in Nordic countries due to government subsidies in healthcare and housing (and probably a few other areas). If these factors lower the cost of living then one needs less income to achieve a given "standard of living". | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 16:47 | comment | added | reirab | Just a note for future readers: please read the chat linked above before commenting. Most common concerns have already been addressed there. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 15:25 | history | notice removed | Oddthinking♦ | ||
| Jan 9, 2017 at 14:24 | history | edited | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added disposable income measures, more citations on use of GDP/capita, and removed section on happiness.
|
| Jan 8, 2017 at 22:23 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jan 8, 2017 at 19:23 | history | edited | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Jan 8, 2017 at 18:58 | comment | added | reirab | @DJClayworth You will note that the GDP/capita and Household income measures were listed under "standard of living," not under "happiness." It is a rather objective fact that the standard of living is higher in the U.S. than in almost any European country, except perhaps Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Norway. You are correct that 'happiness' is subjective, though. | |
| Jan 8, 2017 at 16:32 | comment | added | DJClayworth | First, there are plenty of objective measures other than money, including ife expectancy and health. You are missing the point. To say that some measures of happiness are 'subjective' does not mean they are not real or accurate. Happiness is subjective. It's much more wrong pick on 'money' and claim it is the only important measure. It's like claiming that a divorced, lonely, sick, bored, hated guy is somehow happier than everyone else just because he is rich. | |
| Jan 8, 2017 at 13:11 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Jan 8, 2017 at 18:37 | |||||
| Jan 8, 2017 at 8:35 | history | notice added | Oddthinking♦ | Needs citation | |
| Jan 8, 2017 at 8:05 | history | answered | reirab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
