# Top 10 best places to live... What can US Cities do to compete



## royal rose1

A recent survey done by mercer ranks the top 10 cities in the world for living. It becomes obvious just by looking at it, that Europe dominates the list! Only 2 cities outside of Europe make the list (Auckland and Vancouver).

So my questions are-
1. Why are these cities on the list in your opinion?
2. What can US cities do to compete with these cities? After all, our cities dominate economically, they have the highest GDPs by a long shot, so why can't we translate huge GDPs into making great places to live?

My answer is high taxes! Obviously each of these countries taxes endlessly, but what is your take on the matter? 

1 Vienna Austria
2 Zurich Switzerland
3 Auckland New Zealand
4 Munich Germany
5 Duesseldorf Germany
5 Vancouver Canada
7 Frankfurt Germany
8 Geneva Switzerland
9 Bern Switzerland
9 Copenhagen Denmark 
http://www.mercer.com/qualityoflivingpr#city-rankings


----------



## El_Greco

Crime.


----------



## royal rose1

El_Greco said:


> Crime.


I don't think it's crime, the murder rate in San Diego is 2 per 100,000 whereas Vienna is 1.8 per 100,000 Amsterdam is 7.7 and Helsinki is 12.4.


----------



## royal rose1

El_Greco said:


> Crime.


Fun fact, El Paso Texas, the city right across the river from one of the most dangerous cities on Earth (Ciudad Juarez) has a murder rate of .8 per 100,000! Lower than Luxembourg! That's insane.


----------



## Dr_Cosmo

royal rose1 said:


> So my questions are-
> 1. Why are these cities on the list in your opinion?
> 2. What can US cities do to compete with these cities? After all, our cities dominate economically, they have the highest GDPs by a long shot, so why can't we translate huge GDPs into making great places to live?


1.
Lower crime rates
Higher social cohesion / Income Equality
Better Health Care and therefore Raised Life Expectancy
Improved public transport infrastructure

2.
The US per capita GDP is artificially inflated and does not reflect the actual standard of living when compared with EU member states (obviously when recognizing the Mercer methodology)


----------



## royal rose1

Dr_Cosmo said:


> 1.
> Crime reduction
> Higher Social Equality
> Better Health Care and therefore Raising Life Expectancy
> Improving public transport infrastrucure
> 
> 2.
> The US GDP is artificially inflated and does not reflect the actual standard of living (obviously when recognizing the Mercer methodology)


Please don't use any conspiracy talk, like saying "the US GDP is artificially inflated" that's BS. Can we be grown-ups about this? Obviously other asian cities with huge GDPs aren't on the list! Where is Doha with its huge GDP? This isn't a matter of GDP, I just inserted in the GDP aspect to ask why we couldn't use it to better American cities! 

The question is also posed towards South American cities, African cities, and Asian Cities. Especially Asian cities! If China is doing so well, why aren't its cities on the top?


----------



## royal rose1

Let me also mention, I lived in Germany 6 years, 15 minutes from frankfurt. So I've experienced first-hand what these guys are talking about. I didn't see a huge difference in quality of life while living there...


----------



## Dr_Cosmo

offtopic:

To be more precise. A portion of the US GDP, for instance the costs of health care or higher education services are several times higher than in Europe. It inflates the per capita GDP, whereas in Europe these costs are mostly covered by the state and therefore are cost controlled. This is common wisdom and not conspiracy theory.


----------



## SkyBridge

royal rose1 said:


> I don't think it's crime, the murder rate in San Diego is 2 per 100,000 whereas Vienna is 1.8 per 100,000 Amsterdam is 7.7 and Helsinki is 12.4.


Amsterdam 7.7? Are you insane? In my knowledge Amsterdam has never, ever passed the 4 number. Murders have always been between 10 and 35 per year (on a 850.000 population).


----------



## falchoon

royal rose1 said:


> Fun fact, El Paso Texas, the city right across the river from one of the most dangerous cities on Earth (Ciudad Juarez) has a murder rate of *.8 per 100,000*! Lower than Luxembourg! That's insane.


?

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_19067901

"population of the city and county increased more than 15 percent in the past decade to more 649,000 people in the city and* 800,000* in the county."

From 1979 to 1996, homicides spiked to an average of 37 a year. The average in the past decade dropped to *15 a year*.

"So far this year, *there have been 15 homicides* in El Paso, six of which were related to domestic violence, Petry said."


15.0:800,000 > 0.8:100,000 ?


----------



## isaidso

royal rose1 said:


> So my questions are-
> 1. Why are these cities on the list in your opinion?
> 2. What can US cities do to compete with these cities? After all, our cities dominate economically, they have the highest GDPs by a long shot, so why can't we translate huge GDPs into making great places to live?
> 
> My answer is high taxes! Obviously each of these countries taxes endlessly, but what is your take on the matter?


It might be beneficial to ask why Canadian cities rank so much higher than US cities. Canada had 3 cities in the top 15. 
The highest ranked US city was Honolulu in 29th. Similar culture, similar standard of living, similar tax rates, but quality of life dips substantially south of the border.

I'd look here as a starting point: crime, income inequality, access to health care, public transportation.


----------



## royal rose1

falchoon said:


> ?
> 
> http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_19067901
> 
> "population of the city and county increased more than 15 percent in the past decade to more 649,000 people in the city and* 800,000* in the county."
> 
> From 1979 to 1996, homicides spiked to an average of 37 a year. The average in the past decade dropped to *15 a year*.
> 
> "So far this year, *there have been 15 homicides* in El Paso, six of which were related to domestic violence, Petry said."
> 
> 
> 15.0:800,000 > 0.8:100,000 ?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

I got my statistics from there! And under "Murder and nonnegligent homicide" it says .8!


----------



## royal rose1

isaidso said:


> It might be beneficial to ask why Canadian cities rank so much higher than US cities. Canada had 3 cities in the top 15.
> The highest ranked US city was Honolulu in 29th. Similar culture, similar standard of living, similar tax rates, but quality of life dips substantially south of the border.
> 
> I'd look here as a starting point: crime, income inequality, access to health care, public transportation.


But I think to say that there is that high of a disparity between ALL US Cities and the top Canadian cities when it comes to crime is crazy! San Francisco has a lot of jobs, low crime rates, great public transportation, and it's a hugely natural city, so why isn't it higher?


----------



## isaidso

royal rose1 said:


> But I think to say that there is that high of a disparity between ALL US Cities and the top Canadian cities when it comes to crime is crazy! San Francisco has a lot of jobs, low crime rates, great public transportation, and it's a hugely natural city, so why isn't it higher?


I haven't said that all US cities have far higher crime rates, but most of them do. The ones that don't appear on the list: San Francisco and Honolulu. Why isn't San Francisco ranked higher? Even lower crime rates would help. There's no universal access to health care anywhere in the US except Hawaii. Income inequality is much higher in San Francisco than most if not all the cities ranked ahead of it: San Francisco is wealthy, but its a few rather than the majority enjoying those benefits. 

San Francisco might have great public transportation *for a US city*, but not compared to other cities around the world. Vancouver has higher ridership despite being only one-third the size of San Francisco. Montreal has 3 times the ridership of San Francisco despite being a smaller city. These numbers are very telling. 

San Francisco did crack the top 30, so that's not bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership


----------



## El_Greco

Most US cities also have no go areas, whereas in Europe such things are extremely rare.


----------



## isaidso

Overall, San Francisco does many things well, but there's room for improvement. San Francisco is saddled with a lot of the negatives that come with being in the US, but does remarkably well considering.


----------



## Kensingtonian

royal rose1 said:


> A recent survey done by mercer ranks the top 10 cities in the world for living. It becomes obvious just by looking at it, that Europe dominates the list! Only 2 cities outside of Europe make the list (Auckland and Vancouver).
> 
> So my questions are-
> 1. Why are these cities on the list in your opinion?
> 2. What can US cities do to compete with these cities? After all, our cities dominate economically, they have the highest GDPs by a long shot, so why can't we translate huge GDPs into making great places to live?
> 
> My answer is high taxes! Obviously each of these countries taxes endlessly, but what is your take on the matter?
> 
> 1 Vienna Austria
> 2 Zurich Switzerland
> 3 Auckland New Zealand
> 4 Munich Germany
> 5 Duesseldorf Germany
> 5 Vancouver Canada
> 7 Frankfurt Germany
> 8 Geneva Switzerland
> 9 Bern Switzerland
> 9 Copenhagen Denmark
> http://www.mercer.com/qualityoflivingpr#city-rankings


pff! more like: 10 most boring places to live.

... except for Vancouver and Copenhagen, and maybe Frankfurt


----------



## royal rose1

^^haha agreed! I actually hadn't noticed Frankfurt was on there until you mentioned it! I lived right next to Frankfurt for 6 years and would've never guessed it would make the list haha.


----------



## Turbosnail

I lived in Frankfurt for a year and I really don't get why it is in this list. It feels unsafe and I think it lacked a lot in many categories such as nightlife, shopping, restaurants, museums. Maybe it is there oweing to the fact there are high earners in Frankfurt - statistical outliers. Wiesbaden is the capital of Hessen, not as big as Frankfurt and in my opinion is better.

I suppose it depends what one is looking for out of a city but in terms of culture, arts and history European cities are a league apart, for example Brussels is not in this list but I'd say it has more depth in history and arts than most or all North American cities. 

My vote is Melbourne because it has - 

- interesting architecture old and new.
- a world class park in the Botanical Gardens.
- a growing collection of museums, nothing in comparison to Europe but it's getting there
- well layed out.
- high GDP
- fairly low crime rate
- good climate
- beaches for the beach goers
- good shopping
- the best food and drink in Australia
- I live here!!


----------



## musiccity

I'm American, but I've spent a lot of time in Europe. I would rather live in America of course (though i may be biased )


As sad as I am to admit it, Europe does do a few things better than we do.

-The crime rate here in the States is still drastically higher than Europe's.. even though it's dropping.

-Income inequality is much higher here.

-Another thing I hate to admit, America has higher levels of extreme poverty than Western Europe



These are some of the reasons why American cities never rank too high on these list. I would take America over Europe any day, but we can't deny our problems (how do we overcome them if we deny them?)


----------



## Jonesy55

royal rose1 said:


> I think the common misconception nowadays is that somehow the US is the most debt-ridden nation. While that is true quantitatively as a whole, it isn't on a per capita basis! For instance, on a per capita basis, every citizen of Luxembourg owns $3,696,467 of debt compared to the US's $47,500, the UK's $144,000, Switzerland's $154,000 and Sweden's $94,000. And the numbers get worse when we look at External debt as a % of GDP.
> The fact is, if we are going to make the claim that the US's GDP is somehow falsely represented because of our debt, then Switzerland and Luxembourg's are really falsely represented!


Where are these figures from? Are they comparing personal debt, corporate debt or just public debt? What about assets?

For Luxemburg for example, obviously luxemburgers don't each have over $3m of debt, that's the debt of financial corporations based in Luxemburg and they also have big assets.


----------



## Piltup Man

To be honest they could save a lot of calculating of something that isn't an exact science, and just poll people in cities around the world asking them something like "Are you happy with the quality of life in your city?Why or why not?"

I think it would actually give a more reliable result. It would even allow for differentiation of peoples' perception of quality of life, i.e. there are people who love New York and people who love Vienna, but I am sure for quite different reasons.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Re: Melbourne:



Dean said:


> Not as good nightlife??? Just lol.


Agree 100%. Melbourne has some of the best nightlife in the world (and maybe _the_ best if we factor in the size). An absurd comment, particularly from someone from Zurich.

As much as I would not like to be as isolated as Australia is, if I had to chose between Zurich and Melbourne (on any criteria that I can think of other than location) it would be a no brainer. 

But I digress.


----------



## Metro007

Fitzrovian said:


> particularly from someone from Zurich


I never was in Melbourne but don't underrate Zurich:

http://www.timeout.com/london/clubs/features/3816/Zurich_clubs.html


----------



## Fitzrovian

Metro007 said:


> I never was in Melbourne but don't underrate Zurich:
> 
> http://www.timeout.com/london/clubs/features/3816/Zurich_clubs.html


Fair enough. If I was wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. I have been to Zurich however (admittedly for a very brief stay) and while I did not go to any warehouse raves, the action in the city center on a saturday night was very underwhelming. It's possible, of course, that it's all spread out so it escaped me without notice. Though now that I think about it, I do seem to recall asking around where there is action and not getting any good responses. But maybe I was aking the wrong people.


----------



## LANative

royal rose1 said:


> I think one of the worst downtowns is LA. A city of 3.5 million and the downtown is virtually dead. I think the next revolution in the US is going to be a move back into the city though, and that's when we'll see US cities shoot up the rankings.


Sorry, I have to respond to this. Downtown LA is making a big comeback. Lost of new projects, lots of upscale retail and restaurants; also LA is getting a new supertall which will be located in Downtown. Downtown LA now has over 50,000 residents making over $80,000 a year. Yes there are still many challenges Downtown LA faces and its still a long ways off becoming an elite downtown, but its heading in the right direction. 

And we hit the 4 million mark a while ago, not 3.5 million.


----------



## bayviews

isaidso said:


> San Francisco might have great public transportation *for a US city*, but not compared to other cities around the world. Vancouver has higher ridership despite being only one-third the size of San Francisco. Montreal has 3 times the ridership of San Francisco despite being a smaller city. These numbers are very telling.


Not quite so. According to the survey, Vancouver’s Skytrain has a somewhat higher ridership than the Bay Area’s BART. However, there are 3 other major rail systems in the Bay Area that are not listed: SF Muni Metro light rail, San Jose’s light rail, & Caltrain commuter rail. Altogether there are over 25 separate transit districts in the Bay Area. 

You are correct in the sense that Vancouver’s transit is better in the sense that’s all or nearly all consolidated within a single regional agency, & not nearly as crowded as the SF Muni transit agency or BART, which tend to be jam packed, and very overloaded at commute hours. And no doubt Vancouver's transit's is much better managed than Bay Area transit.


----------



## royal rose1

bayviews said:


> Not quite so. According to the survey, Vancouver’s Skytrain has a somewhat higher ridership than the Bay Area’s BART. However, there are 3 other major rail systems in the Bay Area that are not listed: SF Muni Metro light rail, San Jose’s light rail, & Caltrain commuter rail. Altogether there are over 25 separate transit districts in the Bay Area.
> 
> You are correct in the sense that Vancouver’s transit is better in the sense that’s all or nearly all consolidated within a single regional agency, & not nearly as crowded as the SF Muni transit agency or BART, which tend to be jam packed, and very overloaded at commute hours. And no doubt Vancouver's transit's is much better managed than Bay Area transit.


how about the cable cars! haha that's public transportation!
(sorry couldn't resist)


----------



## falchoon

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> I kind of disagree with a few things. There are major ski resorts near by, they may not be major by European standards, but in the Australian alpine region, they are. The nightlife in Melbourne is second to none. It caters to all genres, social classes. For a city of it's size, it certainly holds its own.
> 
> Heatwaves and bush fires there isn't much you can do about, but I know Europe too has heat waves (albeit 30c heat waves...) so not much need be said, tbh.
> .


I read a fact once that Australia's alpine area is bigger than Switzerland, not Switzerland's, Switzerland.










Baw Baw is not the greatest ski resort in the world, but it is 80 minutes from Melbourne's outskirts.



Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Heatwaves and bush fires there isn't much you can do about, but I know Europe too has heat waves (albeit 30c heat waves...) so not much need be said, tbh.
> .


Melbourne heatwaves normally last about 3 days maximum. The hottest days feature the desert north wind which is always followed 1 or 2 days later by the antarctic southern wind.


----------



## royal rose1

LANative said:


> Sorry, I have to respond to this. Downtown LA is making a big comeback. Lost of new projects, lots of upscale retail and restaurants; also LA is getting a new supertall which will be located in Downtown. Downtown LA now has over 50,000 residents making over $80,000 a year. Yes there are still many challenges Downtown LA faces and its still a long ways off becoming an elite downtown, but its heading in the right direction.
> 
> And we hit the 4 million mark a while ago, not 3.5 million.


According to my sources which cite the 2010 census it's currently at 3,792,000. Anyway, the population is irrelevant. Burlington, VT has a better downtown in my opinion, and it has 42,000 people. I'm from San Diego, so believe me, I'd love to see LA prosper downtown-wise. But it's a city that is too spread out, it's gonna need to consolidate a little if it wants a nice downtown.


----------



## miami305

musiccity said:


> I'm American, but I've spent a lot of time in Europe. I would rather live in America of course (though i may be biased )
> 
> 
> As sad as I am to admit it, Europe does do a few things better than we do.
> 
> -The crime rate here in the States is still drastically higher than Europe's.. even though it's dropping.
> 
> -Income inequality is much higher here.
> 
> -Another thing I hate to admit, America has higher levels of extreme poverty than Western Europe
> 
> These are some of the reasons why American cities never rank too high on these list. I would take America over Europe any day, but we can't deny our problems (how do we overcome them if we deny them?)


Agreed 100%.


----------



## miami305

isaidso said:


> How does that explain Canada then? Canada is a land built on immigration just like the US is. Taxes are about the same.
> 
> One of the few differences between the US and Canada is at the root of it all: how we view social issues. Canada is more egalitarian with a bigger social safety net and more government services. The US is more individualistic with a much smaller social safety net and less government services.
> 
> How can taxes be about the same? US vs. Canadian military expenditure. We prioritize different things.


You don't have Mexico to the south of you.....not just Mexico...but Latin America....I don't see mass immigration to Canada from MX or Latin America like we see it here...that is a huge problem.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

earthJoker said:


> Don't get me wrong, I loved Melbourne nightlife, I just prefer ours.
> 
> Only by plane, and you don't want me to list all the major cities I can reach by plane in 2 hours.


I'm just saying that plane is the most commonly used mode of long distance transport here. We don't have HSR and no one wants to sit in a train for 10 hours, and some people drive but still.. most fly. Because of that, the Sydney-Melbourne route is the 3rd or 4th busiest aircraft route in the world. 

It makes no difference to me if you list the cities you can reach in a two hour flight, because that is one of the perks of living in Europe. We're just lucky to have a variety of cities, various climates etc, which make Sydney different from Melbourne which is different to Brisbane which is different to Perth. We make do with what we've got and in most rankings it doesn't hold us back, but I can see how/why it would concern people.


----------



## isaidso

miami305 said:


> You don't have Mexico to the south of you.....not just Mexico...but Latin America....I don't see mass immigration to Canada from MX or Latin America like we see it here...that is a huge problem.


So you're basically saying that it's the fault of Latin Americans that US cities score poorly? Btw, Canada absorbs far more immigrants per capita than the US does; Toronto is 50% foreign born, far higher than New York, Los Angles, or even Miami. We don't get so many from Latin America, but the ones that come are very successfully integrated into our society.

The better question is why US society doesn't offer these immigrants a good quality of life. :|


----------



## jbkayaker12

musiccity said:


> I'm American, but I've spent a lot of time in Europe. I would rather live in America of course (though i may be biased )
> 
> 
> As sad as I am to admit it, Europe does do a few things better than we do.
> 
> -The crime rate here in the States is still drastically higher than Europe's.. even though it's dropping.
> 
> -Income inequality is much higher here.
> 
> -Another thing I hate to admit, America has higher levels of extreme poverty than Western Europe
> 
> 
> 
> These are some of the reasons why American cities never rank too high on these list. I would take America over Europe any day, but we can't deny our problems (how do we overcome them if we deny them?)


When you have 2 particular Race with a major population residing in the United States and with education the least of their priorities, you will see the problems you mentioned. Guaranteed!!!


----------



## bayviews

royal rose1 said:


> how about the cable cars! haha that's public transportation!
> (sorry couldn't resist)


Their included in the municipal transit agency. Yeah their a charming thrill to ride. But its mostly tourists that ride them.


----------



## jbkayaker12

isaidso said:


> So you're basically saying that it's the fault of Latin Americans that US cities score poorly? Btw, Canada absorbs far more immigrants per capita than the US does; Toronto is 50% foreign born, far higher than New York, Los Angles, or even Miami. We don't get so many from Latin America, but the ones that come are very successfully integrated into our society.
> 
> The better question is why US society doesn't offer these immigrants a good quality of life. :|


See my post #75 and no I don't want the United States to be truly a welfare state where everyone just rely on the government to hand everything to them. I was born and raised differently and so do majority of my people!!!


----------



## Xusein

The US did not do that bad against other developed nations such as the UK, France, or Japan. 

With the exception of Germany, all the top 20 cities on the list are in countries with tiny populations. Overall, US cities did very well.


----------



## royal rose1

isaidso said:


> So you're basically saying that it's the fault of Latin Americans that US cities score poorly? Btw, Canada absorbs far more immigrants per capita than the US does; Toronto is 50% foreign born, far higher than New York, Los Angles, or even Miami. We don't get so many from Latin America, but the ones that come are very successfully integrated into our society.
> 
> The better question is why US society doesn't offer these immigrants a good quality of life. :|


The US has 11 million illegal immigrants! That's a third the population of Canada! And that's just illegals. Canada integrates immigrants so well because they get to pick and choose the doctors and professors. The US doesn't get that luxury with illegal immigrants. What we get is lower-class uneducated people crossing the border who couldn't make it in Mexico. Our naturalized citizens integrate very well too! Look, the highest paid most successful demographic in the US is Indian-Americans. 
And there are 38 million immigrants in the US! More people then there are in Canada. So don't try to equate Canada to the US in terms of immigration.


----------



## bayviews

royal rose1 said:


> The US has 11 million illegal immigrants! That's a third the population of Canada! And that's just illegals. Canada integrates immigrants so well because they get to pick and choose the doctors and professors. The US doesn't get that luxury with illegal immigrants. What we get is lower-class uneducated people crossing the border who couldn't make it in Mexico. Our naturalized citizens integrate very well too! Look, the highest paid most successful demographic in the US is Indian-Americans.
> And there are 38 million immigrants in the US! More people then there are in Canada. So don't try to equate Canada to the US in terms of immigration.


Excellent points, very true. Indeed, the US immigrant population dwarfs Canada’s TOTAL population by many millions. 

What other population in the US also dwarfs the total population of Canada? Consider the 37 million Afro-Americans, roughly 90% of whom are slave descendants. One can’t overlook the enduring legacy of plantation slavery, racism, & its negative connection with contemporary low socio-economic levels, and high crime rates. Particularly across the Southern states and in the northern rustbelt cities just south of Canada. 

These are challenges that the US shares with Brazil & other many other developing countries in the Americas. These are burdens a slightly populated, northern country with a huge, largely vacant land mass like Canada doesn’t have to carry.


----------



## Suburbanist

Piltup Man said:


> To be honest they could save a lot of calculating of something that isn't an exact science, and just poll people in cities around the world asking them something like "Are you happy with the quality of life in your city?Why or why not?"


