This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
The title of this page suggests that it's about the index, rather than rankings by the index. This page should probably focus more on its social impact, and perhaps make a separate "List of Countries by Quality-of-life Index" if it's important enough to merit such a page. For instance, what are the stated purposes of the index, and what do political scientists have to say about its accuracy or effectiveness? What are the most widespread criticisms? Which organizations use this index to make decisions, and what kinds of decisions? - jun 81.224.73.100 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely biased; this should not be on the group of lists by countries. I guess it's a good way to make Russia look bad, I mean seriously, less quality of life than most undeveloped countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxuniv (talk • contribs) 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The HDI and the Qualit of Life Index are different. The HDI is based on three objective indicators, the Quality of Life Index is based on subjective evaluations (life-satisfaction judgments). Which ranking is more appropriate depends on the definition of quality of life and the purpose of the comparison.
Russia has several major problems that lower it's QOL index. It has rather low political freedom (6/5 where 1 is best and 7 worst). On democracy reviews Russia is only a hybrid regime (102 of 167). The life expectancy is also quite low (128 of 157). --Jhattara(Talk·Contrib)07:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that the HDI is also a very inaccurate measure? The following hugely important factors are not taken into consideration: 1. unemployment 2. Inequality of Wealth (Gini Coefficient) 3. Crime 4. GDP PPP per capita 5. Weather (which would make Scandinavian countries plummet) 6. Suicide Rate (again plummet of Scandinavian Countries) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well weather in Scandinavian countries would make them ‘plummet’ as much as the northern half of the contiguous United States and all of Canada, so not a factor. If that was the basis Australia would top the rankings. Zarcadia (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that this is a very controversial list, some might argue inaccurate, but still, this is Wikipedia, we should only write what others have already reported about. And as a reply to your comments. 5. Weather: to some people, e.g. me, having heat waves of 40C would lower my quality of life a lot more than having occasional -30C freezes. 6. Suicide rate: I know that Finland has one of the world's worst suicide rates, but so does e.g. many Slavic countries. --Jhattara(Talk·Contrib)07:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Health: Good life expectancy; Family life: Divorce rate 3.6, pretty high; Community life: Pretty high church attendance; Material well being: excellent; Political stability: I'd say pretty stable, but couldn't find facts; Climate: good; Job security: pretty decent unemployment rate; Political freedom: excellent; Gender equality: decent. I'd say that the faults are more in the criterion used than in the actual results. With these criterion the QOL in US is very good. --Jhattara(Talk·Contrib)09:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why the assumptions that quality of life "should be" low in the US? Having lived in three different countries, I prefer the US, personally. Ed Sanville (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
why only church attendance and trade-unions ??? There're so much more kinds of clubs (sports, music,...), and others
for example in many european countries even very small villages have it's own sports (soccer/football) club, and such —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.236.169 (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list is different from the one on the website of the magazine, and the URL link is not available on line. I vote for the deletion of this list. Ahmed badda (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the The International Living Magazine’s quality-of-life index, 2010
This list keeps being added to this article. Clearly it is a list biased, wrong and stupid. I wont spend time on the methodology it was generated by, but whoever has the slight knowledge regarding GDP per capita, HDI, infant mortality, life expectancy and other indexes that actually show the level of quality of living of a country, but as well some COMMON sense, will understand that it is not POSSIBLE for countries like Uruguay, Lithuania or Argentina to be ahead of highly developed EU countries like UK, Greece or Sweden! Its is pretty funny and hillarious. Now, sourced or not courced, each information provided in Wikipedia must be filtered in order for the Encyclopedia not to be regarded as thrash can. It doesnt mean that whatever is sourced must be also displayed. I can source information from a biased source. A Sourced information is not an excuse to include something which contradicts common sense.77.83.136.22 (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the criteria the International Living uses in it's Quality-of-life index? This whole subject is so subjective that you cannot just say a study is "wrong" only because there are few points that seem controversial. The basic question here is "What is quality of life?". Any list ranking the quality of life in various countries is inherently biased, because there is no way to put all the countries in any kind of order without some subjective ranking. IL's methodology might be more flawed than EIU's, but it still involves research, and it still has certain guiding principles behind it. --Jhattara(Talk·Contrib)18:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of "guiding principles" for you, Jhattara: The IL website is on Wikipedia's SPAM list!. This means that no links from that website should be referenced in any Wikipedia article. Another is that when you go to the IL website, there is a link to how they came up with their QLI figures for the different nations. They explicitly state that when those well researched figures did not jive "with their experience", then they opted for "their experience" over the solid research figures. Hype site— 'nuff said.
