You are using the typical debate tactic of restating the claims you made at the start of the discussion in addition to making new ones.
On the contrary. I am still talking about
the Human Decelopment Index, which is the topic of this thread. You are the one who tried to move the goal post by dragging in the nonsense argument about the "quality of life" for an "avarage citizen," "productivity", "success" etc,, plus the usual "socialist" cry, here:
That's sort of a big "duh" - because the poll is setup to give socialist countries a higher ranking. One of the major factors are disparities in income between classes, which has nothing to do with the overall quality of life.
I don't mean to be a jingoist, but the United States consistantly has one of the higher qualities of life when you actually measure the quality of life for an average citizen. However, because there are many more millionaries in the US per capital than Norway, that somehow affects my quality of life. Basically, the folks that set the standards for the poll attempt to make up for the fact that nations that punish success (by reducing the upper class) end up hurting their overall productivity... so they balance it by adding income disparity.
Had you actually taken my advice and given even a cursorary glance at the HDI and its components (those you seem to be mistaking for "major factors" in your post above), you would have learned why the United States of America ranks 13th (still in the "Very high Human Development" category, so no shame there, as I already pointed out) and how come these dozen other countries ahead faired even better.
HDI said:
What is the human development index (HDI)?
The HDI human development index is a summary composite index that measures a country's average achievements in three basic aspects of human development: health, knowledge, and a decent standard of living. Health is measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge is measured by a combination of the adult literacy rate and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio; and standard of living by GDP per capita (PPP US$).
In all of which Norway beats the United States of America and the rest.
Furthermore, to highlight the components, for instance:
HDI said:
For example, Costa Rica and Iran have similar levels of income per person, but life expectancy and literacy differ greatly between the two countries, with Costa Rica having a much higher HDI value than Iran.
And specifically about the rich/poor/avarage ratio. You see, the number of millionaires ("
because there are many more millionaries in the US per capital than Norway, that somehow affects my quality of life") does not matter:
HDI said:
What is the human poverty index?
Poverty has traditionally been measured as a lack of income - but this is far too narrow a definition. Human poverty is a concept that captures the many dimensions of poverty that exist in both poor and rich countriesit is the denial of choices and opportunities for living a life one has reason to value.
For HPI-2 (selected high-income OECD countries), deprivation in health is measured by the probability at birth of not surviving to age 60; deprivation in knowledge is measured by the percentage of adults lacking functional literacy skills; deprivation in a decent standard of living is measured by the percentage of people living below the income poverty line, set at 50% of the adjusted median household disposable income; and social exclusion is measured by the rate of long-term (12 months or more) unemployment of the labour force.
How is the HPI used?
To focus attention on the most deprived people and deprivations in basic human capabilities in a country, not on average national achievement. The human poverty indices focus directly on the number of people living in deprivation presenting a very different picture from average national achievement. It also moves the focus of poverty debates away from concern about income poverty alone.
As you see, it is not about the number of millioinaires: it is about the denial of choices and opportunities -- access to higher education (and better paying jobs), health care, positions of power -- because one does not have the money to pay for that access to the goodies of the human development.
Obviously, Norway manages to provide the greatest choices and opportunities for her denizens across the board regardless of income level. Norwegians are very successful, so obviously they were not "punished" for being succesful, which was one of your nonsense arguments there.
If your at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, then I wholeheartedly agree with the findings of this survey... but what about those of us in the in the middle?
Life expectancy at birth; adult literacy rate; combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio; and standard of living by GDP per capita (PPP US$); long-term (12 months or more) unemployment of the labour force -- isn't that "those of us in the middle"?
Norway does have longer life expectancy rates, better literacy/functional literacy rates, better enrolment rates, lower unemployment rates, and considerably higher GDP (PPP) per capita. So wouldn't you say that the Norwegians in the middle do have it even better, not dramatically better, of course, but another notch up better, earning Norway the
#1 place?