This is the least recommended technique in any survey schoolbook because of:

- selection bias
- induced expectations
- lack of cross-sample exposure

==========================

I think many people in SSC (I'm not pointing to anyone specifically) have difficulties understanding that what _they_ like in a city environment might be just irrelevant for others. It is not only that one might dislike what others like, but also not care about a certain aspect or feature of cities.

For instance, the majority of SSC forumers don't have kids at school age. Therefore, the whole "education quality" usually resumes to discussions about university/college life. So many might have difficulties relating to decision of parents who move to other places at great expense of money and time (commute) just so that their children have better schools to attend.

Likewise, the majority of population might not care about whether the city has good planing laws or anything, in regard of things as "architectural harmony of neighborhoods" or "a coherent density gradient" or other concepts. It is not that they will dislike meticulous planning of how new buildings should or shouldn't fit withe surroundings, it is just that they don't care. 

SSC is also a crowd very keen on whether they can just walk into a place and see a lot of people around, like an human zoo. Younger people might place a value on cool "hanging out spots" that are cheap (=open) and don't require driving or travelling a lot. But that might not be the case for older cohorts, for whom it is irrelevant whether the street in front of their office is a commercial "vibrant" place or a giant parking lot. 

In a broader sense, these issues affect a lot of these "best cities" lists. Expats have unique demands and expectations as a group, that might not be of consideration for other citizens.


----------



## jbkayaker12

miami305 said:


> Exactly..!!! well said....those freaking Canadians.....gotta love them though (sometimes...ugh)...lots of them in South FL....lol.


They are here in Vegas spending their money. Love them here and they are welcome here!!!:cheers:


----------



## SkyBridge

Fitzrovian said:


> But on the point of the original remark, is it reasonable to suggest that these cities are not very compelling in comparison to the "major league" cities? In my opinion, yes.


That's an opinion, just like I stated mine.
But in the light of this investigation, think of majorities please. People with children, couples, etc. - for these people smaller cities might just do better. And when I say might, actually take a look at the scores (also in other surveys) and you will see that this is just the case.
Does this make bigger cities any less attractive? No, but with 'bigger' also a lot of problems tend to come in that for LIVING (or should I say: building a life) make the city less attractive.


----------



## Metro007

I fully agree with SkyBridge.

I think some people are mixing up "big" and "quality of life", thinking that the biger a city is the better the quality of life.

You can mention NYC or Paris of course when talking about big vibrant world-cities but please not when talking about quality of life.

For people loving only huge and vibrant cities i can understand that the mentionned european cities will looks to small and perhaps "boring"?

But don't forget all the other people who are a majority. For them a good infrastructure, good jobs-possibilities, good salary, nice landscapes and so on are far more important than a city beeing just vibrant or exciting.

And can someone perhaps explain me what difference it makes if a city has "only" 1000 restaurants or 10'000 since we just can know a little part of them?

On the other side, having to drive hours to reach another part of a city or having noisy air conditioners whole night on the tops of the houses (like for me in Manhattan last summer...) don't feels like beeing part of quality of life for most of the people, me inculded.

So i wonder what would american people here think US cities have what other don't have in matter of quality of life? Do you have some cities who not only have a very good infrastructure (for example airport with a lot of intercontinental connects like Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Zurich) but where you also can take a bath in a blue clean river or lake after having walked 10 minutes like for example in Zurich?

I don't think so...

And do you really need a city having 500 clubs although you just know 20 of them instead of a city having "only" 50 clubs? What's the difference?

So that's just why in my eyes these cities on the Top 10 beats big world-cities like LA, NYC, Paris, London and so on.

This is just a talk about quality of life, don't forget it. Otherwise i really like beeing in the USA and i like people there. And for holidays i appreciate big vibrant cities like NYC or Paris, it's very exciting. But for living there it would be another story...


----------



## Jonesy55

I tend to agree, those huge cities are great to visit for a few days but not really where I'd want to live long-term except maybe for a couple of years as a young single at university or whatever.


----------



## Fitzrovian

SkyBridge said:


> That's an opinion, just like I stated mine.


You didn't just state yours. You also accused the original poster of ignorance and made a completely unfounded assumption that only someone who hasn't traveled much can hold such views. And I am telling you that i have been to all those cities and I largely agree with the remark. So it's not completely without merit, as you tried to suggest.

And speaking of traveling, do you have any data to indicate that Europeans travel outside of Europe much more than Americans travel outside of North America? I am just curious... Or did you make your assumption based on personal observation?



SkyBridge said:


> But in the light of this investigation, think of majorities please.
> 
> 
> People with children, couples, etc. - for these people smaller cities might just
> do better. And when I say might, actually take a look att the scores (also in
> other surveys) and you will see that this is just the case.
> Does this make bigger cities any less attractive? No, but with 'bigger' also a lot of problems tend to come in that for LIVING (or should I say: building a life) make the city less attractive.


To a large extent that may be true. But at the end of the day, that is still a highly subjective determination. I have friends that are moving to the suburbs because they think it's better for living and raising families. And I think that the City is better. So you see, it's still very subjective and depends on your personal criteria. That's why this survey is basically worthless - which I think was the point of the original remark.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Metro007 said:


> I fully agree with SkyBridge.
> 
> I think some people are mixing up "big" and "quality of life", thinking that the biger a city is the better the quality of life.


I am not mixing anything up mate. I understand what the survey is about. But "quality of life" is still a very subjective matter that means different things to different people. Isn't it?



Metro007 said:


> You can mention NYC or Paris of course when talking about big vibrant world-cities but please not when talking about quality of life.


Again, that's just a matter of opinion. That's yours and i have a different one. I, for example, have lived in NYC for 13 years and have no interest in moving to the suburbs or any smaller city. I like very much my "quality of life" (for a myriad of reasons that i dont need to go into here). And if I were moving to Europe with my family, and could pick any city, I certainly wouldn't pick Zurich. Or Copenhagen. Or Frankfurt. Or any of the majority of the other cities listed at the top of that survey.



Metro007 said:


> For people loving only huge and vibrant cities i can understand that the mentionned european cities will looks to small and perhaps "boring"?
> 
> But don't forget all the other people who are a majority. For them a good infrastructure, good jobs-possibilities, good salary, nice landscapes and so on
> are far more important than a city beeing just vibrant or exciting.


I am not attacking the methodology of the survey. I am just saying that for me, as for many others, that methodology is worthless because I have a different criteria for "quality of life". Or are you going to tell me that my criteria is "wrong" and your criteria is "right" ?


----------



## Fitzrovian

Metro007 said:


> But don't forget all the other people who are a majority. For them a good infrastructure, good jobs-possibilities, good salary, nice landscapes and so on are far more important than a city beeing just vibrant or exciting.


You just described the average American suburban lifestyle. (Now you know why America is so suburbanized  ). If that's the criteria then American cities (if we look at the entire urban area) should dominate this survey. 

See more below.



Metro007 said:


> On the other side, having to drive hours to reach another part of a city or having noisy air conditioners whole night on the tops of the houses (like for me in Manhattan last summer...) don't feels like beeing part of quality of life for most of the people, me inculded.


These are gross exaggerations that do not reflect the average American lifestyle (except maybe LA where distances are in fact huge and people do tend to drive a lot).

And are you seriously suggesting that you would rather live without AC like most do in Europe? You gotta be kidding me. I mean I know that most of Europe is not prone to the kind of heat waves that we have here, but surely the absence of ACs in most of europe has more to do with 
economics and matters of necessity than esthetics ? Don't tell me that you never wished on a really hot night that you had AC at home...



Metro007 said:


> So i wonder what would american people here think US cities have what other don't have in matter of quality of life? Do you have some cities who not only have a very good infrastructure (for example airport with a lot of intercontinental connects like Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Zurich) but where you also can take a bath in a blue clean river or lake after having walked 10 minutes like for example in Zurich.
> 
> I don't think so...


Most large American cities have plenty of suburban areas that fit your description: NY, Chicago and even the big bad Detroit. Some of them will even have efficient public transit into the city! . Speaking of fresh lakes, have you ever looked at the google map of Minneapolis, Orlando or even Northern New Jersey? Give it a shot.... Or did you mean that it has to be within extremely close proximity of the city center? And if so, isn't that sort of arbitrary?

In fact, as some have already mentioned, one of the major flaws of this survey - even if we go by its own criteria - is that it seems to ignore the fact that America is extremely suburbanized and 
that most Americans live in suburbs. Its not exactly my cup of tea, but many of them do in fact offer precisely the kind of lifestyle you described.


----------



## Jonesy55

I can't say that I've ever wished I'd had A/C here, the nights don't get hot enough to justify it. On the occasions it is a bit warm I just open some windows.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Jonesy55 said:


> I can't say that I've ever wished I'd had A/C here, the nights don't get hot enough to justify it. On the occasions it is a bit warm I just open some windows.


Jonesy, mate England doesn't count. You guys don't have summers 

I am sure that someone who lives in continental Europe might feel different. Remember how many people died a few years ago when they had a heat wave? Thousands.


----------



## Jonesy55

Oh yeah, interior Spain could probably do with it, unless you have a home with nice thick stone walls to keep the heat out.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Jonesy55 said:


> Oh yeah, interior Spain could probably do with it, unless you have a home with nice thick stone walls to keep the heat out.


Well actually most of Spain has ACs, as has been my experience in other southern European countries as well. It's the third world countries in the middle of the continent that mostly lack them and could really use them ... at least from time to time


----------



## Metro007

Fitzrovian said:


> (...)Its not exactly my cup of tea, but many of them do in fact offer precisely the kind of lifestyle you described.


I did not want to say that one lifestyle is right and another is wrong. If that was your interpretation of my thread so it's perhaps because my english is not perfect. It's absolutely ok if someone prefers NYC to any other city. I have no problem with that and i did not wanted you to change your mind. I can understand it. And you are right when saying that everybody has another idea of what quality of life is. So it's correct that theses "best" cities aren't the best for everybody. I absolutely agree with that.

But obvisously theses Top 10 cities have a lot of criterias that a majority of people are looking for.

And when you say that some cities like Chicago have exactly these kind of quality of live i mentioned so i think you're wrong. It may be right for you but not for a majority of people. You just can't compare a huge city like Chicago or NYC with them. First of all i doubt that in Chicago you can walk 10 minutes and have a bath in a clean water and at the same time having the possibilitiy of taking a train and reach in 10 minutes an intercontinental airport. And at the same time having a lot of clubs, restaurants and a nice old-town once again in just 10-15 minutes walk-time. They for sure will have one or another of theses but not all of them as the european cities mentioned do have. And when i was talking about landscapes i was thinking about the mountains in Switzerland (country where i live). Did you really once visited Switzerland and experiences how much of quality you have on this very small area? I don't think so, otherwise you would not wanted to compare it with american cities.

And when talking about transports: the old and ugly subway from NYC and the circulation in Manhattan with all the taxis hinking like crazy won't be part of quality of life for the majority of people. It's absolutely ok if you like it but once again the majority of people won't.

So i think this explains why big american cities aren't on the Top 10 of this list. That's just logical...

And once again it has nothing to do with a critic to the USA. As i said i really like it for other reasons.


----------



## earthJoker

Fitzrovian said:


> Well actually most of Spain has ACs, as has been my experience in other southern European countries as well. It's the third world countries in the middle of the continent that mostly lack them and could really use them ... at least from time to time


The ex-soviet part of the world is called 2nd world  Even the term is hardly used nowadays.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Metro007 said:


> I did not want to say that one lifestyle is right and another is wrong. If that was your interpretation of my thread so it's perhaps because my english is not perfect. It's absolutely ok if someone prefers NYC to any other city. I have no problem with that and i did not wanted you to change your mind. I can understand it. And you are right when saying that everybody has another idea of what quality of life is. So it's correct that theses "best" cities aren't the best for everybody. I absolutely agree with that.
> 
> But obvisously theses Top 10 cities have a lot of criterias that a majority of people are looking for.
> 
> And when you say that some cities like Chicago have exactly these kind of quality of live i mentioned so i think you're wrong. It may be right for you but not for a majority of people. You just can't compare a huge city like Chicago or NYC with them. First of all i doubt that in Chicago you can walk 10 minutes and have a bath in a clean water and at the same time having the possibilitiy of taking a train and reach in 10 minutes an intercontinental airport. And at the same time having a lot of clubs, restaurants and a nice old-town once again in just 10-15 minutes walk-time. They for sure will have one or another of theses but not all of them as the european cities mentioned do have. And when i was talking about landscapes i was thinking about the mountains in Switzerland (country where i live). Did you really once visited Switzerland and experiences how much of quality you have on this very small area? I don't think so, otherwise you would not wanted to compare it with american cities.
> 
> And when talking about transports: the old and ugly subway from NYC and the circulation in Manhattan with all the taxis hinking like crazy won't be part of quality of life for the majority of people. It's absolutely ok if you like it but once again the majority of people won't.
> 
> So i think this explains why big american cities aren't on the Top 10 of this list. That's just logical...
> 
> And once again it has nothing to do with a critic to the USA. As i said i really
> like it for other reasons.


No worries Metro. I have no problem whatsoever with people expressing their opinion, and criticizing the US (and there is certainly plenty to criticize, particularly on the urban development front). I personally am not particularly sensitive on these things. 

I just wanted you to understand that both Chicago and NY have nearby suburban areas that could offer the kind of lifestyle you described. You would have a nice house, plenty of space, good shopping opportunities, cute little town center, clean air and possibly even a lake (plenty of lakes in Northern NJ and northern Chicago suburbs), as well as possibly good transit options into the city. Same could be said of some other large US cities.

But you are absolutely right of course that you would then be living mostly a car-dependent lifestyle with things pretty spread out. So if what you are after is mountains, lakes, safe environment and plenty of space, all in a manageable size city with good public transit, like Zurich, then you need to stay in Europe. Very few (if any) American cities provide that kind of package.


----------



## Fitzrovian

earthJoker said:


> The ex-soviet part of the world is called 2nd world  Even the term is hardly used nowadays.


I wasn't talking about the ex-soviet part of the world, but countries like France.


----------



## SkyBridge

@ jonesy

First of all, let's make it clear here and now that I DID NOT call the original poster ignorant. I said "some comments" by "US forummers" were "at times" ignorant. That's something completely different.

Metro007 describes it perfectly. It's about what the majority sees as quality of life in this survey. 

@ Fitz
Sorry but you really don't get it in your first few sentences. What is described is not the American suburb, but the bustling metropolitan cities of smaller size. Take Amsterdam, Antwerp, Zurich - these have the best nightlife in the world for their size, offer exclusive shops that you won't find elsewhere, have creative economies and are major tourist attractions. However, due to their size it's relatively easy to find neighborhoods suited for children, nature is closer, etc. etc.
So in my view, it's the best of both worlds. 
I really don't get the comparison with American suburbs that have shopping malls etc.

The last part, you got it right. But hey, it's no wonder European cities work so well. They have had 2500 years to develop into what they are now.


----------



## Federicoft

Fitzrovian said:


> And are you seriously suggesting that you would rather live without AC like most do in Europe? You gotta be kidding me. I mean I know that most of Europe is not prone to the kind of heat waves that we have here, but surely the absence of ACs in most of europe has more to do with economics and matters of necessity than esthetics ? Don't tell me that you never wished on a really hot night that you had AC at home...


Lack of AC has to do with European cultural conservatism ("we've always done without it, so we don't need it"), suspicion towards American habits, stinginess and ecological conscience mixed in varying proportions.
It took more than twenty years of heroic struggle to have AC installed in Rome's metro. :laugh:


----------



## SkyBridge

^ I think 70% of the countries in Europe don't need AC climate-wise
Also cities in Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal etc. are built for their climate. Earliest/medieval urban planning!
Narrow streets for shadow, orientation of houses, etc.
And not only the cities but also the lifestyles are adapted to the weather, instead of vice-versa. Think of sietsas. 
When it's hot, people stay in the shadow or enjoy life on the beach and they plan their work around it.


----------



## LtBk

Federicoft said:


> Lack of AC has to do with European cultural conservatism ("we've always done without it, so we don't need it"), suspicion towards American habits, stinginess and ecological conscience mixed in varying proportions.
> It took more than twenty years of heroic struggle to have AC installed in Rome's metro. :laugh:


What does American habits has to do with adapting A/C? Lot of Asian countries have adapted A/C, and they more conservative than Europeans or North Americans.


----------



## earthJoker

Fitzrovian said:


> Move to Switzerland and then you will. I guess that's the moral of the story.


I don't think so, it's his personal opinion. I enjoyed my stay in Barcelona, even though I prefer it for holidays rather than for living.

But it's good you show your negative prejudice against Swiss so openly, it reveals a lot about your earlier posts.


----------



## isaidso

bayviews said:


> Isidro comes across as....


Assuming you're talking about someone else as none of that pertains to me.


----------



## isaidso

Sarcasticity said:


> But 30 million+ is way bigger than 7 million.


Of course 30 million is a larger number than 7 million; that's not the what's at issue. If you're not comfortable talking about immigration rates, but prefer absolute numbers why not use California and Canada as a case in point. I can make the same argument there as I've made using immigration rates between the US and Canada.



Sarcasticity said:


> So you're saying that because the United States doesnt have the 60 to 65 million, its not as attractive to immigrants?


No, you're the only one that's stated that. I've said that *NO WHERE!* You can go through the last 5 pages of my posts if you want, and I've not said that anywhere. You're inferring something that was never ever said. 

I wish people would read what's posted instead of letting their imaginations run wild. Read what's actually written please. hno:


----------



## Fitzrovian

Ribarca said:


> Only in July and August does it get hot and humid. In the old days when we had no airco's I remember to suffer at night. Nowadays when you have air-conditioning it's a non-issue. Compared to South East Asia, the humidity in Barcelona is very low. Outside of July and August the climate is perfect with very gentle winters and beautiful spring and autumn.
> 
> The good thing is that you can head to the much cooler hills and mountains as many of the locals do in summer and in weekends.


Sounds like a pretty crappy quality of life to me. Well deserving of your lowly #40 ranking by Mercer (below such world magnets like Helsinki and Calgary).

What you also didn't mention is that you have beautiful beaches at your doorstep, ski resorts within a 2 hour drive, high speed rail, world class infrastructure, and one of the most dynamic and beautiful cities in the world. But that's all subjective.


----------



## NordikNerd

earthJoker said:


> I don't think so, it's his personal opinion. I enjoyed my stay in Barcelona, even though I prefer it for holidays rather than for living.
> 
> But it's good you show your negative prejudice against Swiss so openly, it reveals a lot about your earlier posts.


*Negative aspects* of Switzerland are the alps, even though they are beautiful, they obscure the sunlight and block of the country. 

The weather is often rainy, hazy and foggy. When visiting Zurich june 19th the temperature was about 15 C.

Also the country is very diverse with 4 different languages, so I think it's a bit weak as a national state. Referdums regularly take place to solve issues.

*The positive aspects:* of course the beautiful and tidy cities where you always feel safe. 

Switzerland is favorably located in the heart of Europe a few hours away with train from both Paris, Berlin, Milano and Monte-Carlo.

The trademark_ Switzerland _is very strong, usually associated with delicious chocolate and exquisite wristwatches.

I understand why Swiss cities top the list. They should do it because quality of living is high there.


----------



## Metro007

NordikNerd said:


> *Negative aspects* of Switzerland are the alps, even though they are beautiful, they obscure the sunlight and block of the country.


That's funny. First time i'm hearing this. I have heard it about HongKong or Manhattan where you have a lot of shadow because of the skyscrapers. You may be right when the sun is very near to the horizont and only when being really in the Alps...

Zurich, Geneva and Bern are on the "Midland" and not directly in the Alps. But you can see them from these cities ;-)


----------



## Ribarca

Metro007 said:


> That's funny. First time i'm hearing this. I have heard it about HongKong or Manhattan where you have a lot of shadow because of the skyscrapers. You may be right when the sun is very near to the horizont and only when being really in the Alps...


It's new to me as well. Isn't there always a sunny and a shadowy side for each mountain...

With regards to shadow from skyscrapers. I'm more likely to get a tan walking on the street in Amsterdam than in Hong Kong. The culture of sitting outside does not exist as well.


----------



## Ribarca

Fitzrovian said:


> Sounds like a pretty crappy quality of life to me. Well deserving of your lowly #40 ranking by Mercer (below such world magnets like Helsinki and Calgary).
> 
> What you also didn't mention is that you have beautiful beaches at your doorstep, ski resorts within a 2 hour drive, high speed rail, world class infrastructure, and one of the most dynamic and beautiful cities in the world. But that's all subjective.


Good points. Skiing is better for sure in Calgary and Helsinki:lol:.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Ribarca said:


> Good points. Skiing is better for sure in Calgary and Helsinki:lol:.


 
Haha... Don't be so sure. I've heard that Baqueira-Beret is an outstanding ski resort. In fact, I'd love to go to Barcelona around holiday time. Some world class shopping and dining... Hit a few clubs. Go see Barca play... And then go for a couple of days to ski. Not too bad, eh?


----------



## Sarcasticity

isaidso said:


> Of course 30 million is a larger number than 7 million; that's not the what's at issue. If you're not comfortable talking about immigration rates, but prefer absolute numbers why not use California and Canada as a case in point. I can make the same argument there as I've made using immigration rates between the US and Canada.
> 
> No, you're the only one that's stated that. I've said that NO WHERE! You can go through the last 5 pages of my posts if you want, and I've not said that anywhere. You're inferring something that was never ever said.
> 
> I wish people would read what's posted instead of letting their imaginations run wild. Read what's actually written please. hno:


 Heres the problem I have

1. First you stated because Canada was able to integrate 7 million immigrants, the US should be able to integrate 60 million. Well, its different percentage and situation.

2. Those are not rates rather percentage.

3. As I have stated before, illegal immigrants number to 15 million, twice the number of imigrants in Canada. Canada doesnt have this problem of the same magnitude.

4. You cant possibly think its right to compare the situation of the second largest country to a reltively small state that has more population.

5. I was clarifying, I was not accusing you said that. Hence I said, the US is overpopulated as it is to accomodate more immigrants when you said the US should be able to integrate 60 million immigrants

6. I dont want to further this debate. Both countries are great and I dont need to resort in making the other the lesser.


----------



## Jonesy55

Sarcasticity said:


> Its not rates, its percentage. And can you correlate to me why the US should be able to integrate 60 million just cause Canada was able to integrate its 7 million? Percentage of US immigrants are lower, sure. But US population is almost 10 times Canada. For every immigrant coming to either country, percentage would go higher faster in Canada, SIMPLE. It has nothing to do with this integration you speak of without basis And dont ignore, as i have stated before, the US suffers from 15 million illegal immigrants. Does Canada have the same problem? No. Done. Do some research yourself before you post.


I'm not sure what you mean, surely a 310m country should be able to successfully accommodate more newcomers than a 33m country, that's just common sense. Just as California should be able to accommodate more than Rhode Island.

The % Isaidso is talking about is relevant because it measures the impact a typical person is likely to notice from immigration.

100k new immigrants spread around China would probably not even be noticed, 100k new immigrants in Tonga would radically change the society so you need to look at the %.