Fair enough. Didn't know about the blacklist entry. Had the blacklist entry been told to me previously I would've been ok with the removal. Otherwise to me the scores looked quite legitm, although weird. Only reason I reverted the removal of the IL list were the "I don't like this ranking" type statements. --Jhattara(Talk·Contrib)07:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As your wisdom dictates, "fair enough". Thank you very much, Jhattara!
Perhaps what this article could clarify is how this list differs from other rankings of countries according to their quality of life. There was a poll in Newsweek which ranked Finland as the country with the world's highest quality of life. This list also differs considerably from the United NationsHuman Development Index, which - both in 2009 and in 2010 - put Norway at top of the list. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Healthiness: probably zero
Family life: excellent
Community life: mosques are full there...so...excellent!
Material well being: probably zero.
Political stability and security: excellent...no politics at all!!
Climate and geography: Worm climate!! Also excellent!
Job security: Probably near zero.
Political freedom: Best in the world!!
Gender equality: Also excellent...man and woman pretty much earn a same.
I just undid some vandalism that repeatedly put Canada in the top 5 or 6. I think I got it back to normal but may need a looking over, just in case. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoziEnzo (talk • contribs) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the picture "Quality-of-life_2005.svg", Australia is shown in green, indicating that it has a score of between 7.000 and 7.999. However, the content refers to Australia as having a score of 3.892. Which one is correct? Pianone (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion for whoever compiles these numbers, I would suggest including something to indicate the general environmental health of each country. While not holistic, I would think air quality indices would be a good indicator. Timbenj (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the 1988 ranking: "However, this index was a little less serious than 2013 one, as it included a "philistine factor" for a lack of culture and a "yawn index" which measured how boring a country might be despite all its other advantages."
As someone who lives in Canada and finds it very boring and there being a lack of fine culture amongst the common folk, I find this to be one of the most important factors that shape a country's future because having a culture and a stimulating environment(be it in terms of recreation, intellectual activities, etc.) is actually more important and more serious as it gives people the will to go on and be ambitious.
I realize that many African countries have people walking around in suits and are very cultured and refined but still live in very bad conditions. I do however think that eventually(maybe not now, but 50 years from now) these countries will surpass many developed countries simply due to having a larger educated workforce and more natural resources to barter with on the international market, while developed countries where people walk around in their pajamas in public(even worse example is the people of Walmart) will eventually descend into chaos and civil war, as people will be so spoiled or retarded from eating fast food, GMO, pharmaceuticals, relying on social welfare(it is usually the domestic born crackheads that get social benefits and free housing, while immigrants have to work even if they have no limbs) and the emphasis of work experience over education considered being more important. To make things worse, the government is the only series of institutions that makes the life of their citizens unnecessarily difficult and forces this Nazi ideology of purification and striving forwards because every time you ask them for help, they act like an insurance company and find any legal reason to deny you help even if you are dying, forcing people to become criminals(Canada, the US and UK have the largest percentage of any country in the world that have spent at least a few hours in a jail cell, with 30-40 percent of the population having arrest records and criminal records, meaning their subconscious is damaged now and they have PTSD because somebody put a gun to their head and took away their freedom, which is the argument behind rape being as bad as murder, since you take away a person's control over their own free will and life).
I do agree with the 1988 ranking though. The US was number 1 back then somewhat(out of the Capitalist countries, this list obviously didn't properly rank Socialist countries like Yugoslavia who had it better than the US in the 60's, 70's and 80's, at least from the personal opinion of many Yugoslavs who lived in Yugoslavia during that time and then later immigrated to the US, some who even lived in the US at that time and thought Yugoslavia was better). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.194.5.139 (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article for deletion due to its encyclopedic irrelevance and lack of notability. Specifically, this article qualifies for deletion due to these reasons from the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy:
Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
The referenced sources do not provide information that suggest the "Where-to-be-born index" is a proper name. According to MOS:SENTENCECASE, non-proper names should not have words after the first capitalized. Is there information suggesting that the subject's title is a proper name? UnnamedUser(open talk page)02:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All the data that this is analysing has nothing to do with child birth. For example, how do the number of divorces in a country effect the quality of childbirth? It is totally unrelated. 79.106.203.95 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this revision back in April 2017, this article has had a note stating that it needs to be updated. Unless I'm missing something, the EIU calculated the index in 2013 and hasn't calculated it again since then, so I don't see why this article needs updating. T6283 (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no sense. It discusses many topics, totally unrelated to childbirth. Like divorce rate of a nation. In what way is that related to medical care? Not to mention it looks at "Quality of family based of divorce rates." But another factor is "Divorce Rates". How is that not the same thing? And again, how do divorce rates effect medical cares? It is articles like this that make no one ever want to use wikipedia. 79.106.203.14 (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