----------



## PadArch

Fitzrovian said:


> And people keep telling us how good healthcare, education and public transportation is in Scandinavia. Almost reminds me of the Soviet Union.


LOL

so according to you, good healthcare, education and public transport is a BAD thing? :nuts:




Fitzrovian said:


> One would think that countries like Spain and Italy are severely lacking in those respects.


compared to northern Europe, Austria or Switzerland, yes might be slightly lacking, except madrid which has great transport.. so is America. which is one reason why american, spanish and italian cities don't make it onto that top ten list.


----------



## earthJoker

NordikNerd said:


> *Negative aspects* of Switzerland are the alps, even though they are beautiful, they obscure the sunlight and block of the country.


Only about 20% of the population of Switzerland lives in the alps. The most of it just enjoy a nice view on them


----------



## snowland

Severiano said:


> I am the opposite of many people here. I can only live in a place that's hot and humid year round. Singapore has the best weather IMO, but I am not too big a fan of the country. Maybe Natal Brazil, is a good city. Large enough to have fun, but on the beach and relaxing.


I just couldn't.


----------



## corredor06

Jonesy55 and isaidso you are right on your point, however the US has many illegals hispanics from south of the border mainly Mexicans, while Canada has little illegal immigration many of them are very successful, because they come from educated and perhaps more middle class/affluent backgrounds. While many illegal hispanics and their children suffer from social problems like youth gangs,crime,tennage pregnacy bad academic scores. Surely a country of 310m can accommodate more legal newcomers than a 33m country, however Canada deals very little with the burden of illegal immigration.


----------



## Ribarca

Adde said:


> No one's said that Spain or Italy are like third world countries. But when compared within the context of western Europe, Scandinavian cities tend to be a bit more ordered, with fewer disadvantaged areas and slightly greater social and economic equality. Of course, different cities have got different strengths. Certain Spanish cities have great public transportation for instance, and southern European cities often have great street life. It's not black and white, but there are certainly differences.


Spain and Italy rank 23 and 24 in the HDI index ranking... I agree with you that Scandinavian countries are more ordered but the cities in Southern Europe are generally pretty well ordered themselves. Outside of the cities maybe less. Since the ranking is one for expats I don't think it's a big factor there.


----------



## Ribarca

Fitzrovian said:


> Haha... Don't be so sure. I've heard that Baqueira-Beret is an outstanding ski resort. In fact, I'd love to go to Barcelona around holiday time. Some world class shopping and dining... Hit a few clubs. Go see Barca play... And then go for a couple of days to ski. Not too bad, eh?


I hear you!


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> LOL
> 
> so according to you, good healthcare, education and public transport is a BAD thing? :nuts:


You missed my point entirely, but that's okay.



PadArch said:


> compared to northern Europe, Austria or Switzerland, yes they are lacking.. so is America. which is one reason why american, spanish and italian cities don't make it onto that top ten list.


How do you know? Okay, America's issues with healthcare are well-publicized, but what do you know about the quality of healthcare in Spain? Have you ever tried to get treatment there? Again, I'd like someone from Spain to give us an accurate view. 

For what it's worth, there was a recent article in the NYT profiling a US couple who had moved to rural Catalonia. One of the things they raved about was the oustanding healthcare. Of course totally anecdotal, but I assume that if an American couple who was well off enough to move to Spain (and therefore probably used to more than adequate healthcare in the US) thought that the healthcare was outstanding in the _rural_ part of Catalonia, it can not possibly be so *lacking*.

And that's my point. You guys keep playing up your safety, healthcare and public transit as if there was an abyss separating you from the rest of Europe. There isn't. Sorry to burst your bubble.


----------



## Federicoft

Madrid has probably the best and most comprehensive public transport system in the world. 
As regards healthcare, the Italian healtcare was ranked 2nd best in the world by the WHO in 2000, and the Spanish one 7th best, both above any Northern European country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO's_ranking_of_healthcare_systems


----------



## Fitzrovian

Federicoft said:


> The Italian healtcare was ranked 2nd best in the world by the WHO in 2000, and the Spanish one 7th best, both above any Northern European country.
> Madrid has probably the best public transport system in the world.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO's_ranking_of_healthcare_systems


 
Thank you.


----------



## Sarcasticity

Jonesy55 said:


> I'm not sure what you mean, surely a 310m country should be able to successfully accommodate more newcomers than a 33m country, that's just common sense. Just as California should be able to accommodate more than Rhode Island.
> 
> The % Isaidso is talking about is relevant because it measures the impact a typical person is likely to notice from immigration.
> 
> 100k new immigrants spread around China would probably not even be noticed, 100k new immigrants in Tonga would radically change the society so you need to look at the %.


Im not sure how you can say for sure the US can accomodate more? Its basically saying, China and India can accomodate more. Im pretty sure its easier to accomodate more people in a country with the lesser population. Resources, jobs etc are limited.

Thats why im saying the US shouldnt accomodate more. It can barely provide jobs to its own people. Never did I say that immigrants are having better prospects in the states.


----------



## PadArch

Fitzrovian said:


> You missed my point entirely, but that's okay.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know? Okay, America's issues with healthcare are well-publicized, but what do you know about the quality of healthcare in Spain? Have you ever tried to get treatment there? Again, I'd like someone from Spain to give us an accurate view.
> 
> For what it's worth, there was a recent article in the NYT profiling a US couple who had moved to rural Catalonia. One of the things they raved about was the oustanding healthcare. Of course totally anecdotal, but I assume that if an American couple who was well off enough to move to Spain (and therefore probably used to more than adequate healthcare in the US) thought that the healthcare was outstanding in the _rural_ part of Catalonia, it can not possibly be so *lacking*.
> 
> And that's my point. You guys keep playing up your safety, healthcare and public transit as if there was an abyss separating you from the rest of Europe. There isn't. Sorry to burst your bubble.


eh i didnt say it was bad in spain or italy, or even in america just said its better in some other places. you don't have to be bad to be slightly worse than the best.


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> LOL
> 
> 
> compared to northern Europe, Austria or Switzerland, yes might be _*slightly *_lacking, _*except madrid which has great transport*_.. so is America. which is one reason why american, spanish and italian cities don't make it onto that top ten list.


I see you have edited your post. Sneaky. But I am glad you are coming around to my point of view. 

"Except Madrid". Wrong. Barcelona has almost equally as good public transport and motorway network. As does Valencia.. And Bilbao and most other Spanish cities. (And same could probably be said of Italy)

My point is that on the "objective" factors, which are reflected in the survey, your advantages are marginal at best (and even that is highly debatable). Whereas on the so called "subjective" factors, which are not accounted in the survey but are equally as important for most people, the gaps are as wide as from here to Antarctica.


----------



## Federicoft

Fitzrovian said:


> (And same could probably be said of Italy)


Perhaps is 20 years. 
At the moment when it comes to public transport it's true that Italian cities are lagging well behind other major European cities. The motorway and railway networks are pretty good, though.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> And that's my point. You guys keep playing up your safety, healthcare and public transit as if there was an abyss separating you from the rest of Europe. There isn't. Sorry to burst your bubble.


I don't think anybody's ever said that. Don't project something that's not there. 

But there are reasons why certain northern European cities do very well on these lists over and over again - and that's down to statistics. You might not agree with what kind of statistics they look at, and might want them to take other things into account. But that's a completely different matter.

I grew up in Stockholm and lived in Rome for a while. Rome has got great health care, awsome culture and a pretty good (but not great) public transportation network. On the other hand, it's much dirtier than Stockholm, water/electricity/heating/internet/cellphone-infrastructure isn't as well developed, and its poorer neighborhoods are much poorer. 

Which city has got the highest "quality of living"? It depends on who you are. If you're well to do, Rome is amazing. Great weather, beautiful, large and vibrant. If you're less well to do, Stockholm is better in terms of quality of housing, access to internet and basic infrastructure and lots of other aspects. If you're middle class it might pretty much be a wash.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> Whereas on the so called "subjective" factors, which are not accounted in the survey but are equally as important for most people, the gaps are as wide as from here to Antarctica.


Are you saying that there are "gaps as wide as from here to Antarctica" between southern European cities and norther European cities on subjective factors? What factors would that be? The only one I can think of where that would be even remotely true is weather.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Federicoft said:


> Madrid has probably the best and most comprehensive public transport system in the world.


Not to dig up an old fight, and I am glad to see there are some things we do agree on, but just the other day you opined that to compare Madrid with Paris or London "in whatever respect" is "out of touch with reality".

What happened, you changed your mind?


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> I don't think anybody's ever said that. Don't project something that's not there.
> 
> But there are reasons why certain northern European cities do very well on these lists over and over again - and that's down to statistics. You might not agree with what kind of statistics they look at, and might want them to take other things into account. But that's a completely different matter.
> 
> I grew up in Stockholm and lived in Rome for a while. Rome has got great health care, awsome culture and a pretty good (but not great) public transportation network. On the other hand, it's much dirtier than Stockholm, water/electricity/heating/internet/cellphone-infrastructure isn't as well developed, and its poorer neighborhoods are much poorer.
> 
> Which city has got the highest "quality of living"? It depends on who you are. If you're well to do, Rome is amazing. Great weather, beautiful, large and vibrant. If you're less well to do, Stockholm is better in terms of quality of housing, access to internet and basic infrastructure and lots of other aspects. If you're middle class it might pretty much be a wash.


Ahh.... I think we are now getting to the root of the issue. Finally! 

So: if you are poor, you wanna be in Scandinavia. If you are doing well, you want to be in Southern Europe (or pretty much anywhere else).

Can't disagree with that. Guess that explains why I prefer southern Europe (and Spain in particular) so much.


----------



## Federicoft

Adde said:


> I don't think anybody's ever said that. Don't project something that's not there.
> 
> But there are reasons why certain northern European cities do very well on these lists over and over again - and that's down to statistics. You might not agree with what kind of statistics they look at, and might want them to take other things into account. But that's a completely different matter.
> 
> I grew up in Stockholm and lived in Rome for a while. Rome has got great health care, awsome culture and a pretty good (but not great) public transportation network. On the other hand, it's much dirtier than Stockholm, water/electricity/heating/internet/cellphone-infrastructure isn't as well developed, and its poorer neighborhoods are much poorer.
> 
> Which city has got the highest "quality of living"? It depends on who you are. If you're well to do, Rome is amazing. Great weather, beautiful, large and vibrant. If you're less well to do, Stockholm is better in terms of quality of housing, access to internet and basic infrastructure and lots of other aspects. If you're middle class it might pretty much be a wash.


I very much agree with this. Life in Stockholm is quite probably more comfortable for less privileged people than in Rome, especially thanks to the extensive welfare system and more egalitarian society.
What do you mean by water, electricity, heating etc. infrastructure though? I really can't see any notable difference in those respects. :dunno:


----------



## earthJoker

Severiano said:


> I am the opposite of many people here. I can only live in a place that's hot and humid year round. Singapore has the best weather IMO, but I am not too big a fan of the country. Maybe Natal Brazil, is a good city. Large enough to have fun, but on the beach and relaxing.


I didn't experienced Natal to be very humid. And there is always a chilling wind. But of I have to I admit it was winter when I was there.


----------



## Federicoft

Fitzrovian said:


> Not to dig up an old fight, and I am glad to see there are some things we do agree on, but just the other day you opined that to compare Madrid with Paris or London "in whatever respect" is "out of touch with reality".
> 
> What happened, you changed your mind?


No, I meant relative to its size of course. 
London and Paris have larger networks, but they also are much larger.


----------



## snowland

Federicoft said:


> Madrid has probably the best and most comprehensive public transport system in the world.
> As regards healthcare, the Italian healtcare was ranked 2nd best in the world by the WHO in 2000, and the Spanish one 7th best, both above any Northern European country.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO's_ranking_of_healthcare_systems


OMG Now here Argentina ranked reeeeeeeally bad. hno::bash: Maybe cause it's from 2000, I don't think we have a bad healthcare system (of course, it's not great as in Spain or Italy).


----------



## LtBk

I think what hurts Rome is that it's hard to get things done do to inefficiency and/or massive bureaucracy of Italian society, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Federicoft

You're not.


----------



## Jonesy55

LtBk said:


> I think what hurts Rome is that it's hard to get things done do to inefficiency and/or massive bureaucracy of Italian society, but I could be wrong.


The central European / Scandi societies do tend to score much better there than Med Europe and that probably is a big factor for many people.

Med Europe has the potential to improve that though, while Finland will never improve its weather


----------



## Fitzrovian

Federicoft said:


> No, I meant relative to its size of course.
> London and Paris have larger networks, but they also are much larger.


So just so I am clear, to compare Madrid to London on Metros (Madrid's 291km/289 stations in 600 sq km vs. London's 402 km/270 stations in 1600 sq km) or on motorway networks is "_out of touch with reality_" unless accounting for the size difference.

Correct? Just want to make sure I am clear on your position 

PS: if anything I would think it would be "out of touch with reality" to compare them _*after*_ accounting for the size difference. Then it just gets ugly for London.


----------



## Sid Vicious

best place to live is Berlin, but it is fortunately still a secret!


----------



## Federicoft

Jonesy55 said:


> The central European / Scandi societies do tend to score much better there than Med Europe and that probably is a big factor for many people.
> 
> Med Europe has the potential to improve that though, while Finland will never improve its weather


Just wait for global warming to get its act together.


----------



## snowland

Jonesy55 said:


> The central European / Scandi societies do tend to score much better there than Med Europe and that probably is a big factor for many people.
> 
> Med Europe has the potential to improve that though, while Finland will never improve its weather


I wouldn't say Med Europe cause in Spain there is no bureaucracy.


----------



## LtBk

Federicoft said:


> You're not.


It seems Italy, along with Greece are the more inefficient countries in Southern Europe.


----------



## SkyBridge

Fitzrovian said:


> So: if you are poor, you wanna be in Scandinavia. If you are doing well, you want to be in Southern Europe (or pretty much anywhere else).
> 
> Can't disagree with that. Guess that explains why I prefer southern Europe (and Spain in particular) so much.


You're hate against Northern Europe is taking extreme forms. What happened in your past? :lol:

Your statements are a bit ignorant to be honest. Many countries in Northern Europe are known to be wellfare states. Think of Scandinavia but just as much The Netherlands for example. These tend to have a system for healthcare, housing, etc. that is made so that no single civilian falls into poverty. This has downsides too: in short, richer people have to pay for the poorer.

So stating that if you're poor you wanna be in Scandinavia is true to some extent. You get taken care of much better than in some Southern European countries. Stating that this is about the only reason to wanna live there is out of touch with reality imo.

Even with a high salary, there are many reasons with Northern Europe has more to offer. Economy and jobs are an important part but infrastructure and public transport are better overall, and I could go on.
I've got so many friends who tried to live in Spain (especially Barcelona) but simply couldn't find a decent job. This is a VERY serious downside to Spain.


----------



## snowland

LtBk said:


> It seems Italy, along with Greece is more inefficient of all Med Europe countries.


And Portugal.


----------



## snowland

SkyBridge said:


> You're hate against Northern Europe is taking extreme forms. What happened in your past? :lol:
> 
> Your statements are a bit ignorant to be honest. Many countries in Northern Europe are known to be wellfare states. Think of Scandinavia but just as much The Netherlands for example. These tend to have a system for healthcare, housing, etc. that is made so that no single civilian falls into poverty. This has downsides too: in short, richer people have to pay for the poorer.
> 
> So stating that if you're poor you wanna be in Scandinavia is true to some extent. You get taken care of much better than in some Southern European countries. Stating that this is about the only reason to wanna live there is out of touch with reality imo.
> 
> Even with a high salary, there are many reasons with Northern Europe has more to offer. Economy and jobs are an important part *but infrastructure and public transport are better overall*, and I could go on.
> I've got so many friends who tried to live in Spain (especially Barcelona) but simply couldn't find a decent job. This is a VERY serious downside to Spain.


You could say this for Portugal, Italy and Greece, but not for Spain or France.

Also it's a matter of time to Northern Europe start to suffer some effects of the crisis. That's unfortunately true. And it's already starting to affect Germany, for an example.


----------



## Metro007

Fitzrovian said:


> My point is that on the "objective" factors, which are reflected in the survey, your advantages are marginal at best (and even that is highly debatable). Whereas on the so called "subjective" factors, which are not accounted in the survey but are equally as important for most people, the gaps are as wide as from here to Antarctica.


Dear Friend,

That's the the same with every study. You always will find people trying to prove the opposite or don't belive at them. So what? Does that mean that every study is useless? Studies dont want to reflect what everybody is thinking but where the probability of people thinking same is the biggest.

To take your example of spanish cities: yes they are very nice and i personnally like them a lot: Barcelona has a great architecture and has a lot more nice things to offer. But once again you seem to pick up only some few things. Because there is a very important factor you forgot: The salary! Without having money you can't really enjoy the quality of life in Spain as it look like. My best friend for example will come back after having lived 10 years in Barcelona. He now has a son and can't earn enough money for his family! His salary is about 1500 Euros. So he just had enough not being able to earn enough money, although he has a university-diploma. And now he has found a new job in one of the countries listed often here. His salary is now 6000 Euros. And he explained to me how bad the situation with real estates in Spain was: a lot of people just can't pay their houses back anymore. And the country as a whole is not in a very good economic mood. That are factors that counts as well.

You seem to forget to compare the cities as a whole and not only a few indicators picked form where you want.

So what really would be useles is continuing to discuss that you would prefer this city to another one listed here for any reason. There is another thread for this.


----------



## Federicoft

snowland said:


> You could say this for Portugal, Italy and Greece, but not for Spain or France.


You can say this just as regards urban public transport.
When it comes to railways or motorways, they are pretty good here as well.


----------



## snowland

Yeah, that's true. ^^ My fault.

Like I said, it looks to be only a matter of time to this situation of no job, lower salaries start to happen also in Northern Europe.

Moreover, Metro007, have you considered that Switzerland is a lot more expensive than Spain?


----------



## Federicoft

SkyBridge said:


> Even with a high salary, there are many reasons with Northern Europe has more to offer. Economy and jobs are an important part but infrastructure and public transport are better overall, and I could go on.
> I've got so many friends who tried to live in Spain (especially Barcelona) but simply couldn't find a decent job. This is a VERY serious downside to Spain.


There are good, objective reasons that make Northern Europe more liveable than Southern Europe and viceversa. However at the end of the day everything is subjective, so as much as you think Northern Europe has "more to offer" to you, someone else can think Southern Europe has more to offer to him.


----------



## LtBk

I find it interesting that a country like Italy, despite sluggish growth, inefficient society(which I admit is subjective), and massive bureaucracy does a better job of building new infrastructure like HSR, motorways, and new metro lines than say the United States.


----------



## snowland

Yeah, it's a matter of priorities.

As I said, I actually think Scandinavia and Switzerland (maybe also The Netherlands) are a bit upscale, but Central Europe and Southern Europe look to be in a similar stage of development in general, excluding Portugal and Greece. Of course, now it's pretty different by the crisis, but it's a matter of time.


----------



## NordikNerd

Federicoft said:


> I very much agree with this. Life in Stockholm is quite probably more comfortable for less privileged people than in Rome, especially thanks to the extensive welfare system and more egalitarian society.
> What do you mean by water, electricity, heating etc. infrastructure though? I really can't see any notable difference in those respects. :dunno:


heating and isolation of houses are more extensive in Sweden, because of the climate.


----------



## Metro007

snowland said:


> Moreover, Metro007, have you considered that Switzerland is a lot more expensive than Spain?


Of course i did. The power of purchasing is much higher in northern countries or Switzerland as in Spain. In fact i've read that the highest power of purchasing was in Norway (not sure about that).


----------



## snowland

Metro007 said:


> Of course i did. The power of purchasing is much higher in northern countries or Switzerland as in Spain. In fact i've read that the highest power of purchasing was in Norway (not sure about that).


According to the GFK yup. But the Eurostat put the Scandinavian ones in the bottom...


----------



## Jonesy55

Fitzrovian said:


> So just so I am clear, to compare Madrid to London on Metros (Madrid's 291km/289 stations in 600 sq km vs. London's 402 km/270 stations in 1600 sq km) or on motorway networks is "out of touch with reality" unless accounting for the size difference.
> 
> Correct? Just want to make sure I am clear on your position
> 
> PS: if anything I would think it would be "out of touch with reality" to compare them after accounting for the size difference. Then it just gets ugly for London.


London does have an extensive commuter rail network in addition to the metro/underground though which in many areas of the city is the more important system.

No doubt that Madrid's is newer and shinier though!


----------



## Jonesy55

Metro007 said:


> Of course i did. The power of purchasing is much higher in northern countries or Switzerland as in Spain. In fact i've read that the highest power of purchasing was in Norway (not sure about that).


Yeah, median full-time gross salaries in Switzerland, Norway, Denmark are like $70,000-$90,000 a year while in Spain they are more like $30,000-$35,000 so they can afford higher prices.


----------



## LtBk

I wish DC had a better suburban rail network.


----------



## earthJoker

snowland said:


> According to the GFK yup. But the Eurostat put the Scandinavian ones in the bottom...


Switzerland is not comparable to Scandinavia, we have much lower taxes.


----------



## snowland

earthJoker said:


> Switzerland is not comparable to Scandinavia, we have much lower taxes.


That's true, but also an expensive country.


----------



## Fitzrovian

SkyBridge said:


> You're hate against Northern Europe is taking extreme forms. What happened in your past? :lol:


Hate? Wow... that's a strong word. I am disappointed SkyBridge, you seem like a really bright guy. 

I don't hate Northern Europe any more than I hate Canada or Scotland. When I was in Copenhagen this summer I thought the people were lovely and the town was very nice. 

What I've been trying to do is debunk this silly survey and the Northern European folks' apparent sense of superiority about their "quality of life". 

So far, I am sorry to say, your arguments don't hold much water. And to say that my hate for Northern Europe is "taking extreme forms" because I am not sold on your quality of life is a touch overly sensitive and insecure. 



SkyBridge said:


> Even with a high salary, there are many reasons with Northern Europe has more to offer. Economy and jobs are an important part
> 
> ....
> 
> I've got so many friends who tried to live in Spain (especially Barcelona) but simply couldn't find a decent job. This is a VERY serious downside to Spain.


This is the same point that Metro keeps bringing up, which I have already addressed.

The survey was supposed to poll people with roughly comparable status. Was it not? I mean we are not comparing bankers in Zurich with cleaning people in Barcelona, are we?

The survey is not of material "standard of living" but "quality of life". Otherwise, it would make even less sense, and the US cities should completely dominate it.



SkyBridge said:


> but infrastructure and public transport are better overall


Really? Are you trying to tell me that infrastructure in Copenhagen (ranked high) is better than Madrid and Barcelona (ranked low), even if we account for the size difference? Somehow I did not notice it on my last visit when I had to walk everywhere in the center of Copenhagen where the metro is virtually non-existent, whereas in Barcelona and Madrid I am never more than a few minutes from a metro stop. 



SkyBridge said:


> and I could go on.


Please go on! So far I haven't heard anything that convinced me except for the statement (from a Northern European, it seemed) that you are better off in Northern Europe if you are poor, but worse off if you are not. That I certainly agree with.

And please SkyBridge, don't make it personal.


----------



## earthJoker

snowland said:


> That's true, but also an expensive country.


We earn more, pay less taxes. So we can afford it. But I have to admit, for tourists it is a problem, at least with the current exchange rate of the Swiss franc.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Jonesy55 said:


> London does have an extensive commuter rail network in addition to the metro/underground though which in many areas of the city is the more important system.
> 
> No doubt that Madrid's is newer and shinier though!


Jonesy, I am well aware of that. And, as I am sure you know, Madrid also has an extensive suburban rail network (Cercanias), fully integrated with the Metro (though of course not as extensive as London's).

But no matter how you look at it, I am sure we can all agree that to say that it is "out of touch with reality" to compare the two is in fact out of touch with reality.

But we can let old dogs lie


----------



## Sid Vicious

and who payed for all the new infrastructure in spain? right answer is: Germany!!


----------



## PadArch

these studies DO take into account how good the living conditions are on average. therefore people living in poverty/not affects the study. if you want a study about which city is the best to live in if you are rich- that would be a different study... but a rather meaningless one, since if you are well off you can live pretty well wherever you go, and finally you can choose. who cares about public mass transport if you can ride taxis everywhere?


----------



## PadArch

Sid Vicious said:


> and who payed for all the new infrastructure in spain? right answer is: Germany!!


yea germany just pays for everything everywhere in europe. and no other country contributes anything. germany is so great and godly. :lol:


----------



## snowland

Sid Vicious said:


> and who payed for all the new infrastructure in spain? right answer is: Germany!!


:nuts:


----------



## Sid Vicious

PadArch said:


> yea germany just pays for everything everywhere in europe. and no other country contributes anything. germany is so great and godly. :lol:


nearly!


----------



## snowland

Tell me you aren't german. :shifty:


----------



## Sid Vicious

I am a Berliner!


----------



## Federicoft

You should thank Bavaria, Hesse and NRW which pay for your infrastructures, then! :troll:


----------



## Metro007

Fitzrovian said:


> The survey was supposed to poll people with roughly comparable status. Was it not? I mean we are not comparing bankers in Zurich with cleaning people in Barcelona, are we?
> 
> The survey is not of material "standard of living" but "quality of life". Otherwise, it would make even less sense, and the US cities should completely dominate it.


I was talking about the same person with the same status. He could afford much more before he went to Spain. Then in Spain he just had 1'500 Euros (and that was his last salary after 10 years of "career" in Spain). Now he earns again about 6'000 Euros monthly.

The salary (and so the power of purchase) has a big impact on how people feel, although it is not the most important criteria for everyone. But it's for sure one of the most important factors.

For older people who doesn't have to work anymore i am sure that countries like Spain or some asian countries offers a greater quality of life than for example Switzerland because they can do much more with their earned money. And it's propbably easier to meet new people there and they must be more "relax". And there is more sun.

So are you happy now? Or still jealous about the good rankings of a few european cities?


----------



## Sid Vicious

Federicoft said:


> You should thank Bavaria, Hesse and NRW which pay for your infrastructures, then! :troll:


lol, but you are right.


----------



## SkyBridge

@ Fitz

Wow. Talking about overly senstive. Was the use of language in that first sentence not a dead give away that I was joking? If not, the added smiley should've done the trick.

Yes, public transport in the mentioned cities is very good. But what about outside these cities? I think the discussion is no longer about cities but entire countries and the comparison.


----------



## Federicoft

SkyBridge said:


> But what about outside these cities? I think the discussion is no longer about cities but entire countries and the comparison.


Generally better in Spain than in most of Northern Europe. Especially Scandinavia has slow and quite sparse railways.


----------



## Fitzrovian

SkyBridge said:


> @ Fitz
> 
> Wow. Talking about overly senstive. Was the use of language in that first sentence not a dead give away that I was joking? If not, the added smiley should've done the trick.
> 
> Yes, public transport in the mentioned cities is very good. But what about outside these cities? I think the discussion is no longer about cities but entire countries and the comparison.


 
Hey, sorry! My bad if I misread it. That's why I was so surprised -- didn't expect it from you. 

A lot of people are jumping at me, and sometimes it's hard to tell who is joking and who isn't. I do hope people manage to keep some sense of humor about this (earthJoker, are you listening?). This is all in good fun.

I'll reply to some of the points made a little later. But I would like to stick to cities as that's what the survey is about.

Cheers,


----------



## earthJoker

Federicoft said:


> Generally better in Spain than in most of Northern Europe. Especially Scandinavia has slow and quite sparse railways.


Scandinavia is also very sparsely populated. What I was really disappointed from, was the public transportation in Denmark. Totally below my expectations (at least outside of Copenhagen).


----------



## Fitzrovian

Federicoft said:


> Generally better in Spain than in most of Northern Europe. Especially Scandinavia has slow and quite sparse railways.


 
I think that's correct. I am sure everyone is aware that Spain now has the most extensive high speed rail network in Europe (and it's still growing!).


----------



## Dr_Cosmo

Federicoft said:


> You should thank Bavaria, Hesse and NRW which pay for your infrastructures, then! :troll:


Its the other way around.

The provinces of Germany, can be grateful to contribute to the holy capital named Berlin.....


----------



## snowland

Metro007 said:


> I was talking about the same person with the same status. He could afford much more before he went to Spain. Then in Spain he just had 1'500 Euros (and that was his last salary after 10 years of "career" in Spain). Now he earns again about 6'000 Euros monthly.
> 
> The salary (and so the power of purchase) has a big impact on how people feel, although it is not the most imortant criteria for everyone. But it's for sure one of the most important factors.
> 
> For older people who doesn't have to work anymore i am sure that countries like Spain or some asian countries offers a greater quality of life than for example Switzerland because they can do much more with their earned money. And it's propbably easier to meet new people there and they must be more "relax". And there is more sun.
> 
> So are you happy now? Or still jealous about the good rankings of a few european cities?


Ok... With 1500 euros in Barcelona you can afford pratically the same that you can with 6000 in Zurich. kay:

Also it's only an example. Now the job conditions decayed in Spain. However, before the crisis, the majority of Spaniards earned as good wages as in Italy, France, Germany, the UK, etc.


----------



## earthJoker

Of course


----------



## Metro007

snowland said:


> Ok... With 1500 euros in Barcelona you can afford pratically the same that you can with 6000 in Zurich. kay:


Dream on...



snowland said:


> Also it's only an example. Now the job conditions decayed in Spain, but before the majority of Spaniards earned as good wages as in Italy, France, Germany, the UK, etc.


OK and so what? We are talking about an actual ranking, aren't we? Or do you perhaps prefer to compare the cities during the last century? :nuts:


----------



## Sid Vicious

Dr_Cosmo said:


> Its the other way around.
> 
> The provinces of Germany, can be grateful to contribute to the holy capital named Berlin.....


yep! Berlin has to be the shining star of europe again!


----------



## snowland

Metro007 said:


> Dream on...
> 
> 
> 
> OK and so what? We are talking about an actual ranking, aren't we? Or do you perhaps prefer to compare the cities during the last century? :nuts:


The job conditions decayed in the majority of the countries. If Switzerland escaped (of course, because it's not in the Euro Zone), let's pray not to be the next one.


----------



## snowland

Metro007 said:


> Dream on...
> 
> 
> 
> OK and so what? We are talking about an actual ranking, aren't we? Or do you perhaps prefer to compare the cities during the last century? :nuts:


Cost of living in Zurich (Switzerland) is 81% more expensive than in Barcelona (Spain).

For example, you would need at least €6,534 (CHF 8,014) in Zurich to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with €3,600 in Barcelona.

http://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/barcelona/zurich?


----------



## Jonesy55

Average wages are much more than 81% higher in Switzerland though. Spain does have quite low wages even compared to prices and also high unemployment compared to most of western/northern Europe.


----------



## NordikNerd

Fitzrovian said:


> I think that's correct. I am sure everyone is aware that Spain now has the most extensive high speed rail network in Europe (and it's still growing!).


Spain - most extensive high speed rail network ? 

Really, don't think so. The France TGV--network is more exstensive and with higher speed.




I travelled both Paris-Montpellier & Paris-Mannheim. The Montpellier line was the fastest +350km/h. ^^





The DB ICE from Paris to Mannheim almost reached 330km/h.^^




^^Also travelled the RENFE Talgo to Barcelona from Beziers , that was a completely different story.


----------



## Jonesy55

snowland said:


> Also it's only an example. Now the job conditions decayed in Spain. However, before the crisis, the majority of Spaniards earned as good wages as in Italy, France, Germany, the UK, etc.


No, the wages were never as good there, wages haven't really declined in Spain its just that unemployment is now much higher.


----------



## Jonesy55

NordikNerd said:


> Spain - most extensive high speed rail network ?
> 
> Really, don't think so. The France TGV--network is more exstensive and with higher speed.
> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhft8Jk91Ig">YouTube Link</a>
> I travelled both Paris-Montpellier & Paris-Mannheim. The Montpellier line was the fastest +350km/h. ^^
> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2CVOBKr8No">YouTube Link</a>
> 
> The DB ICE from Paris to Mannheim almost reached 330km/h.^^
> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8nHD05Np_k">YouTube Link</a>
> ^^Also travelled the RENFE Talgo to Barcelona from Beziers , that was a completely different story.


But the Talgo isn't HSR so not a fair comparison.


----------



## earthJoker

snowland said:


> Ok... With 1500 euros in Barcelona you can afford pratically the same that you can with 6000 in Zurich. kay:





snowland said:


> Cost of living in Zurich (Switzerland) is 81% more expensive than in Barcelona (Spain).
> 
> For example, you would need at least €6,534 (CHF 8,014) in Zurich to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with €3,600 in Barcelona.
> 
> http://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/barcelona/zurich?


So with your 80% if you earn €1500 * 1.8 *1.22 = CHF 3294. That's almost the half of the 6000 you said earlier.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Jonesy55 said:


> But the Talgo isn't HSR so not a fair comparison.


 
Hahahaha... Sorry Jonesy, I couldn't hold it. :lol:

NordkiNerd: you ever heard of AVE? Look it up.


----------



## snowland

Jonesy55 said:


> No, the wages were never as good there, wages haven't really declined in Spain its just that unemployment is now much higher.


And yes, wages were as good there. You earned lower, but you could afford in the same level.

Wages declined and the unemployment exploted.

I agree Switzerland is more developed than Spain and there you tend to have a more comfortable life. What I can't handle is that Southern Europe bashing down scene.


----------



## Fitzrovian

earthJoker said:


> So with your 80% if you earn €1500 * 1.8 *1.22 = CHF 3294. That's almost the half of the 6000 you said earlier.


 
I am glad we have two pages of discussion to show that one person's experience proves that Zurich has a higher quality of life.

Okay, case closed!


----------



## Jonesy55

Fitzrovian said:


> Hahahaha... Sorry Jonesy, I couldn't hold it. :lol:


Ok Mr Pisstaker, my bad, I'm used to Spanish HSR services being known as AVE while Talgo also refers to older generation conventional trains in Spain.

If he is referring to the latest generation HSR Talgo though then I guess the comparison with French and German services is valid.


----------



## Jonesy55

snowland said:


> And yes, wages were as good there. You earned lower, but you could afford in the same level.
> 
> Wages declined and the unemployment exploted.
> 
> I agree Switzerland is more developed than Spain and there you tend to have a more comfortable life. What I can't handle is that Southern Europe bashing down scene.


No, the lower prices were not ever enough to compensate for lower wages when comparing to Switzerland, Norway etc or even the richer parts of Germany, France, UK.


----------



## snowland

Jonesy55 said:


> No, the lower prices were not ever enough to compensate for lower wages when comparing to Switzerland, Norway etc or even the richer parts of Germany, France, UK.


I've never said you could afford THE SAME in Switzerland/Norway and Spain. Those countries are much more developed (yet I think they aren't better in everything just like some guys want to show here). But I don't agree to compare the country Spain to the richer parts of Germany, France, UK...


----------



## snowland

Spain does have the largest railroad network in Europe :yes:












> SPAIN will overtake France as Europe’s high-speed rail superpower following the looming launch of the Madrid-Valencia AVE line.
> 
> The line, due to open on December 18, will increase Spain’s high-speed network to 2,000 kilometres, putting it behind only China and Japan globally.
> 
> France has 1,900 kilometres and Germany 1,300. UK is well behind with a petty 108 kilometres.
> 
> According to consultancy Accenture the six billion euro Madrid-Valencia line will create 136,000 jobs.
> Critics, however, are saying the project’s cost is unjustified in the current economic climate.
> 
> From 2012 Andalucian residents will be able to travel on AVE all the way to France and onwards across Europe but plans to extend the network to Portugal have been shelved.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Jonesy55 said:


> Ok Mr Pisstaker, my bad, I'm used to Spanish HSR services being known as AVE while Talgo also refers to older generation conventional trains in Spain.
> 
> If he is referring to the latest generation HSR Talgo though then I guess the comparison with French and German services is valid.


There is no latest generation HSR from Bezier to Barcelona. Comparing TGV Mediteranee to an old Talgo service to showcase the superiority of French high speed rail is like comparing a brand new Cadillac to a 1960s Beatle to prove that American cars are better than German.

:lol:


----------



## NordikNerd

Fitzrovian said:


> Hahahaha... Sorry Jonesy, I couldn't hold it. :lol:
> 
> NordkiNerd: you ever heard of AVE? Look it up.


AVE yes but you can not enter Spain with those type of trains. 

Both TGV & ICE of France & Germany are connected to eachother and integrated to the rest of Europe, which make those networks more useful.

For travel to Barcelona from France you have to use the old TALGO-trains. Took about 5 hours :nuts: to reach Barcelona from nearby Beziers. (200km) 

You could get there faster by car !! Spain is still behind the railway system of "core Europe"


----------



## snowland

NordikNerd said:


> AVE yes but you can not enter Spain with those type of trains.
> 
> Both TGV & ICE of France & Germany are connected to eachother and integrated to the rest of Europe, which make those networks more useful.
> 
> For travel to Barcelona from France you have to use the old TALGO-trains. Took about 5 hours :nuts: to reach Barcelona from nearby Beziers. (200km)
> 
> You could get there faster by car !! Spain is still behind the railway system of "core Europe"


Ok, so keep thinking that "core Europe" has better railroad network and then Spain will catch up and surpass it soon.



> From 2012 Andalucian residents will be able to travel on AVE all the way to France and onwards across Europe


Not from Barcelona, but from Andalucia! And believe me that things really happen in Spain and quickly.


----------



## Fitzrovian

NordikNerd said:


> AVE yes but you can not enter Spain with those type of trains.


Oh so the fact that you can't "enter" Spain by high speed rail (which btw will soon change) proves that German and French trains are better. I see.

My initial statement was that Spain has the most extensive high speed rail network in Europe. And you debunked it by showing youtube videos of TGV? 

Poor effort.


----------



## SkyBridge

Excuse me people but WTF has the HSR-network to do with good public transport? Public transport is important on a MUCH smaller scale. High speed networks are hardly used by people on daily basis due to prices and distances.


----------



## snowland

SkyBridge said:


> Excuse me people but WTF has the HSR-network to do with good public transport? Public transport is important on a MUCH smaller scale. High speed networks are hardly used by people on daily basis due to prices and distances.


And that's where Spain wins. They have great public transportation systems all over the country.


----------



## PadArch

snowland said:


> Yes, unemplyoment is a big trouble in Spain, but please do not think that 21.5% of the population is not earning money and working.
> 
> And Spain had, according to this survey, 13% of its population living below the poverty line (I remember to read this), like Australia and the US. This is the double of Sweden, with 6.5%, but not a bad statistic indeed.


show me the evidence then? i can back my figures up - can you?

LOL you admit yourself its double sweden and then you wonder why sweden ranks higher on quality of life? my figures make it more like 3x higher than sweden.


----------



## Jonesy55

Fitzrovian said:


> Now I ask, does that sound like someone who is rich? (And this is a person who is high income in Norway!) Or does that sound like someone who likes the security of their nanny welfare state, but can barely afford "luxuries" like dining out that people in other countries take for granted?


It's impossible to really comment on anonymous anecdotes but as average income in Norway is $6,000 a month gross let's day this guy is on $7,500 gross as he's a high earner. After tax even at Scandi rates that's going to be $4,000 net.

If the guy can't afford the odd $60 to take his wife out for a meal despite having no medical or educational expenses, no need for private unemployment insurance or pension savings etc then maybe he's just a tight-ass :laugh:


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> But they don't - because US cities have more ghettos, higher unemployment, less social mobility, less social integration, etc etc etc


You are talking about people on the margins. I am talking about an _average person._

Isn't that what SkyBridge and Metro have been telling us the survey is supposed to measure? Where an average person (or the "majority") is likely to find better quality of life?

I can assure you my friend, that by most metrics of "standard of living" (_*not*_ "quality of life") an average person in the US will blow your average Dane/Norwegian/Swede out of the water. It's not even a discussion worth having.


----------



## snowland

PadArch said:


> show me the evidence then? i can back my figures up - can you?
> 
> LOL you admit yourself its double sweden and then you wonder why sweden ranks higher on quality of life? my figures make it more like 3x higher than sweden.


Look at this my friend.


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> But they don't - because US cities have more ghettos, higher unemployment, _*less social mobility, less social integration*_, etc etc etc


I intentionally highlighted two of the things you mentioned. You are about to completely lose your credibility. Are you serious?

You want to tell me that your precious Sweden has more "social mobility" and "social integration" than the US? 

Please think about what you are saying.


----------



## PadArch

snowland said:


> Look at this my friend.


what exactly am i supposed to be understanding here... we were talking about unemployment rates and % living below poverty line. you disputed my figures.. can you back it up?


----------



## Jonesy55

snowland said:


> What would you guys think about this?
> 
> (2008)


Yes, Scandinavians do pay a lot of taxes, but even then their post tax incomes adjusted for prices are generally higher than southern Europe. Looking at Austria, Southern Germany (Switzerland too though it isn't noted here) that region has the highest level, with only the basque region in Spain competing.

And that region is very expensive compared to the rest of Spain. Check out apartment prices in Vitoria-Gasteiz or San Sebastian.


----------



## PadArch

Fitzrovian said:


> I intentionally highlighted two of the things you mentioned. You are about to completely lose your credibility. Are you frickin serious???
> 
> You want to tell me that your precious Sweden has more "social mobility" and "social integration" than the US?
> 
> Please think about what you are saying.


mate, you lost your credibility in this debate a long time ago.

I'll let the london school of economics do the talking for me:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/mobi-m25.shtml

^^ "Even so, the US has the worst record for social mobility. As the authors point out, although the notion that the US is “the land of opportunity” still persists, such a belief is misplaced."

another article (which clearly shows that sweden has better social mobility than USA):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility#

wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility
"Research on American mobility published in 2006 and based on collecting data on the economic mobility of families across generations looked at the probability of reaching a particular income-distribution with regard to where their parents were ranked. The study found that 42 percent of those whose parents were in the bottom quintile ended up in the bottom quintile themselves, 23 percent of them ended in the second quintile, 19 percent in the middle quintile, 11 percent in the fourth quintile and 6 percent in the top quintile.[6] These data indicate the difficulty of upward intergenerational mobility. There is more intergenerational mobility in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada than in th U.S. In fact, of affluent countries studied, only Britain and Italy have lower intergenerational mobility than the United States does (and they are basically even with the U.S.) We know less about the long-term mobility of the top 1 percent, but all indications are that people in this rarefied group usually don’t drop very far down the ladder.[7]."

your social mobility in the US is a myth mate. don't lose sleep over it.


----------



## snowland

I'm just proving you that Sweden is not above Spain in disposable household income... That means that Spaniards and Swedes can afford at the same level.


----------



## Jonesy55

Fitzrovian said:


> I intentionally highlighted two of the things you mentioned. You are about to completely lose your credibility. Are you serious?
> 
> You want to tell me that your precious Sweden has more "social mobility" and "social integration" than the US?
> 
> Please think about what you are saying.


There are several studies showing social mobility to be higher in Scandinavia or Germany (or Canada) than in the US, that's no great shock.


----------



## Fitzrovian

snowland said:


> I'm just proving you that Sweden is not above Spain in disposable household income... That means that Spaniards and Swedes can afford at the same level.


 
Snowland, they are just incapable of acknowledging reality. That's okay, I'll post more good stuff later.


----------



## snowland

Jonesy55 said:


> Yes, Scandinavians do pay a lot of taxes, but even then their post tax incomes adjusted for prices are generally higher than southern Europe. Looking at Austria, Southern Germany (Switzerland too though it isn't noted here) that region has the highest level, with only the basque region in Spain competing.
> 
> And that region is very expensive compared to the rest of Spain. Check out apartment prices in Vitoria-Gasteiz or San Sebastian.


Austria, Switzerland and Southern Germany conform the richest region in Europe.

And that list is adjusted to the prices. Basque and Navarre people earn more than Andalucian. The prices are higher, but still they can afford much more than people in Scandinavia or Southern Spain/Italy.


----------



## Jonesy55

snowland said:


> I'm just proving you that Sweden is not above Spain in disposable household income... That means that Spaniards and Swedes can afford at the same level.


Yes, although the higher taxes in Sweden don't just disappear, they pay for stuff which then doesn't have to be paid for privately.


----------



## Jonesy55

snowland said:


> Austria, Switzerland and Southern Germany conform the richest region in Europe.
> 
> And that list is adjusted to the prices. Basque and Navarre people earn more than Andalucian. The prices are higher, but still they can afford much more than people in Scandinavia or Southern Spain/Italy.


Actually it is adjusted for prices on a national level, but not regional. So all Spanish regions are adjusted for the average Spanish prices, all Swedish regions are adjusted for the Swedish average etc.

Eurostat have looked into regional adjustments but have decided it would be too complex for the moment.

If/when they do that you would expect regions like Madrid, Basque region, Paris, Provence, London etc to fall with rural regions and cheap cities rising.


----------



## earthJoker

Fitzrovian said:


> Snowland, they are just incapable of acknowledging reality. That's okay, I'll post more good stuff later.


Even more good stuff. We can't wait. :nuts:


----------



## snowland

I didn't know that. Thanks for clarifying it, Jonesy.



Let me guess... Good stuff is only that in which Scandinavia scores the top?


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> mate, you lost your credibility in this debate a long time ago.


Well at least I don't go back to edit my old posts after I am proven wrong. Eh mate? 



PadArch said:


> I'll let the london school of economics do the talking for me:
> 
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/mobi-m25.shtml
> 
> ...
> 
> your social mobility in the US is a myth mate. don't lose sleep over it.


I don't need the London School of Economics to tell me things I know myself. I've lived in this country and traveled the world and see things with my own eyes.

In this country we absorb millions upon millions of immigrants. Most of them come with nothing and make something out of themselves. They integrate, move up in the world, buy nice houses, and are respected in their communities as full fledging citizens.

In Scandinavia, as in most of Europe, people from third world countries are marginalized as second class citizens (perhaps not overtly anymore, but nevertheless), many jump on welfare rolls and settle in immigrant ghettos. There is no social integration in any meaningful sense for the majority (of course there are always exceptional cases).

Or am I wrong? 

All the statements from Merkel and Cameron about the immigration problem in Europe is BS? PadArch, our expert, knows better? 

Are you really trying to tell me that immigrants integrate and move upwards better in Scandinavia than the US? Then I wonder why they all keep coming here in droves (despite the financial crisis).

The only segment of the population that is still largely on the margins in the US are blacks... But I still don't see them clamoring to move to Scandinavia.


----------



## Fitzrovian

PS. I am not really interested in discussing social mobility and integration on this thread because it's not a productive debate and it has only a tangential connection with what we are discussing - quality of life for the _majority_. It's just another bogus and amorphous advantage that Scandinavians like to drum up to prove their great "quality of life".


----------



## Jonesy55

Integration of immigrants and overall social mobility are related but not the same thing.

The fact is that if your parents were in the bottom 25% of the income distribution then you are far more likely to also be in that bottom 25% in the US, or UK, or Italy than in Sweden, Germany or Canada. Likewise for the top 25%.

If the migrants you get have plenty of social and educational capital to bring with them they have a better chance of moving up the scale even if they had little financial capital on arrival. Scandinavian immigration is heavily biased towards asylum seekers and refugees rather than professionals picked for their skills so it is somewhat understandable that they don't move up the ladder as quickly.

The most comparable group in the US would be illegal Hispanic migrants who do usually come bottom of the pile in income.


----------



## PadArch

Immigration to USA in 2010 was 1,042,625
Immigration to Swden in 2009 was 102,280

per capita that amounts to:
USA: 0.0033
Sweden: 0.011

sorry which country is receiving more immigrants recently?

Fitz, i have to say, you are grasping at straws, and your arguments are becoming farcical. almost everything you say is factually incorrect, which goes to show that impressions of a tourist do not equate to fact.

you say thingss like "that scandinavians drum up to prove their great "quality of life" "

er... who here, except for bricks is scandinavian exactly? i'm certainly not... and neither are the people who commissioned this study, or the people who actually made the study.. neither is the london school of economics scandinavian.. so exactly which scandinavians (mr bricks aside) are drumming anything up? this also flies in the face of all the studies which suggest that scandinavians are the happiest people in the world. are you suggesting that they are deluded and would quickly realise how unhappy they were if they moved to the US or Spain?


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> Immigration to USA in 2010 was 1,042,625
> Immigration to Swden in 2009 was 102,280
> 
> per capita that amounts to:
> USA: 0.0033
> Sweden: 0.011
> 
> sorry which country is receiving more immigrants recently?
> 
> Fitz, i have to say, you are grasping at straws, and your arguments are becoming farcical. almost everything you say is factually incorrect, which goes to show that impressions of a tourist do not equate to fact.
> 
> you say thingss like "that scandinavians drum up to prove their great "quality of life" "
> 
> er... who here, except for bricks is scandinavian exactly? i'm certainly not... and neither are the people who commissioned this study, or the people who actually made the study.. neither is the london school of economics scandinavian.. so exactly which scandinavians (mr bricks aside) are drumming anything up? this also flies in the face of all the studies which suggest that scandinavians are the happiest people in the world. are you suggesting that they are deluded and would quickly realise how unhappy they were if they moved to the US or Spain?


My dear PadArch,

I never said that the US receives more immigrants per capita than Sweden. In fact, I am not surprised that Sweden's numbers are so high. No wonder, when it's a nanny welfare state extending lifetime benefits from cradle to the grave. People who come to the US want to work, and become rich (or at least well off). People who come to Sweden want to be taken care of and be "safe". That's the difference. In no way does that prove that you have greater social mobility or integration.

As far as the happiness surveys, yes they are there. But isn't that what we are discussing? What makes you happy is not the same as what makes me happy. And my point all along has been that the vision of "quality of life" propogated by this survey is not one that most people would find credible.


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> 2) its not about a "we are rich, you are not" element.. its about people having for example, security in their job. choice of careers. degree of self-determination. it's a well known fact that having pots and pots of cash and eating at restaurants won't make you any happier. _*What makes people happy is a lack of stress, doing a job they enjoy, being able to rise in the morning without having to worry about feeding their family*_.


Again that's exactly what the Communist regime was telling its people in the Soviet Union (and other eastern blcok nations) to make them think that, while they were materially poor, they had better "quality of life".

Each one of the things you mentioned in bold could be said about 99% of the people in USSR. Guaranteed employment, free and very good education, free healthcare, no problem with food (despite false western propoganda).

See what I am saying? Of course life in Scandinavia is light years better, but the argument is essentially the same. 

So maybe the commies had it right all along?


----------



## PadArch

To your first point (sweden is a nanny state and people don't go there to work): if thats the case then why do a higher % participate in labour force:

USA participation = 49.5%
Sweden participation = 52.4%

To your second point: now you are comparing contemporary Sweden to Socialist USSR? LOL! Yes the swedes are all sooo brainwashed.. while US citizens aren't brainwashed at all - right?


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> To your first point: if thats the case then why do a higher % participate in labour force:
> 
> USA participation = 49.5%
> Sweden participation = 52.4%
> 
> To your second point: now you are comparing contemporary Sweden to Socialist USSR? LOL! Yes the swedes are all sooo brainwashed.. while US citizens aren't brainwashed at all - right?


 
I am not comparing the countries but the arguments. Same arguments you are using to convince me that Sweden has a better quality of life were the arguments used by Fidel Castro to convince his people they were living better than Americans.


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> while US citizens aren't brainwashed at all - right?


Well that's not true either... but that's a different issue altogether.


----------



## royal rose1

...


----------



## Jonesy55

Of course working long hours is a sign of high development :nuts:

Surely the aim should be that while there are jobs for everybody who wants to work, people don't have to work long hours with few holidays to secure an adequate material standard of living. :dunno:


----------



## PadArch

^^
I'd agree with that.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> Again that's exactly what the Communist regime was telling its people in the Soviet Union (and other eastern blcok nations) to make them think that, while they were materially poor, they had better "quality of life".
> 
> Each one of the things you mentioned in bold could be said about 99% of the people in USSR. Guaranteed employment, free and very good education, free healthcare, no problem with food (despite false western propoganda).


Here you go with the USSR again. This is starting to feel like a version of Goodwin's Law. 

"Let's compare their arguments with those of a horrible communist regime and they'll have not choice but to agree with me or look like communists themselves!"

On the whole "majority"/average person issue, the fact that Scandinavia does better statistically in so many aspects is _because_ it manages to provide good outcomes for the _majority_ of people. The average person (someone who statistically falls in the largest social group) is therefor more likely to benefit from that good outcome Scandinavia than in many other places. You can't separate high statistical results from "the average person".


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> I'm perfectly willing to admit that we of course aren't the best at everything. But Scandinavia is certainly not the brainwashed socialist dystopia of snow, darkness and dead cities that you suggested.


 
Adde, mate in no way am I trying to suggest that life in Scandinavia is bad. I know you guys live well. Very well in fact. I don't see things in black and white, even though some partisans here like Metro and PadArch want to paint me that way, losing the point of the debate in the process.

What I am saying however -- for the umpteenth time -- is that I see no evidence whatsoever that "quality of life" in Zurich and Copenhagen is better than in Valencia or Lisbon (for example) *for MOST comparably situated individuals*. Isn't that what the survey was supposed to measure? 

We need to compare apples to apples. Go compare lawyers... or teachers... or waiters. See how they live. What they can afford. How they spend their leisure time. Go ahead and look at public transportation and healthcare and education... etc etc etc. We've already done some of this, and I think you see that on many "objective" factors the differences are small or none at all. But things like purchasing power rankings and other amorphous concepts like "social integration" and "equality" that Scandinavians like to parade so much frankly are irrelevant for most people that fall in the middle of the social and economic scale, and certainly pale for most in importance compared to the "subjective" factors.

In fact I thought someone from Scandinavia has already acknowledged that if you are middle class or up you would likely be as well off or better in southern Europe? The only people who clearly come out better in Scandinavia are the lower class. That sounds about right to me.

So perhaps the survey should be renamed to "Quality of Life Ranking (if you are poor)". Then I would certainly have no problem with it.


----------



## earthJoker

Fitzrovian said:


> Again that's exactly what the Communist regime was telling its people in the Soviet Union (and other eastern blcok nations) to make them think that, while they were materially poor, they had better "quality of life".
> 
> Each one of the things you mentioned in bold could be said about 99% of the people in USSR. Guaranteed employment, free and very good education, free healthcare, no problem with food (despite false western propoganda).
> 
> See what I am saying? Of course life in Scandinavia is light years better, but the argument is essentially the same.
> 
> So maybe the commies had it right all along?


----------



## Sarcasticity

All these cvc is annoying. This thread has deviated from the topic at hand.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> What I am saying however -- for the umpteenth time -- is that I see no evidence whatsoever that "quality of life" in Zurich and Copenhagen is better than in Valencia or Lisbon (for example) *for MOST comparably situated individuals*. Isn't that what the survey was supposed to measure?
> 
> ...
> 
> In fact I thought someone from Scandinavia has already acknowledged that if you are middle class or up you would likely be as well off or better in southern Europe? The only people who clearly come out better in Scandinavia are the lower class. That sounds about right to me.
> 
> So perhaps the survey should be renamed to "Quality of Life Ranking (if you are poor)". Then I would certainly have no problem with it.


No, these studies are not supposed to compare quality of life for people of comparable situations - lawyers to lawyers for instance. They compare total quality of life, for all inhabitants in all social classes. That's why cities without a lot of poverty consistently do better in such surveys, than cities that might have large concentrations of wealth but also large concentrations of poverty. 

And it was me who you thought acknowledged that "if your middle class or up you would likely be as well off or better in southern Europe", but you misinterpreted what I said. 

I corrected that in another post but maybe you missed it. What I said was that if you're well off then for instance Rome is great, sure, but if you're less well off then it's not so great. But that doesn't mean being rich in Stockholm or Oslo isn't just as good as being rich in Rome, and being "less well off" is not the same as "poor".

But I think this comes down to a fundamental difference of ideology. You seem to believe that as long as outcomes are the same for rich people in two cities, then they are equal (or the one with sunnier weather wins). The survey, and most people posting here, believe that it's the quality of life of all citizens, not just the well off, that should determine a city's ranking. 

And again, I don't think Rome or Spain are awful cities. I love Rome, have lived there myself. In the grand scheme of things we are talking about relatively minor differences.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> No, these studies are not supposed to compare quality of life for people of comparable situations - lawyers to lawyers for instance. They compare total quality of life, for all inhabitants in all social classes. That's why cities without a lot of poverty consistently do better in such surveys, than cities that might have large concentrations of wealth but also large concentrations of poverty.
> 
> And it was me who you thought acknowledged that "if your middle class or up you would likely be as well off or better in southern Europe", but you misinterpreted what I said.
> 
> I corrected that in another post but maybe you missed it. What I said was that if you're well off then for instance Rome is great, sure, but if you're less well off then it's not so great. But that doesn't mean being rich in Stockholm or Oslo isn't just as good as being rich in Rome, and being "less well off" is not the same as "poor".
> 
> But I think this comes down to a fundamental difference of ideology. You seem to believe that as long as outcomes are the same for rich people in two cities, then they are equal (or the one with sunnier weather wins). The survey, and most people posting here, believe that it's the quality of life of all citizens, not just the well off, that should determine a city's ranking.
> 
> And again, I don't think Rome or Spain are awful cities. I love Rome, have lived there myself. In the grand scheme of things we are talking about relatively minor differences.


Good post. But I think you are just proving my point then. Which is that the survey is worthless for predicting an outcome for any given individual (what I have previously described as a "hypothetical random person") on where they will have a better "quality of life". The way you've framed it, whatever country/city that has the least amount of poor people, probably wins.

If the criteria is aggregate quality of life for everybody in the society then the ranking may very well be right. I am not clear how they would measure that, and I am even less clear how a survey of _expats _can produce that kind of assessment, but if that's what it measures I have no problem with it. I still think, however, that it's meaningless for predicting the outcome for any given individual (unless he is poor) or assessing the quality of life even with respect to the _*majority*_ of people (to SkyBridge's point).


----------



## Metro007

Fitzrovian said:


> Seriously guys, are we still debating this?? I thought we had reached a consensus that, overall, Spain easily has the best combination of public transportation and infrastracture in Europe:


:colgate:


----------



## Metro007

Fitzrovian said:


> So the fact that the Swiss don't have any viable alternatives to train travel and therefore use nothing but trains all the time proves that Switzerland has a good quality of life but the fact that it takes almost 3 hours to travel 290 km from Zurich to Geneva _does not _affect their quality of life? I guess the Swiss just like to be stuck on trains... :lol:


It's true that there isn't any High Speed train in Switzerland. But i don't think this is a fact that affects a lot the quality of life, since Switzerland offers a very dense railway network with trains every 60 min, 30 min or 15 minutes (in some directions). That means the train-network works almost like the one in a big urban area. Another reason is that Switzerland is too small for a high-speed train. And, if you want, you CAN get the plane from Zurich to Geneva for example. It's up to you. But think a little bit... Why do you think people prefer the train than the plane for covering such small distances? Any idea? ;-)


----------



## Metro007

Fitzrovian said:


> We have already established that Spanish cities (as just an example) have as good or better public transportation as Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries.
> 
> We have also established that Spain and Italy (among others) have as good or better healthcare systems as Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Now I ask, does that sound like someone who is rich? (And this is a person who is high income in Norway!) Or does that sound like someone who likes the security of their nanny welfare state, but can barely afford "luxuries" like dining out that people in other countries take for granted?


First, we have NOT established this. You are the ONE who believes this.

And about your question in the second part of your thread i can mention you a few friends i have and who also complains that life is too expensive in Switzerland. They don't go often in restaurants and just want to spend as less money as possible. And they have about the same income as me. And you know what? That's their descision to live like this because they prefer to save about 2000 Euros every month. Some of this friends (in their early 30s) have over 100'000 Euros in the bank! And me not because i prefer to go out and enjoy the life. So it has nothing to do with the fact that they can't live like this but with the fact the they don't want it. So i think it's the same with these people you were talking about.

p.s. thanks for your compliment about my english ;-)


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> yup. norwegians for example, are basically the richest people in the world.


PadArch -

This is just for you. Yeah, another "anecdote of an anecdote". But at least read the bolded (and especially underlined) section below so you don't wallow the rest of your life in blissful ignorance. (I have deleted the section comparing Norway to the US as it's irrelevant to this discussion, but the full article is available in the "favorite cities for living" thread)


*We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.
*
*By **BRUCE BAWER*

Published: April 17, 2005 *New York Times*

OSLO — THE received wisdom about economic life in the Nordic countries is easily summed up: people here are incomparably affluent, with all their needs met by an efficient welfare state. They believe it themselves. Yet the reality - as this Oslo-dwelling American can attest, and as some recent studies confirm - is not quite what it appears. 

Even as the Scandinavian establishment peddles this dubious line, it serves up a picture of the United States as a nation divided, inequitably, among robber barons and wage slaves, not to mention armies of the homeless and unemployed. It does this to keep people believing that their social welfare system, financed by lofty income taxes, provides far more in the way of economic protections and amenities than the American system. Protections, yes -but some Norwegians might question the part about amenities. 

In Oslo, library collections are woefully outdated, and public swimming pools are in desperate need of maintenance. News reports describe serious shortages of police officers and school supplies. When my mother-in-law went to an emergency room recently, the hospital was out of cough medicine. Drug addicts crowd downtown Oslo streets, as The Los Angeles Times recently reported, but applicants for methadone programs are put on a months-long waiting list. 

In Norway, the standard line is that there must be some mistake, that such things simply should not happen in "the world's richest country." Why do Norwegians have such a wealthy self-image? Partly because, compared with their grandparents (who lived before the discovery of North Sea oil), they are rich. Few, however, question whether it really is the world's richest country. 

After I moved here six years ago, I quickly noticed that Norwegians live more frugally than Americans do. They hang on to old appliances and furniture that we would throw out. And they drive around in wrecks. In 2003, when my partner and I took his teenage brother to New York - his first trip outside of Europe - he stared boggle-eyed at the cars in the Newark Airport parking lot, as mesmerized as Robin Williams in a New York grocery store in "Moscow on the Hudson."

One image in particular sticks in my mind. In a Norwegian language class, my teacher illustrated the meaning of the word matpakke - "packed lunch" - by reaching into her backpack and pulling out a hero sandwich wrapped in wax paper. It was her lunch. She held it up for all to see.

Yes, teachers are underpaid everywhere. But in Norway the matpakke is ubiquitous, from classroom to boardroom. In New York, an office worker might pop out at lunchtime to a deli; in Paris, she might enjoy quiche and a glass of wine at a brasserie. In Norway, she will sit at her desk with a sandwich from home. 

It is not simply a matter of tradition, or a preference for a basic, nonmaterialistic life. Dining out is just too pricey in a country where teachers, for example, make about $50,000 a year before taxes. Even the humblest of meals - a large pizza delivered from Oslo's most popular pizza joint - will run from $34 to $48, including delivery fee and a 25 percent value added tax. 

Not that groceries are cheap, either. Every weekend, armies of Norwegians drive to Sweden to stock up at supermarkets that are a bargain only by Norwegian standards. And this isn't a great solution, either, since gasoline (in this oil-exporting nation) costs more than $6 a gallon.

. . .


_*The one detail in Timbro's study that didn't feel right to me was the placement of Scandinavian countries near the top of the list and Spain near the bottom. My own sense of things is that Spaniards live far better than Scandinavians. In Norwegian pubs, for example, anyone rich or insane enough to order, say, a gin and tonic is charged about $15 for a few teaspoons of gin at the bottom of a glass of tonic; in Spain, the drinks are dirt-cheap and the bartender will pour the gin up to the rim unless you say "stop." 

In late March, another study, this one from KPMG, the international accounting and consulting firm, cast light on this paradox. It indicated that when disposable income was adjusted for cost of living, Scandinavians were the poorest people in Western Europe. Danes had the lowest adjusted income, Norwegians the second lowest, Swedes the third. Spain and Portugal, with two of Europe's least regulated economies, led the list. 

*__*Most recently, the Danish Ministry of Finance released a study comparing the income available for private consumption in 30 countries. Norway did somewhat better here than in the KPMG study, lagging behind most of Western Europe but at least beating out Ireland and Portugal.*_ 

The thrust, however, was to confirm Timbro's and Mr. Norberg's picture of American and European wealth. While the private-consumption figure for the United States was $32,900 per person, the countries of Western Europe (again excepting Luxembourg, at $29,450) ranged between $13,850 and $23,500, with Norway at $18,350.

Meanwhile, the references to Norway as "the world's richest country" keep on coming. An April 2 article in Dagsavisen, a major Oslo daily, asked: How is it that "in the world's richest country we're tearing down social services that were built up when Norway was much poorer?" 

Obviously, this is one misconception that won't be put to rest by a measly think-tank study or two. 

_Bruce Bawer,a freelance writer based in Oslo, reports frequently on social and cultural issues._


----------



## Atomicus

SkyBridge said:


> Yes, why don't you take your helicopter!
> 
> But seriously. Don't even begin comparing Spanish public transport system to that of The Netherlands (!), Belgium, Germany, etc.


We are not behind of them and even in some aspect we beat them so I don't understand why someone wouldn't have a point in comparing Spanish public transport system with those from NL, Belgium or Germany.

If you think they are not comparable, just come and see for yourself. Your remarks were clearly arrogant, and ignorant as well.


----------



## snowland

:yes:

It looks to be clear to me. 
As long he assumes those countries as more developed than Spain, he can't even consider than Spain might overall does a better job in some situations such as infrastructure and healthcare system. 

PD.: I don't consider Belgium more developed than Spain or Italy.


----------



## Adde

Rocan said:


> If we look at surveys we get this result:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income
> 
> So US is actually well above Sweden...


This is after taxes. Obviously the american median income has to be larger than that in Sweden since health care and many other services are paid out of pocket instead of out of taxes.

Plus, this is not what Krugman looked at. He didn't look at median household income, but income of median family. It's not the same thing. 



Rocan said:


> Krugman is also wrong in that Wages are higher in the Sweden:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
> 
> Obviously he was using an innacurate source, like potentially another survey subject to undercounting and differences in defintion. He is right about the bottom 10% being worse off, though given that the US source doesnt include food stamps and the earned income tax credit, and the general underreporting of income, this again understates the bottom 10%. Sweden is still higher though.


This list is using average wages, not median like Krugman. The average is heavily affected by income inequality.

Ok, we're straying from the discussion here (at least the one we've been having in the last couple of pages). Yes, among higher earners the US is a higher wage country than pretty much any other. On the other hand it has got quite high economic inequality and services that doesn't come close to many in Europe. Can everyone agree with that? 

We were talking about the difference between northern and southern Europe. Anyone wanna continue that instead of the US vs. Scandinavia thing?


----------



## Fitzrovian

^^ I don't have much to add to what Rocan has written, other than to say there is a reason I tried to stay away from the US/Scandinavian comparisons. Its apples and oranges. The countries are driven by completely different ideologies and each have their strengths and weaknesses. There is no right answer as to which is better, or which has better "quality of life" . It depends on your value system, which demographic you fall into and what's important to you in life.

The comparison between Northern and Southern Europe is a more interesting one for me because most of the supposed advantages of Scandinavian countries vis a vis the US - healthcare, education, public transportation, safety etc - essentially disappear when you put them up against fellow Europeans. Even when it comes to disposable income there is obviously a body of evidence suggesting that Southern European countries by some measures come out ahead, once you adjust for cost of living.

Adde, I will get back to you with more thoughts on your posts later (thank you for your research). I do think, however, that you may have hit the nail on the head with your very first contribution on this thread. The main difference that i can see helping move Swiss, Austrian and Northern European cities atop these rankings is that they have fewer poor people (and the ones who are poor are not as poor). That makes sense to me, and I think that's the crux of the matter. And it largely validates my views of these surveys, which is that they do not necessarily reflect the experience of the majority.


----------



## alexxo

I can't find any American Cities in this table. Tell me what is the standard of the ranking?


----------



## Rocan

Fitzrovian said:


> Is that before adjusting for cost of living or after?


After


----------



## Jota

Vaud said:


> And no spaniard has a high-speed tunnel lenght of 57km under the alps, so what? It only proves that in Spain there is no mountain chain like the alps dividing the country and diving Europe. With the money spent on that tunnel the country could have easily built a high-speed railway line between Zurich and Geneva but it makes little sense given that with the exception of Basel all major cities are lined south-west to north-east, so cost-wise makes little sense as the train departing from Geneva has to stop in Lausanne (64km), Fribourg (70km), Bern (35km), Zurich (129km), Winthertour (26km) and Saint Gall (57km)... so the train wouldn't fully be able to reach its full speed or would only be able to do so a few minutes, in fact the longest distance is the one between Bern and Zurich, and you're wrong in saying that there are no high speed railway lines as precisly the only such line (apart from the future GBT) existing in the country covers precisly that segment.
> ...


You must be joking... 
Spain is the 2nd most mountainous country in Europe and we have several chains of mountains crossing the country, 2 of these chains reach more than 3400 metres high.
And we also have got high-speed rail double tunnels 28 km. long under Sierra de Guadarrama for example, and it is not the only one!
Be better informed before writing, please. 
;-)


----------



## Rocan

Adde said:


> Eh, actually, median families in for instance Sweden have about the same income of those in the US. Mean income on the other hand is higher in the US because so much wealth is concentrated among the richest 10%. But in general, what you're saying is that the US should get some slack in the social mobility department because there's such extreme inequality there?


Your first sentence is wrong, as you could see from the link I gave. Apparently it came from a 2002 Krugman article, but is unsubstantiated and therefore could have been subject to many comparison problems. The link I provided uses same definition.



> And I don't know about other European countries, but Sweden doesn't do intermittent censuses. We have a personal ID-number that everybody gets at birth or when they get here, and that is used in all dealings with local and national agencies. Therefor, the Swedish government always knows how many people there are in the country permanently (and legally). Our population figures are therefor very accurate.


I wasn't talking about population Census, rather the US Census, which is the source of the income data for surveys. The Swedish source for the income data comes from register data, which is indeed very accurate as the income comes directly from tax register and not subject to errors that so define the survey process.


----------



## Rocan

Adde said:


> This is after taxes. Obviously the american median income has to be larger than that in Sweden since health care and many other services are paid out of pocket instead of out of taxes.
> 
> Plus, this is not what Krugman looked at. He didn't look at median household income, but income of median family. It's not the same thing.


This is a misconception. Out of pocket health expenditures per capita in US in 2009 was $900 according to OECD, and in most of Europe $400. Plus, PPP takes the higher US prices into account, so it would already be reflected in data. Even if you additonally subtracted health insurance per equivalised household (=$2800 per HH, $1500 per equivlized HH) the large gap is still there ($29-$1.5=$27.5). Realize that most of the taxes paid in Sweden are paid back to households in the form of social benefits, namely old age pensions. 

Most households are families. What Krugman said is not substantiated so have no idea where it came from, what definition of income was used, etc. Stick with a harmonized defintion.



> This list is using average wages, not median like Krugman. The average is heavily affected by income inequality.


Fair enough. Just multiply the Swedish figure by .91 and the US figure by .78, and tell me who's higher. These figures are median/mean ratios that I located in stats Sweden and BLS, respectively. Income inequality in the US does not affect wages as much as it does other incomes, btw.


----------



## Fitzrovian

The "income inequality" stick that Europeans love to use so much against the US ignores the fact that an average US citizen has a far higher material standard of living than an average citizen of almost any European country. Yes the Europeans get much more in social services, but everything has a price.

And yes, the poor in Europe have it better than the poor in the US. But that goes back to the ideology point I mentioned before. In this country, we like to encourage and reward hard work. If you dont like to work, you fall behind big time. America is a meritocracy. In Europe (and particularly in the Scandinavian countries) they have a different belief system.


----------



## Rocan

Fitzrovian said:


> The comparison between Northern and Southern Europe is a more interesting one for me because most of the supposed advantages of Scandinavian countries vis a vis the US - healthcare, education, public transportation, safety etc - essentially disappear when you put them up against fellow Europeans. Even when it comes to disposable income there is obviously a body of evidence suggesting that Southern European countries by some measures come out ahead, once you adjust for cost of living.


Norway is still far ahead. People do not realize that Norway is far richer than SE, DK,and FI. It's not like these countries are equal!!!

2004 equivalised disposable cash income (ppp):

Norway: $31,000
Sweden: $24,000
Denmark: $23,503
Finland: $19,394

For comparison purposes:

Spain: $24,000
Italy: $25,000
France: $26,500
UK: $29,000
Austria: $28,000
Germany: $28,500
Italy: $25,000
Belgium: $25,000


^This was after adjusting for underreporting, which is why it's higher than what it shows in Wiki link.


----------



## Rocan

Fitzrovian said:


> The "income inequality" stick that Europeans love to use so much against the US ignores the fact that an average US citizen has a far higher material standard of living than an average citizen of almost any European country. Yes the Europeans get much more in social services, but everything has a price.


It ignores perspective. That's why I like to use absolute figures and not inequality figures. If indeed median income is affected by inequality so much, then it will be shown in the absolute figures.


----------



## LtBk

> This is a misconception. Out of pocket health expenditures per capita in US in 2009 was $900 according to OECD, and in most of Europe $400. Plus, PPP takes the higher US prices into account, so it would already be reflected in data. Even if you additonally subtracted health insurance per equivalised household (=$2800 per HH, $1500 per equivlized HH) the large gap is still there ($29-$1.5=$27.5). Realize that most of the taxes paid in Sweden are paid back to households in the form of social benefits, namely old age pensions


The average household in the US spends $15,000 on health care per year.


----------



## Fitzrovian

@ Rocan -- where do you get these stats from? Still interesting that all Scandinavian countries, except for Norway, go into the bottom of the pile once you adjust for the cost of living.


----------



## Rocan

LtBk said:


> The average household in the US spends $15,000 on health care per year.


Wrong. That figure includes from all sources: govt, private insurance, and households. Households DO NOT spend that amount every year!

Here is a specific link:

https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf

Table 3:

Out of pocket health exp by households=$299 billion. 299 billion/305 million people=$900 per capita

Total NATIONAL spending (from all sources) was $2.5 trillion, which is $8200 per capita.


----------



## Rocan

Fitzrovian said:


> @ Rocan -- where do you get these stats from? Still interesting that all Scandinavian countries, except for Norway, go into the bottom of the pile once you adjust for the cost of living.


http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx

National Accounts---Annual National Accounts---Detailed NF sector. After that you have to do some work. Locate disposable household income (B6N), use PPP rates, divide by number of households, and divide by the square root of the household size (to get equivalised income). Also, to get cash income, make sure to exclude some of the non-cash components like imputed rent and variable D.44. I also added in interest paid by households, as I only wanted net of taxes and not also net of interest paid. So what I did is I compared the aggregate of the household income from the survey sources that underlie the wiki link, and adjusted it to its "Real" figure which is the adjusted national accounts figure.

For example, US mean equivalised income in the wiki link is $32,000. The aggregate of diposable income was $5150 billion, but the true figure in the National Accounts was $6940 billion. Thus, 32000/ (5150/6900)= $42,800. The figure I gave before used the same exact process.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Rocan said:


> It ignores perspective. That's why I like to use absolute figures and not inequality figures. If indeed median income is affected by inequality so much, then it will be shown in the absolute figures.


Spot on.


----------



## Rocan

There is an argument to be made, however, that even when median income is high, if it is so much lower than what the top make, it will still create class envy and general anxiety.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Rocan said:


> Norway is still far ahead. People do not realize that Norway is far richer than SE, DK,and FI. It's not like these countries are equal!!!
> 
> 2004 equivalised disposable cash income (ppp):
> 
> Norway: $31,000
> Sweden: $24,000
> Denmark: $23,503
> Finland: $19,394
> 
> For comparison purposes:
> 
> Spain: $24,000
> Italy: $25,000
> France: $26,500
> UK: $29,000
> Austria: $28,000
> Germany: $28,500
> Italy: $25,000
> Belgium: $25,000
> 
> ^This was after adjusting for underreporting, which is why it's higher than what it shows in Wiki link.


Even if your figures are correct for Norway, we need to remember that regional disparities are much greater in countries like Spain and Italy. So the richest cities there - Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, etc. - are probably on par with Norway, if not higher, in terms of disposable income.

Do you have the disposable income stats (PPP) for Switzerland ?


----------



## earthJoker

Rocan said:


> Norway is still far ahead. People do not realize that Norway is far richer than SE, DK,and FI. It's not like these countries are equal!!!
> 
> 2004 equivalised disposable cash income (ppp):


Just out of interest do you have a link?


----------



## eklips

Fitzrovian said:


> The "income inequality" stick that Europeans love to use so much against the US ignores the fact that an average US citizen has a far higher material standard of living than an average citizen of almost any European country. Yes the Europeans get much more in social services, but everything has a price.
> 
> And yes, the poor in Europe have it better than the poor in the US. But that goes back to the ideology point I mentioned before. In this country, we like to encourage and reward hard work. If you dont like to work, you fall behind big time. America is a meritocracy. In Europe (and particularly in the Scandinavian countries) they have a different belief system.


You think the poor in the US don't work hard? They are often those who work the hardest, with very little reward whatsoever (although the same happens in many European societies). The idea that the US is a meritocracy is a conservative nationalist myth, just like in France, aimed at legitimizing poverty.

For example, I read a while ago a study by a french sociologist on Temporary job agencies in the Chicago area, it's incredible the level of exploitation and alienation those who work there need to go through, mostly blacks and mexicans (go at 5am to the temp agencies to wait for hours for a ticket you're not sure to have where you'll be sent during the day to do a workshift as the cheapest of the cheapest workforce in a factory on the other side of the city). The idea that somehow these people are poor because they don't "work hard" is laughable, as is the concept that the owners of the places they work at rich just by their own merit.

But similar things happen in Europe actually, we are all capitalist nations after all, and neoliberal ones at that who put keynesianism aside a long time ago (yay...).


----------



## snowland

Very interesting stats, Rocan. Could you calculate Portugal and Greece, please? I'd also be interested to see the stats from Eastern Europe, Eastern Asia, OZ and Latin America (those if you can please send me by pm). 

Cheers.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Jonesy55 said:


> I don't think so, many very rich people in London, Paris, Monaco, Hong Kong, Manhattan etc live in apartments smaller than typical middle class suburban homes. More money may well just mean going to a more desireable location rather than a bigger property, or buying additional properties for weekends and vacations. Buying bigger just for the sake of it is just one option, which if you haven't got a big family may not be the best one.


Apples and oranges mate. I was talking about people with comparable lifestyles. We have to compare suburban to suburban or city to city. In either case, Americans have it bigger and better IMO (notwithstanding Adde's accurate stylistic observations).


----------



## Jonesy55

Galro said:


> Many of Oslos (and Norway) richest don't live in any noticeable larger houses than what's average in the suburbs. What they usually spend their money on is view, closeness to the sea and location (the western side of the city is usually considered to be more desirable than the eastern).


Yes, same here, even in my small town there are many bigger properties in my town cheaper than the house where I live, and many smaller properties that are more expensive. Location usually being the key factor.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> Not just bigger but better, in every way that I could observe.
> 
> Addressing your second point: if the average Scandinavian size house was all you need, and anything else was "marginal returns", then I would think that rich Scandinavians (say top 5%) would have the same size houses as the rest? I suspect that's not the case. When you get richer, you usually get a bigger house -- that's how it works everywhere mate. And by that measure, Americans are richer.


Obviously not since there's droves of McMansions in foreclosure. Just because you got a crappy loan you couldn't afford and built a huge house on a cheap peace of exurban land doesn't make you richer.

There isn't a universal rule that richer = larger house. 

Remember, in a society that puts a lot of stock in social equality, one of the byproducts of that can be a certain social pressure to "conform" and not stand out, to not display wealth too ostentatiously. In Sweden it's called "jantelagen" and it's alive and well in Scandinavia. Really, truly rich people live in larger houses, yeah (though seldom mansions, unless they've bought an old castle or manor house). But the upper middle class and kinda rich live in pretty much the same houses as the rest of us. More expensive neighborhoods sometimes (lakeside view!), but the houses are pretty much the same. Not because they couldn't afford something bigger, but because it's not what one does. The difference is basically that between a 180 m2 suburban house from the 70's or a lovingly restored 1890's villa of 210 m2. One costs 600,000 dollars, the other 1,5 million.

Edit: Everyone basically said the same thing as me


----------



## Atomicus

Metro007 said:


> I have no problem with this if you want to continue trying to prove that southern countries are "richer"
> 
> "You suspect"? Thats a new word in this thread...what are the reasons you are suspecting this exactly? It would be very interesting. Just because it would confirm that southern countries are richer?



Nobody ever said Southern countries of Europe are richer than the Northern ones. Why the need of doing false exaggerations?

I think his point as he repeteadly says is that Southern countries are not that different regarding quality of life and wealthyness than the Northern ones. And that regarding infraestructures we have nothing to learn from the Northern ones.

Anyway I just say this for the record. I guess you guys are free to believe whatever you like...


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> Apples and oranges mate. I was talking about people with comparable lifestyles. We have to compare suburban to suburban or city to city. In either case, Americans have it bigger and better IMO (notwithstanding Adde's accurate stylistic observations).


But sometimes cultural differences are big enough that there really isn't a 1-to-1 comparison that you can do. We don't have the same _kind_ of suburbs that you do, and we don't have the same kind of suburban culture. For instance, the relationship between suburb and city center is very different here than in the US.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> But sometimes cultural differences are big enough that there really isn't a 1-to-1 comparison that you can do. We don't have the same _kind_ of suburbs that you do, and we don't have the same kind of suburban culture. For instance, the relationship between suburb and city center is very different here than in the US.


I agree, it does all get intertwined at some point and it becomes difficult to make direct comparisons. On average, Americans do have bigger houses and arguably better living conditions, though you could of course argue that it does not necessarily mean they are richer in every case. Just like someone who has a big house in the suburbs is not necessarily richer than a person living in a city. Lifestyle choice.

Edt: which is another reason why I wanted to stay away from the US vs. Europe comparison. It is difficult and pointless.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Atomicus said:


> Nobody ever said Southern countries of Europe are richer than the Northern ones. Why the need of doing false exaggerations?
> 
> I think his point as he repeteadly says is that Southern countries are not that different regarding quality of life and wealthyness than the Northern ones. And that regarding infraestructures we have nothing to learn from the Northern ones.
> 
> Anyway I just say this for the record. I guess you guys are free to believe whatever you like...


Don't worry Atomicus. I started ignoring Metro a long time ago. He is incapable of holding an intelligent debate without creating "straw men" and mischaracterizing the opposing argument. But we still have enough brainpower from Adde, SkyBridge and Federicoft to keep up a lively and intelligent debate.


----------



## tk780

Fitzrovian said:


> Apples and oranges mate. I was talking about people with comparable lifestyles. We have to compare suburban to suburban or city to city. In either case, Americans have it bigger and better IMO (notwithstanding Adde's accurate stylistic observations).


The price of raw materials alone makes European homes more expensive. There really isn't much substance to the average American home built after WW2. The same goes for many household appliances. The vast majority of ovens in America have only lower heat, whereas with European models a choice of recirculating air, lower only, upper only, upper and lower heat and various combinations of these modes is standard. Same with washing machines where you can typically only choose between "hot", "cold" or a mix of both and you need to add bleach for the laundry to actually look clean (although this is not just the case in the US but also in Asia and Australia). Both ovens and washing machines tend to be much bigger in the US though.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> I agree, it does all get intertwined at some point and it becomes difficult to make direct comparisons. On average, Americans do have bigger houses and arguably better living conditions, though you could of course argue that it does not necessarily mean they are richer in every case. Just like someone who has a big house in the suburbs is not necessarily richer than a person living in a city. Lifestyle choice.


I'm still not buying the "arguable better living conditions" part. Apart from size of the actual houses, you still haven't said what those actually are.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> I'm still not buying the "arguable better living conditions" part. Apart from size of the actual houses, you still haven't said what those actually are.


 
Well size is sort of a biggie, isn't it? Kind of affects your quality of life... 

I have already mentioned what else: better appliances (IMO), more and bigger cars, bigger TVs, more electronic gadgets, far more consumption at every socio-economic level.

Now you can tell me all you want that the Scandinavians lower consumption level and more modest house size is down to cultural norms, a lot of which is true - just like your entire economic and social model is ultimately a matter of national choice -- but the economic reality is what I see on the ground based on how people actually live.

Tell you what: go check out the thread called "Random Walks in Detroit Suburbia" (currently on page 5 of Urban Showcase). These are *average* middle class American suburban areas where most middle class families live. Look through the whole thread. Then please come back to me and show me something comparable in Sweden, for middle class.


----------



## Jonesy55

I'm not sure size is particularly a big factor, in cars or homes, certainly once you get beyond a point. It's just a different lifestyle choice.

Likewise with tvs, it needs to be an appropriate size for your wall and viewing distance, but more than that just to beat the neighbours isn't indicative of higher standard of living, imo.


----------



## mhays

Bigger is better? In some ways yes. But we consume WAY more than we should. The US makes me sick sometimes, as an American. 

Further, a large percentage of the population are flat out morons. They don't realize that the big house means big heating bills, lots of space to fill with crap, and big renovation bills later, particularly because it's probably poorly built. And they buy their crap on credit...fine if it's important stuff, but utter stupidity if it's a luxury item like a bigger TV. They also forget (until the price run-ups) that "driving til you qualify" might mean three gallons of gas every day.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Jonesy55 said:


> Likewise with tvs, it needs to be an appropriate size for your wall and viewing distance, but more than that just to beat the neighbours isn't indicative of higher standard of living, imo.


Very true. And Americans, on average, have bigger rooms and bigger TVs. Which is better than having smaller rooms and smaller TVs. But you can disagree.


----------



## Metro007

Fitzrovian said:


> I started ignoring Metro a long time ago. He is incapable of holding an intelligent debate without creating "straw men" and mischaracterizing the opposing argument. But we still have enough brainpower from Adde, SkyBridge and Federicoft to keep up a lively and intelligent debate.


Dear Fitzrovian

That's just marvelllous and i'm proud of you. Being able to ignore people is a big step forward. So i am sure you will be able to ignore this rankings as well, since it seems to make you very nervous as if your life were depending on it. But why?

You now have proven to everybody on an excellent way and with perfect arguments that Spain has the same quality of life as the Top 10. Isn't it great? So you are very happy in Spain as much as other are happy in Scandinavia, Switzerland or in the USA. We are all citizens of the same world and so everything is just fine. Isn't it? Knowing how great Spain is, you now shouldn't feel the need of convincing any other persons, since we now know the true. Thanks you so much.

I think sometimes the world just needs some great personnalities and i am thankfull you could open our eyes. Thousands thanks.

So you have reach your goal and i am sure you now feel much happier.

So just relax. Try to breathe deeply and to ignore this ranking list since everybody now knows how worthless it is. And i am happy that you feel so much better. Enjoy your life and remember: just keep....cooooool. There are some more important things in the life ;-)


----------



## yubnub

Fitzrovian said:


> Very true. And Americans, on average, have bigger rooms and bigger TVs. Which is better than having smaller rooms and smaller TVs. But you can disagree.


I do disagree im afraid. Also in the Urban Showcase forum and also on page 5 is a thread about Bath in the UK (where I used to live). Now im sure the average property in Bath is much much smaller than those in Detroit but I hope after you look at the thread you might change your mind a little that bigger is not necessarily better!

Links for both btw
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1449430
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=946828

you probably wont though!


----------



## Adde

I'm sure those suburbs are beautiful. 

But does a couple of extra m2 give you better living conditions? 

Appliances are not better in the US than in Scandinavian. Sorry, they're just not. Big tv's are everywhere and most families have lots of them. We just as many electronic gadgets: we all have smartphones and "pads" of different kinds, our computer penetration has been higher than that of the US since the 90's, virtually every kid has got some kind of gaming console (if not several different kinds). Two cars is the norm (and that's in spite of our high gas prices). We don't starve so we probably eat as much food (though maybe a little bit healthier food, since our levels of obesity is lower, though that in itself usually means that we eat more expensive food). 

I just can't come up with any consumer goods that you clearly lead us in that's not pretty much completely cultural. I'll give you average house size and size of cars (though there's nothing more ridiculous than seeing someone trying to park their SUV in the one available pocket along a street in central Stockholm). Other than that, I come up blank. 

And since the people in our lower socio-economic levels are substantially better off than yours, I'm pretty sure they consumer more.


----------



## Fitzrovian

yubnub said:


> I do disagree im afraid. Also in the Urban Showcase forum and also on page 5 is a thread about Bath in the UK (where I used to live). Now im sure the average property in Bath is much much smaller than those in Detroit but I hope after you look at the thread you might change your mind a little that bigger is not necessarily better!
> 
> Links for both btw
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1449430
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=946828
> 
> you probably wont though!


I don't need to look at the thread. I have been to Bath, and it's gorgeous. But it also has nothing to do with what we are discussing.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> I'm sure those suburbs are beautiful.
> 
> But does a couple of extra m2 give you better living conditions?
> 
> Appliances are not better in the US than in Scandinavian. Sorry, they're just not. Big tv's are everywhere and most families have lots of them. We just as many electronic gadgets: we all have smartphones and "pads" of different kinds, our computer penetration has been higher than that of the US since the 90's, virtually every kid has got some kind of gaming console (if not several different kinds). Two cars is the norm (and that's in spite of our high gas prices). We don't starve so we probably eat as much food (though maybe a little bit healthier food, since our levels of obesity is lower, though that in itself usually means that we eat more expensive food).
> 
> I just can't come up with any consumer goods that you clearly lead us in that's not pretty much completely cultural. I'll give you average house size and size of cars (though there's nothing more ridiculous than seeing someone trying to park their SUV in the one available pocket along a street in central Stockholm). Other than that, I come up blank.
> 
> And since the people in our lower socio-economic levels are substantially better off than yours, I'm pretty sure they consumer more.


Adde, you asked me why I think Americans have better "living conditions". I answered your question. I even provided visual evidence. I invited you to show me _any_ middle class suburban area in Sweden that looks as prosperous as what is shown in the Detroit thread. 

I don't think you can. 

Now I have already conceded some of your points, and identified areas where there is no right answer, but you kept pressing this specific point and I provided what I think is a reasonable response. You can, and I am sure you will, disagree. That is fine. Pushing this particular discussion any further with anecdotal evidence of how you grew up, how your friends live, how you don't really want or need a bigger house, how Americans have bad carpeting and furniture is fine but it will not resolve this debate, I am afraid. So let's just end this one here.


----------



## yubnub

Fitzrovian said:


> I don't need to look at the thread. I have been to Bath, and it's gorgeous. But it also has nothing to do with what we are discussing.


hey you were the one that pointed to a thread in the Urban Showcase forum to illustrate your point. I merely did the same.


----------



## Jonesy55

Fitzrovian said:


> Very true. And Americans, on average, have bigger rooms and bigger TVs. Which is better than having smaller rooms and smaller TVs. But you can disagree.


Up to a point is my point, if you have to sit on the lap of somebody else on the sofa to all watch tv, or there isn't enough space round the dining table to have a few friends over for dinner or your kitchen isn't big enough to cook a family meal in or you have to line up outside the bathroom each morning then some more space probably would make a difference. 

But if not then doubling the size of each room just because bigger is considered better in some cultures won't make any real difference to living standards imo.

But hey, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Rocan

One interesting aspect is that as in the US, houses in Scandinavia are largely built of wood.


----------



## Fitzrovian

And btw Adde, if you think I've let you off the hook on the Southern Europe vs. Scandinavia thing, you are wrong. We'll come back to that


----------



## snowland

Those houses in Scandinavia look very tiny like the ones for the argentine working class (if not larger). :yes:


----------



## Christian347

Rocan said:


> One interesting aspect is that as in the US, houses in Scandinavia are largely built of wood.


For Norway and Sweden. Pretty much all houses in Denmark built of bricks.


----------



## Svartmetall

No, I don't think anyone will agree that bigger is better. It all depends on your value in a home. Empty space to fill with stuff or a smaller place where one can enjoy superior facilities around you where one can engage in more social activities. Living conditions include your public surroundings not just your private domain. Sweden places greater value on public spaces and interaction whilst the US places greater value on privacy, am I right? If this is the case, one cannot say that one country or another has better "living conditions" in the same way as one cannot begin to quantify "standard of living" either. Both are just tautology and nothing more.



Rocan said:


> One interesting aspect is that as in the US, houses in Scandinavia are largely built of wood.


Not particularly, most dwellings are not wooden. But then, wooden houses aren't inferior if built properly. It's worth noting that the oldest settlement in Sweden consists of older, wooden dwellings. US houses are wooden framed aren't they with a brick facade largely rather than being solid brick. There have been arguments that this doesn't make them inferior to double brick construction houses in the UK, so you can't turn this round and then say that the wooden houses in Scandinavia are inferior. Given the standard of insulation and what not in these wooden houses I'd say they're of very high quality. They are made to survive our climate after all.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Svartmetall said:


> No, I don't think anyone will agree that bigger is better. It all depends on your value in a home. Empty space to fill with stuff or a smaller place where one can enjoy superior facilities around you where one can engage in more social activities. Living conditions include your public surroundings not just your private domain. Sweden places greater value on public spaces and interaction whilst the US places greater value on privacy, am I right? If this is the case, one cannot say that one country or another has better "living conditions" in the same way as one cannot begin to quantify "standard of living" either. Both are just tautology and nothing more.


Again, if you are going to expand the argument from "standard of living" to "quality of life" you will not get an argument from me.

But I also don't buy the "bigger is not better" argument. In and of itself bigger usually _is_ better. Americans who see some of the Scandinavian houses (and I've seen them on House Hounters International) are horrified by how tiny (and sometimes outdated) they are. 150 sq meters?? I don't know anyone in the US who has a house that small; in fact they don't build them that small in this country. The people who say "bigger is not better" are typically those who can't afford bigger. You don't know what you are missing until you have it. And once you have it you can't live without it.


----------



## Adde

But how percent of Americans live in those 2,500 to 3,500 sq foot suburbs from the 40's that was featured in Home Alone? Not many. 

Sweden was much, much poorer than the US in the 20's and 30's, and the very idea of a suburb was completely new. Up until the 1910's and 1920's they built dense extensions of the inner towns, think Vasastan in Stockholm. 

The people comparable to those who built the "Home Alone"-suburbs either lived in large apartments or in large houses outside the city, basically in the countryside. Places like this.

The houses in the first link you commented on are interesting because today they are quite small (yeah, even by Swedish standards) but I promise you that they are expensive by US standards. They're expensive because their relatively small size doesn't really matter here, people don't want 300 m2 houses. What they do want is a house with "character" (old), close to the inner city and with access to nature and water. Those houses tick off everything on that list.


----------



## Svartmetall

Fitzrovian said:


> Again, if you are going to expand the argument from "standard of living" to "quality of life" you will not get an argument from me.
> 
> But I also don't buy the "bigger is not better" argument. In and of itself bigger usually _is_ better. Americans who see some of the Scandinavian houses (and I've seen them on House Hounters International) are horrified by how tiny (and sometimes outdated) they are. 150 sq meters?? I don't know anyone in the US who has a house that small; in fact they don't build them that small in this country. The people who say "bigger is not better" are typically those who can't afford bigger in the area where they want to live. You don't know what you are missing until you have it. And once you have it you can't live without it.


Nonsense, I had it in New Zealand - a large house in one of the wealthy areas of Auckland and now I live in Stockholm in a much smaller apartment. You just ignored ALL my points about the emphasis on public vs private between Scandinavia and the US. I think you're cherry picking what you respond to and ignore the fact that I am saying your perception is largely due to cultural bias rather than being rooted in fact just in the same way that the Scandinavian perspective on public vs private space is often skewed equally.


----------



## yubnub

Fitzrovian said:


> It's fine to point to other threads if they have relevance. Yours didn't.
> 
> We were comparing living conditions of an average American and an average Swede. I don't see what Bath has got to do with it.


You were comparing living conditions based on housing quality, your main indicator of housing quality was based on size of property. I used the Bath thread as it shows 100's of properties that are smaller than the ones in Detroit but also of a very high quality to point out that size is not a useful way to measure the quality of a house and therefore pointless to use in your discussion of Sweden V US or Moon V Mars or x country V y country etc. Same goes for cars, tv's, *****'s, skyscrapers, boobs etc etc


----------



## Galro

Jota said:


> Spain is the 2nd most mountainous country in Europe after Switzerland, as you can see on the map. It does not matter if there is a plateau in the centre of the country or not.


Sure about that? It seems like you have a lot more flat lowland than us here in Norway based on the map.










Edit: I notice now that there are some minor color differences between the two maps. What is colored yellow on the map above would be light green on your for example. Our light green however is comparable with your dark green.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> But how percent of Americans live in those 2,500 to 3,500 sq foot suburbs from the 40's that was featured in Home Alone? Not many.


Answer: a lot more than you think. Doing a quick google search shows that the average size of a US house is an astounding (by your standards) 2700 sq feet.

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/us-home-size.html

My wife's parents (totally anecdotal, I know) who are doing well but are not rich by any stretch live in a 3000 sq foot house in the NY suburbs. That's typical, as the numbers above show. They are very happy. Grandma has her own space downstairs, dad's got an office, nice entertaining areas. Nothing extremely ostentatious as you might think, but merely something that Americans see as normal.




Adde said:


> The houses in the first link you commented on are interesting because today they are quite small (yeah, even by Swedish standards) but I promise you that they are expensive by US standards. They're expensive because their relatively small size doesn't really matter here, people don't want 300 m2 houses. What they do want is a house with "character" (old), close to the inner city and with access to nature and water. Those houses tick off everything on that list.


I am sure they do. But are you trying to tell me that if these people (particularly the ones with families) were offered 200 sq meters or more in the same location, for the same money, they wouldn't take it? I don't buy this "we don't want bigger" BS. If it was as affordable to get something bigger as it is in the US, you would take it. People are people.


----------



## Adde

Rocan said:


> One interesting aspect is that as in the US, houses in Scandinavia are largely built of wood.


Not really. In the countryside, yes. It's the traditional way of building, and we do it very well. 

In the suburbs it's not so simple. When they started building suburbs in the 20's and 30's, they mostly used brick. The street view I posted is mostly brick with stuco. This continued on into the 50's. In the 60's they started using a new kind of brick called "mexitegel", called so because I guess it was supposed to give the buildings a sort of Mexican feeling (though it doesn't). At the same time, wooden details, like a wooden upper floor, started appearing. Then in the 70's and 80's wood made a full return and houses again started to be completely made of wood, or at least look like it. Many houses are actually built at least partly of concrete and they're clad with wood.

Many smaller cities are also made up of wooden buildings, often dating to the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. 



Fitzrovian said:


> A
> But I also don't buy the "bigger is not better" argument. In and of itself bigger usually _is_ better. Americans who see some of the Scandinavian houses (and I've seen them on House Hounters International) are horrified by how tiny (and sometimes outdated) they are. 150 sq meters?? I don't know anyone in the US who has a house that small; in fact they don't build them that small in this country. The people who say "bigger is not better" are typically those who can't afford bigger. You don't know what you are missing until you have it. And once you have it you can't live without it.


If you buy an ok house in a Stockholm suburb it's gonna cost you between 500,000 and 1,500,000 dollars. For that kind of cash, most people could build themselves a large freaking house in an exurb if they wanted to. But they don't. Not because they can't afford to, but because they choose not to. 

How many Swedish houses have you seen on this "House Hunters International"? Out of the Swedish housing stock? And how many of those were newly built? If it's a house from the 30's that the same couple has lived in since then, yeah, it's gonna be outdated. 

And I've seen plenty of houses smaller than 150 m2 in the thousands of american movies, tv-shows and reality shows I've watched. What about all of those charming one story ranch style houses from the 60's for instance? They're not 300 m2.


----------



## Galro

Fitzrovian said:


> I am sure they do. But are you trying to tell me that if these people (particularly the ones with families) were offered 200 sq meters or more in the same location, for the same money, they wouldn't take it? I don't buy this "we don't want bigger" BS. If it was as affordable to get something bigger as it is in the US, you would take it. People are people.


All things being equal they probably would do. However all things are seldom equal here in the real world. A larger house would usually means to trade away from the old, charming one. And many people here in Europe will then value the old charm higher than the modern space.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Svartmetall said:


> Nonsense, I had it in New Zealand - a large house in one of the wealthy areas of Auckland and now I live in Stockholm in a much smaller apartment. You just ignored ALL my points about the emphasis on public vs private between Scandinavia and the US. I think you're cherry picking what you respond to and ignore the fact that I am saying your perception is largely due to cultural bias rather than being rooted in fact just in the same way that the Scandinavian perspective on public vs private space is often skewed equally.


I am not cherrypicking anything. You are completely missing my point. I am sure there is a ton of reasons, other than house size, why you'd prefer to live in one place over another. Heck, I live in a modest size apt in Manhattan for the same money as I could get a big house in the suburbs or a mansion in a different part of the country. But if we are comparing _similarly situated individuals_ in two countries then saying that house size has nothing to do with their "material standard of living" is simply not credible. It may not have everything to do with the total mix that makes up your quality of life; but it has everything to do with your material standard of living.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> If you buy an ok house in a Stockholm suburb it's gonna cost you between 500,000 and 1,500,000 dollars. For that kind of cash, most people could build themselves a large freaking house in an exurb if they wanted to. But they don't. Not because they can't afford to, but because they choose not to.


Adde, mate we are running around in circles now.

In post 605 you wrote:



Adde said:


> But sometimes cultural differences are big enough that there really isn't a 1-to-1 comparison that you can do. We don't have the same _kind_ of suburbs that you do, and we don't have the same kind of suburban culture. For instance, the relationship between suburb and city center is very different here than in the US.


To which I replied:



Fitzrovian said:


> I agree, it does all get intertwined at some point and it becomes difficult to make direct comparisons. On average, Americans do have bigger houses and arguably better living conditions, though you could of course argue that it does not necessarily mean they are richer in every case. Just like someone who has a big house in the suburbs is not necessarily richer than a person living in a city. Lifestyle choice.


Then you pressed me as to why I think Americans have "arguably better living conditions". And I gave you an explanation. Now you can disagree with that explanation, or have a different take on things, but if Americans have houses that are, on average, 50% to 75% larger than in Sweden - for suburban areas of comparable caliber -- then in my mind that qualifies as "better living conditions" (even discounting the other material factors). 

Again you can disagree, but I think we have exhausted this argument.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> I am not cherrypicking anything. You are completely missing my point. I am sure there is a ton of reasons, other than house size, why you'd prefer to live in one place over another. Heck, I live in a modest size apt in Manhattan for the same money as I could get a big house in the suburbs or a mansion in a different part of the country. But if we are comparing _similarly situated individuals_ in two countries then saying that house size has nothing to do with their "material standard of living" is simply not credible. It may not have everything to do with the total mix that makes up your quality of life; but it has everything to do with your material standard of living.


That makes no sense. First of all, what are two "similarly situated individuals"? Someone who lives in a 150-200 m2 suburban house 15 minutes from a European city center is not similarly situated to someone who lives in a 300 m2 house 40 minutes from an American city center. Their living environment will be completely different, with different pros and cons.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> That makes no sense. First of all, what are two "similarly situated individuals"? Someone who lives in a 150-200 m2 suburban house 15 minutes from a European city center is not similarly situated to someone who lives in a 300 m2 house 40 minutes from an American city center. Their living environment will be completely different, with different pros and cons.


Then what's the point of making any comparisons at all? According to your logic, no comparison can ever be made between the living conditions of two people in different countries because their environment will always be totally different. So what's the point of this masturbation?

Edit: PS: "Similarly situated" means you compare suburb to suburb... or city to city. Both have to be comparable in terms of relative desirability of their location and relative standing within their own country.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> Then you pressed me as to why I think Americans have "arguably better living conditions". And I gave you an explanation. Now you can disagree with that explanation, or have a different take on things, but if Americans have houses that are, on average, 50% to 75% larger than in Sweden - for suburban areas of comparable caliber -- then in my mind that qualifies as "better living conditions" (even discounting the other material factors).


Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. To me lots of unnecessary space doesn't really qualify as "better living conditions". 

But just out of curiosity, what happened to all the older houses that aren't ginormous? I mean, were they all torn down because of their "inferior living quality" or did you stuff your poor into them?


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. To me lots of unnecessary space doesn't really qualify as "better living conditions".
> 
> But just out of curiosity, what happened to all the older houses that aren't ginormous? I mean, were they all torn down because of their "inferior living quality" or did you stuff your poor into them?


Yes a lot of them get torn down because Americans like space. Lots of it. And we can afford it (unlike most Europeans) for various reasons, including government policy (which is now biting us in the ass).

Edit: And, to repeat, you only think it's "unnecessary" when you don't have it.

And see my response above on your prior post.

Happy to come back to Spain vs. Sweden later.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> Then what's the point of making any comparisons at all? According to your logic, no comparison can ever be made between the living conditions of two people in different countries because their environment will always be totally different. So what's the point of this masturbation?


Of course you can compare, but what I'm saying (though poorly) is that if you hang up living standard so completely on one thing (size of living space), then what about all those who doesn't live in the suburbs? I mean, it becomes an awfully limited comparison if we're only talking about those who somehow "live in comparable situations". If that's the case, then maybe we should do one comparison for city center dwellers, one for suburban apartments, one for suburban villas, one for the countryside, one for student housing etc. 

I don't know, it just struck me as strange. It sounded a bit like saying "lets not count the poor, only the middle class when we calculate quality of life".


----------



## royal rose1

Dr_Cosmo said:


> The safety conditions in the US no matter if cities or suburbs are the worst in the western world. Statistics and common knowledge speak a pretty clear language. There is a reason why the US has the most Gated communities in the world. Its citizens want extra security, a living condition the state and the society can´t deliver.
> 
> There are many systemic reasons why US cities, large and small ones, are unlikely to achieve the high living condition standards like the EUropeans or the Japanese.


You aren't very smart are you? You understand the US about as much as the standard Ethiopian. 

Gated communities are a status symbol, nothing more! They typically are serviced by an automated gate! One of the most typical status symbols in the us is a white picket fence! Why? Because it represents the middle class! Not because we need to protect ourselves!


----------



## Adde

royal rose1 said:


> Throw up. remember volvos, opels, and saabs are or very recently were American owned! As daewoos still are!
> Plus europeans drive fords about as much as any other car! My family drove a BMW for 3 years before that thing gave out! Let's be honest, Chrysler sucks, GM is mediocre, but ford is top tier! The ford I drive is 4 years old and it works and looks brand new! With 100,000 miles!


Well, both Volvo and Saab still have do a huge part of their production in European factories. 

There's this great This American Life episode that's about the US car industry and what went wrong, and how they're trying to get back on course. Really interesting. It mostly focuses this joint venture between GM and Toyota where they basically opened a Japanese-style factory in California in 1984. GM hoped to learn how to build reliable cars from Toyota, but it was huge disaster. Absolutely fascinating stuff.


----------



## Dr_Cosmo

Fitzrovian said:


> Cosmo's ridiculous comment about crime in the US.


High income inequality is one (not the only) reason for social segregation.
Social segregation and perceived injustice in a society leads to higher crime rates. Higher crime rates foster the need for higher private security measures among high-income population. Thats why Gated communities are standard in the US and mostly unknown in EUrope.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> Actually, I think that the material standard for an average American and Swede is roughly the same (the pros and cons of each country pretty much cancels each other out if your middle class).


Are we gonna go over that again? . If nothing else, let's just agree that Americans live in houses that are, on average, 50% to 75% larger than Scandinavians for equivalent type properties, and let's let people draw whatever conclusions from that they want. 

Btw, have you followed my reference in Queens?



Adde said:


> Politically speaking though, I think that our system is more beneficial for those belonging to the
> lower socio-economic levels, which to me (being the bleeding heart liberal that I am) edges us ahead a little bit in the "quality of life" thing. I mean, isn't it better if more people can enjoy all the positive things that western society can provide?


What you fail to realize, having lived all your life in Europe where there is a much more rigid and highly regulated labor market, is that it is amazingly easy in the US to avoid poverty. There is a reason America is called the land of opportunity. To be legitimately poor in this country, you most likely have to be both lazy and stupid, have drug abuse problems, or grow up in an environment where that kind of mindset is prevalent. Its a gross generalization, of course, and surely there are exceptions and sad cases, but to a large degree that is true in my experience (as hard as it may be for a bleeding heart liberal like you to believe). Even if you make not much more than minimum wage in this country, you should not be poor unlessnyou have too many kids or live beyond your means. So why should those that do work hard be subsidizing those that don't, beyond something very basic?



Adde said:


> Then again, I'm sure that if you're filthy rich you'd want to be in the states. You get to keep even more money you don't actually need!


That is true, though I am sad to say I am not filthy rich (yet). 

Edit: wrote the above too fast. The actual truth is that if you are filthy rich you can be anywhere and live well. But if you want to _become_ filthy rich, then you are much better off living in the states.


----------



## Fitzrovian

royal rose1 said:


> You aren't very smart are you? You understand the us about as much as the standard Ethiopian.
> 
> Gated communities are a status symbol, nothing more! They typically are serviced by an automated gate! One of the most typical status symbols in the us is a white picket fence! Why? Because it represents the middle class! Not because we need to protect ourselves!


We have already debunked Cosmo's idiotic claims about "safety conditions" in US suburbs. Faced with the undeniable absurdity of his claims, he is left with only one thing to do - run back to the general crime statistics which its already been explained to him are irrelevant for most of the US population.

His argument is as subtle as PadArch's blind insistence that Norwegians are the richest people in the world just becuase they have the highest nominal GDP per capita.


----------



## Rocan

jeromeee said:


> ---> Healthcare in the US is expensive (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/us-healthcare-costs-double-report_n_862677.html), the best universities cost up 40000 $ a year and the cheaper ones can't compete with European ones.
> .


But surprisingly, out of pocket health exp. in USA is not even that high. Belgium and Switz are higher!

And the university comment is 100% wrong. Many of the $5000 schools are in the top 100 in the world.


----------



## Dr_Cosmo

I´m impressed. The kids here agreeing to debunk official international data sets and surveys by simply stating personal feelings and google map imagery.

Whats next ? Denying a more developed public transport and bicycle culture in EU cities because CSI Miami looks cooler on TV ?


----------



## Rocan

Adde said:


> Didn't I debunk that pages ago? The PPP figures that Rocan mentioned are heavily affected by inequality, and


The mean is, but I also put medians.


----------



## Rocan

Adde said:


> Actually, I think that the material standard for an average American and Swede is roughly the same (the pros and cons of each country pretty much cancels each other out if your middle class).


No. In the case of Sweden and USA, there's about $7000 (ppp) more in economic resources available per person, in MEDIAN household. Healthcare and education has already been adjusted, so that's the number. For the MEAn household the difference doubles.


----------



## royal rose1

Fitzrovian said:


> I have already debunked Cosmo's idiotic claims about "safety conditions" in US suburbs. Faced with the undeniable absurdity of his claims, he is left with only one thing to do - run back to the general crime statistics which its already been explained to him are irrelevant for most of the US population.
> 
> His argument is as subtle as PadArch's insistence that Norwegians are the richest people in the world just becuase they have the highest nominal GDP per capita.


I can say this thread had taught me a lot about the incorrect European stereotypes of Americans! I lived overseas 8 years in the 19 years I've been alive, and never talked to such blatantly ignorant stereotype-reliant foreigners!

TO use info like prisoners per capita is blatantly irrelevant information! There are far too many cultural aspects to use that as a credible means of determining crime rates. And let's remember, you can go to jail for 20 years in the us for insider trading, most if not all European countries don't punish insider trading. Were not comparing apples and oranges, we're comparing apples and artichoke, completely different things!


----------



## Svartmetall

Rocan said:


> No. In the case of Sweden and USA, there's about $7000 (ppp) more in economic resources available per person, in MEDIAN household. Healthcare and education has already been adjusted, so that's the number. For the MEAn household the difference doubles.


No, just because it is a median doesn't mean that healthcare and education costs have been adjusted at all just because the statistical measure has changed. Unless the study says that it factors in education and healthcare costs, then I very much doubt that. Where are you getting the statistics on household income from?


----------



## LtBk

Ford is popular in Europe because they had better Ford vehicles than their US counterparts until recently. Same with GM cars.


----------



## royal rose1

Fitzrovian said:


> France, Spain, Italy and many other European countries routinely have fences in single family home areas. They can range from 1m to 3m (just look around some suburban areas in Madrid and Milan).
> 
> The fences may be motivated largely by privacy considerations and to a lesser extent by security. Just like gated communities in the US.
> 
> I was responding to Cosmo's erroneous comment that US suburbs have bad safety conditions because of the presence of some gated communities (which in actuality are a drop in the bucket). Please consider my comments in that context.


In line with what you're saying, i challenge anyone to find me a city in Hungary that doesn't have at least 50 percent of it's houses utilizing fences! Fences are everywhere in Hungary! You call the us dangerous? My neighbor in NYC doesn't lock his apartment door, EVER! And my neighbor in Wilmington, NC doesn't lock his either! In fact most people leave their garages open in the daytime, but how? Wouldn't everyone be dead if we used the information thrown at us by the Europeans in this thread? I challenge anyone to find me a house in wilmington NC, a city of over 100,000, where anyone has a fence encompassing their house! It's not just hard, it's impossible! There are none!


----------



## Rocan

Svartmetall said:


> No, just because it is a median doesn't mean that healthcare and education costs have been adjusted at all just because the statistical measure has changed. Unless the study says that it factors in education and healthcare costs, then I very much doubt that. Where are you getting the statistics on household income from?


As the figures are using PPP rates, the price differences in health and education are included in the overall figure. Perhaps I should send you the methodological handbook. Even so, median health and edu expenses are quite low, according to BLS CEX. 

See the wiki link, as the the base source. I then further adjusted the figures to take into account underrcounting of income, which was much more prominent in the US source. Re-read my previous posts.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Rocan said:


> No. In the case of Sweden and USA, there's about $7000 (ppp) more in economic resources available per person, in MEDIAN household. Healthcare and education has already been adjusted, so that's the number. For the MEAn household the difference doubles.


You will not be able to convince them. Just like you won't convince them that it's better to have a house where every kid has their own bedroom with an insuite bathroom than a house where all kids have to share one.


----------



## Rocan

^But there's no arguing numbers. What you are saying is arguable, because it's opinion. What I typed out in not an opinion.


----------



## Svartmetall

Rocan said:


> As the figures are using PPP rates, the price differences in health and education are included in the overall figure. Perhaps I should send you the methodological handbook. Even so, median health and edu expenses are quite low.
> 
> See the wiki link, as the the base source. I then further adjusted the figures to take into account underrcounting of income, which was much more prominent in the US source. Re-read my previous posts.


I have read about purchasing power parity, and I am personally not a fan of the methodology. Out of pocket expenses are NOT included in PPP analysis - it merely compares the cost of goods. Not only that but by pegging everything to the USD, one doesn't necessarily build up a true picture of the standard of living within a country. It's only useful for giving a figure to compare, but it is actually meaningless when it comes to comparing disposable income within a country given every currency has to be changed into dollars for this analysis, but not for purchasing goods within that said country. Also, how did you adjust the figures to take into account "under counting" of income? How on earth can one estimate such a thing?

Plus, if GDP PPP is being used as your measure of "income", this analysis absolutely meaningless as GDP is only a measure of the economy, not of personal income. I can't be bothered sifting through this thread for your initial post, you can re-post the methodology if you like.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Rocan said:


> No. In the case of Sweden and USA, there's about $7000 (ppp) more in economic resources available per person, in MEDIAN household. Healthcare and education has already been adjusted, so that's the number. For the MEAn household the difference doubles.


Just to be clear - that means that for a median family of 4, the gap is $28k. Correct?

An astounding difference.


----------



## jeromeee

Rocan said:


> But surprisingly, out of pocket health exp. in USA is not even that high. Belgium and Switz are higher!
> 
> And the university comment is 100% wrong. Many of the $5000 schools are in the top 100 in the world.


Out of the 31 American universities (which indeed is a lot) only 12 have fees below 15000$ and none have fees of 5000$. Then again at most of these universities only domestic (=same state, =/= USA) students are eligible for these fees. If for instance someone from Nevada wants to study at UCLA he/she has to pay 36000$ instead of 13000$.

Edit: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011


----------



## Svartmetall

Svartmetall said:


> I have read about purchasing power parity, and I am personally not a fan of the methodology. Out of pocket expenses are NOT included in PPP analysis - it merely compares the cost of goods. Not only that but by pegging everything to the USD, one doesn't necessarily build up a true picture of the standard of living within a country. It's only useful for giving a figure to compare, but it is actually meaningless when it comes to comparing disposable income within a country given every currency has to be changed into dollars for this analysis, but not for purchasing goods within that said country. Also, how did you adjust the figures to take into account "under counting" of income? How on earth can one estimate such a thing?
> 
> Plus, if GDP PPP is being used as your measure of "income", this analysis absolutely meaningless as GDP is only a measure of the economy, not of personal income. I can't be bothered sifting through this thread for your initial post, you can re-post the methodology if you like.


ADDENDUM: 

I've just read the Wiki page you refer to, I finally found it. Firstly, your assertions are completely erroneous given that the Wiki page actually states this as a caveat:



Wiki said:


> Caution should be made when comparing countries based on a strict ranking, since not all datasets are capturing income equally. For instance, income spent on private health insurance, which makes up a substantial expense in many American households, is counted as disposable; however after tax, many Canadian households spend relatively little on healthcare.


So, education and healthcare and other such things are NOT included in this analysis, thus rendering this whole argument completely stupid. How can one compare income where everything is deducted from tax (Europe) to where everything is out-of-pocket in terms of insurances (unemployment/healthcare etc) in America? Complete farcical nonsense.


----------



## Rocan

Svartmetall said:


> The wiki link says only 189,475SEK (19,736USD), which just goes to show how much these people are out by according to my own countries statistics (the same figures are quoted as stats Sweden). How can there be so many figures flying around regarding this subject and none of them seem to make sense?


Can you show me the wiki link? Thanks


----------



## Rocan

Adde said:


> Beyond that, even the cheapest public universities costs, as Rocan loves to point out, "only" 3000 dollar a year. That is a steep barrier for anyone who comes from a disadvantaged home. If they're not lucky enough to get an academic or athletic scholarship, college will be hard to swing even if you get financial aid.
> .


Not really, because the disadvantaged, particularly minorities, have huge amounts of available aid. Community college is effectvely free. And though average tuition at public univerities is $7000, this comes down to only $2000 when you take into account private and public aid. And even if you couldn't afford this tuition, you can take out a loan. 

I agree that the poor are at an automatic disadvantage, by living in broken homes, bad neighborhoods, etc. But if they do manage to make it through age 17, they have a very good opportunity, especially since colleges love to accept poor students, to meet their diversity quotas. 

And I disagree that Public US colleges are substandard. They routinely rank as some of the world's best, and even if they are not in the "top 100" that obviously does not mean they are not good. In general, even Public universties in the US tend to have more partnerships with private outlets, to the extent that they are better funded vs their European counterparts. In Europe, public universities get their fundig only from the state, whereas in the US it gets both sources.


----------



## Rocan

Fitzrovian said:


> @ Rocan -
> 
> Thanks very much for your expert input. To recap this discussion, since you are the only person who seems to understand the economic and statistical fundamentals here, can I ask you to post again the median figures for disposable income per person, on a fully adjusted basis (inclusive of healthcare and education) for the US, Scandinavian countries, Italy and Spain, and identify if there are any legitimate data discrepancies?
> 
> Thanks very much in advance.


I don't think that's necessary. The point has been made. But PM me if you still want it.


----------



## Rocan

On page 13, there's a list of net tuition for public 4 yr schools per state:

http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Microsoft Word - Net_tuition__010309.pdf

California, who's public universities are well regarded around the world, has a net tuition rate of only $860. So don't anyone say that you have to pay alot to go to a good university.


----------



## Linguine

_______


----------



## jbkayaker12

Rocan said:


> Not really, because the disadvantaged, particularly minorities, have huge amounts of available aid. Community college is effectvely free. And though average tuition at public univerities is $7000, this comes down to only $2000 when you take into account private and public aid. And even if you couldn't afford this tuition, you can take out a loan.
> 
> I agree that the poor are at an automatic disadvantage, by living in broken homes, bad neighborhoods, etc. But if they do manage to make it through age 17, they have a very good opportunity, especially since colleges love to accept poor students, to meet their diversity quotas.
> 
> And I disagree that Public US colleges are substandard. They routinely rank as some of the world's best, and even if they are not in the "top 100" that obviously does not mean they are not good. In general, even Public universties in the US tend to have more partnerships with private outlets, to the extent that they are better funded vs their European counterparts. In Europe, public universities get their fundig only from the state, whereas in the US it gets both sources.


The United States government apart from grants and aid help out with the tuition fees @ the university/college level by way of tax deductions. My sister and brother in law pays all the tuition fees for both my nephews @ UNLV and CSN. They are able to deduct their out of pocket expenses on a yearly basis.


----------



## LtBk

The amount of financial aid you get depends on family and personal income. If you folks make a lot money and/or have a job, you won't get much or none at all. Why do you think the total student debt has reached over $1 trillion?


----------



## jbkayaker12

LtBk said:


> The amount of financial aid you get depends on family and personal income. If you folks make a lot money and/or have a job, you won't get much or none at all. Why do you think the total student debt has reached over $1 trillion?


The fact that the United States government help out the lower income and middle income families on tuition fees is commendable. So in other words, if someone can afford to pay for it, then they pay for it, if not, the United States government can help out. NOT everyone is entitled of course.


----------



## royal rose1

Rocan said:


> Not really, because the disadvantaged, particularly minorities, have huge amounts of available aid. Community college is effectvely free. And though average tuition at public univerities is $7000, this comes down to only $2000 when you take into account private and public aid. And even if you couldn't afford this tuition, you can take out a loan.
> 
> I agree that the poor are at an automatic disadvantage, by living in broken homes, bad neighborhoods, etc. But if they do manage to make it through age 17, they have a very good opportunity, especially since colleges love to accept poor students, to meet their diversity quotas.
> 
> And I disagree that Public US colleges are substandard. They routinely rank as some of the world's best, and even if they are not in the "top 100" that obviously does not mean they are not good. In general, even Public universties in the US tend to have more partnerships with private outlets, to the extent
> that they are better funded vs their European counterparts. In Europe, public universities get their fundig only from the state, whereas in the US it gets both sources.


Public US universities are by no means substandard! That's absurd to even imply that on any level! This isn't a reply to what you wrote, rather a reply to the claim that us universities are substandard.
Let me list you elite public universities:
UC Berkeley 
university of Washington
UNC Chapel Hill
UMass Amherst
UVirginia
William and Mary
UCSB
U of michigan 
And the list goes on! Public US universities are some of the best in the world and that is uncontestible.


----------



## NordikNerd

Jonesy55 said:


> Where is security fencing around houses common in Europe?












Italy feels very gated compared to Scandinavia.^^



Russia is even more gated with fences around the suburban homes^^


----------



## zaguric2

Top places to live: 
1.Croatia
and then other countries


----------



## Jonesy55

Fitzrovian said:


> What you fail to realize, having lived all your life in Europe where there is a much more rigid and highly regulated labor market, is that it is amazingly easy in the US to avoid poverty. There is a reason America is called the land of opportunity. To be legitimately poor in this country, you most likely have to be both lazy and stupid, have drug abuse problems, or grow up in an environment where that kind of mindset is prevalent. Its a gross generalization, of course, and surely there are exceptions and sad cases, but to a large degree that is true in my experience (as hard as it may be for a bleeding heart liberal like you to believe). Even if you make not much more than minimum wage in this country, you should not be poor unlessnyou have too many kids or live beyond your means. So why should those that do work hard be subsidizing those that don't, beyond something very basic?.


That's a rather stereotyped caricature of Europe. The labour market regulations vary a lot, Europe is not one monolithic entity and Scandinavian labour markets are pretty flexible. Indeed the Nordic countries have a significantly larger proportion of their working-age population in employment than the US does.

It's also a simplistic view of poverty imo. Poor = bad, lazy people while rich = good, hardworking people is not an accurate depiction of reality.


----------



## NordikNerd

Adde said:


> Though really, most families with children has got big cars, just not SUV's (we tend to laugh at people who try to wrangle their SUV's through the streets of Stockholm or Copenhagen...).


Sweden has the highest procentage of jeeps, 4 wheel drive cars and SUVs in Europe



Adde said:


> Wait, how can you possibly have any idea what the rate of kitchen "refreshment" is in Europe? Or whether it's the same everywhere? Honestly, I've lived in this country all my life and I can only give a vague guess. You've done what, lived a few months in London and Madrid, and from your "experience" you can draw that conclusion?


I think his 6 months experience in London and Madrid is more represantative for european living standards than your entire life in Sweden.


----------



## Adde

royal rose1 said:


> Public US universities are by no means substandard! That's absurd to even imply that on any level! This isn't a reply to what you wrote, rather a reply to the claim that us universities are substandard.
> Let me list you elite public universities:
> UC Berkeley
> university of Washington
> UNC Chapel Hill
> UMass Amherst
> UVirginia
> William and Mary
> UCSB
> U of michigan
> And the list goes on! Public US universities are some of the best in the world and that is uncontestible.


But that's the "elite" of public Universities, that's not your standard local branch community college. One of my best friends from the US went to William and Mary, and he paid 8,000USD/year in in-state tuition. That's hardly cheap (except compared to an elite private University).


----------



## Adde

NordikNerd said:


> Sweden has the highest procentage of jeeps, 4 wheel drive cars and SUVs in Europe
> 
> 
> 
> I think his 6 months experience in London and Madrid is more represantative for european living standards than your entire life in Sweden.


Well, I've lived in Rome for several months, but I wouldn't claim to know everything about Italian living standards.


----------



## Adde

Rocan said:


> I agree that the poor are at an automatic disadvantage, by living in broken homes, bad neighborhoods, etc. But if they do manage to make it through age 17, they have a very good opportunity, especially since colleges love to accept poor students, to meet their diversity quotas.


But most of the structural barriers kicks in long before age 17. Blaming laziness or stupidity, when in reality we're talking about a whole segment of society who never receive a real primary education or the social skills needed to succeed in professional adult life, is preposterous.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> But most of the structural barriers kicks in long before age 17. Blaming laziness or stupidity, when in reality we're talking about a whole segment of society who never receive a real primary education or the social skills needed to succeed in professional adult life, is preposterous.


Why are you mischaracterizing my arguments? I already explained *twice* that "laziness and stupidity" was the rough threshold for avoiding genuine poverty, not necessarily professional success (which is a far more complex subject). In addition, did you fail to read what I wrote in my prior message:



Fitzrovian said:


> _*There are no "barriers" unless you grow up in a broken environment. And many do of course (particularly in the minority communities) and those get sucked into a self-perpetuating negative cycle. *_But you need to understand that the US is very ethnically and racially diverse, and direct comparisons with Europe are difficult. You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. With freedom and opportunity also comes individual responsibility. You live in a country where you expect the government to fix everything. We have a different model.


----------



## Jonesy55

In terms of employment the Nordic countries have a very good record.

% of working-age population in employment 2000-2010.


----------



## Suburbanist

Dr_Cosmo said:


> Its not a secret that the USA has the highest crimes rates in the world.....
> 
> Crime Statistics > Prisoners > Per capita


What? Did you see what was your graph about?

US has the higher incarceration rate in the World. But that has nothing to do with crime rates, but indeed with criminal policy. They incarcerate people in US for a lot of actions that, while illegal in Europe (for instance) or Australia or India or Japan, do not yield a prison term, but other measures.

On top of that, sentences in US are longer and harsher than in other places, so a car theft can easily get 8, 10 years of actual prison time while in Europe a one-time criminal would be let off with community service or minimal prison time.


----------



## Fitzrovian

LtBk said:


> The amount of financial aid you get depends on family and personal income. If you folks make a lot money and/or have a job, you won't get much or none at all. Why do you think the total student debt has reached over $1 trillion?


So what's your point? The initial complaint was that if you are poor in the US you can't get quality education, which we have shown is patently false . But if you are from a rich family, why should you be getting government assistance? (although those can get some too)


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> Why are you mischaracterizing my arguments? I already explained *twice* that "laziness and stupidity" was the rough threshold for avoiding genuine poverty, not necessarily professional success (which is a far more complex subject). In addition, did you fail to read what I wrote in my prior message:


And I'm arguing that most people in genuine poverty are there because of structural barriers to social mobility, not laziness or other personality traits. What you don't seem to want to admit is that those "broken environments" that your talking about are the very result of those structural problems. The majority of those children don't grow up in those broken environments because their parents had personal deficiencies that unavoidably led them into poverty, but because they didn't have access to basic education, because they faced prejudices in the labor market, because they were unable to relocate to areas where more jobs were available, because they had worse health outcomes because of inadequate health care etc. 

And when I said "succeed in professional life" I basically meant "get a foot into the labor market above minimum wage, if at all". 

Yes, the US is ethnically and racially diverse. That's not an excuse for rampant poverty among minorities. For instance, the african-american community has got hundreds of years of history in the US, and it's still way behind the white community in terms of wealth, education and health. If there weren't structural barriers specifically affecting african-american communities, that shouldn't be the case (unless you believe there's something particular to that community that makes it lazier than other communities). 


And no, we don't expect the government to fix everything here, and we have got freedom and opportunity. In fact, I'd say we've got more opportunity, since we have much more equal access to crucial things like education, and healthcare.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> But that's the "elite" of public Universities, that's not your standard local branch community college. One of my best friends from the US went to William and Mary, and he paid 8,000USD/year in in-state tuition. That's hardly cheap (except compared to an elite private University).


$8000/year is not bad at all when you consider what you get for it - a solid degree and a higher earning job than what you are likely to get in Europe.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> So what's your point? The initial complaint was that if you are poor in the US you can't get quality education, which we have shown is patently false . But if you are from a rich family, why should you be getting government assistance? (although those can get some too)


Let's not pretend quality education is available to all in the US. Like Rocan said, if you make it to 17 with a high school degree, yeah then things like financial aid can get you into university or college. But only a minority of kids who grow up in poverty actually get the basic elementary and high school education needed to go to college at all. The structural issues kicks in way earlier than that.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> $8000/year is not bad at all when you consider what you get for it - a solid degree and a higher earning job than what you are likely to get in Europe.


Except here you can get as solid a degree for free, and a perfectly fine earning job plus all the perks of our system - free health care, lots of vacation, free education for your kids etc.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> And I'm arguing that most people in genuine poverty are there because of structural barriers to social mobility, not laziness or other personality traits. What you don't seem to want to admit is that those "broken environments" that your talking about are the very result of those structural problems. The majority of those children don't grow up in those broken environments because their parents had personal deficiencies that unavoidably led them into poverty, but because they didn't have access to basic education, because they faced prejudices in the labor market, because they were unable to relocate to areas where more jobs were available, because they had worse health outcomes because of inadequate health care etc.
> 
> And when I said "succeed in professional life" I basically meant "get a foot into the labor market above minimum wage, if at all".
> 
> Yes, the US is ethnically and racially diverse. That's not an excuse for rampant poverty among minorities. For instance, the african-american community has got hundreds of years of history in the US, and it's still way behind the white community in terms of wealth, education and health. If there weren't structural barriers specifically affecting african-american communities, that shouldn't be the case (unless you believe there's something particular to that community that makes it lazier than other communities).
> 
> And no, we don't expect the government to fix everything here, and we have got freedom and opportunity. In fact, I'd say we've got more opportunity, since we have much more equal access to crucial things like education, and healthcare.


This is becoming a liberal v. conservative argument that has little to do with the thread. Neither one of us will be able to convince the other. The problems in the AA community are well documented. Black ghettos are sick environments with very high crime rates, drug abuse, out of wedlock births etc which becomes a vicious cycle. There are things like affirmative action and other government initiatives, but at some point you also have to put some responsibility on the individual. If you stay away from trouble and get through high school (even a crappy ghetto high school) there are plenty of colleges that would love to have you. As Rocan has pointed out, US schools like nothing more than to fill their diversity quotas. And if you are an adult what is stopping you from moving out of that environment to a better neighborhood to give your kid a better chance in life? It's not as impossible as you make it sound. 

Millions of immigrants come to this country with literally nothing and make something of themselves and climb up the social and economic ladder very quickly. What does that tell you about the opportunities available in this country? 

So again let's not pretend that it's the governments job to fix every social problem, and also put some responsibility on the individual. 

And on that note i will excuse myself from this particular debate.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> Except here you can get as solid a degree for free, and a perfectly fine earning job plus all the perks of our system - free health care, lots of vacation, free education for your kids etc.


Your idea of "fine earning" and mine might be two different things.


----------



## earthJoker

NordikNerd said:


> I think his 6 months experience in London and Madrid is more represantative for european living standards than your entire life in Sweden.


Any argument for your opinion?


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> This is becoming a liberal v. conservative argument that has little to do with the thread. Neither one of us will be able to convince the other.


Your right. Let's drop it.



Fitzrovian said:


> Your idea of "fine earning" and mine might be two different things.


Yeah, because you're all so fabulously rich that a college-degree wage over here would be such a hardship.


----------



## Rocan

LtBk said:


> The amount of financial aid you get depends on family and personal income. If you folks make a lot money and/or have a job, you won't get much or none at all. Why do you think the total student debt has reached over $1 trillion?


Because people take out loans to live in dorms, go out of state, and go to private universities. That's the answer. The point is that this debt is not obligatory.


----------



## Rocan

Adde said:


> But that's the "elite" of public Universities, that's not your standard local branch community college. One of my best friends from the US went to William and Mary, and he paid 8,000USD/year in in-state tuition. That's hardly cheap (except compared to an elite private University).


And what makes you think that a non-elite standard state university is not good? Why do "normal" state universities attract professors and students from all over the world? They all receive good funding, all professor's are Phd's, etc. Why are there many more Europeans in public US universities than the other way around by a factor of 3?


----------



## Adde

Rocan said:


> And what makes you think that a non-elite standard state university is not good? Why do "normal" state universities attract professors and students from all over the world? They all receive good funding, all professor's are Phd's, etc. Why are there many more Europeans in public US universities than the other way around by a factor of 3?


I never said they weren't good. I just said that the ones listed are elite standard, and quite a bit more expensive than the 3,000USD tuition ones. 
I don't think I ever said that any kind of college or university in the US is bad.


Actually, looking back, I can't see anyone saying that. I think this is what happened: 
In a response to me, you said that you disagree that public US colleges are substandard. 



Rocan said:


> And I disagree that Public US colleges are substandard. They routinely rank as some of the world's best, and even if they are not in the "top 100" that obviously does not mean they are not good.


This was in response to a post of mine. But I actually didn't say that public US universities are substandard. What I said was this: 



Adde said:


> Beyond that, even the cheapest public universities costs, as Rocan loves to point out, "only" 3000 dollar a year. That is a steep barrier for anyone who comes from a disadvantaged home.
> 
> (...)
> 
> And all poverty is not created equal.
> A lower middle class kid who doesn't get to go to an 11,000 dollar University but have to settle for a 3,000 dollar community college, and then work for minimum wage for a while after college is not in any way comparable to a truly poor kid who couldn't finish high school because dad left and mom was on disability and there were younger siblings to feed.


Ok, so I didn't say that public US universities are substandard. I think it's the "but have to settle for..." that you interpreted as that, am I right? Well, I didn't mean to imply quality, only that there's a perceived difference in status between Universities and community colleges. Of course, in that post I also mixed up community colleges and public universities, which I apologize for. 


As for the last bit about there being more Europeans in public US universities than the other way around, I think there's a host of complicated reasons for that. One is of course that US universities tend to be very well funded (though as I understand it many public colleges are really feeling the financial crisis as many states have significant budget shortfalls right now), but there's also a significant language advantage. Virtually all Swedish Professors and PhD-students that I know of who have gone abroad have chosen english-speaking universities because it makes everything much easier, and there's a greater chance to get a position if you can teach and do research in the local language. There's also a question of scale. The US has got a very large number of well funded, English-speaking universities. For instance Sweden, while well furnished with good universities for a country of 9 million (3 or 4 in the top 100 depending on what study you look at), will only have a limited number of university level positions available at any one time.


----------



## LtBk

With the amount of money US public universities get from state and private sources, it's difficult justifying high tuition rates even with financial aid.


----------



## royal rose1

LtBk said:


> With the amount of money US public universities get from state and private sources, it's difficult justifying high tuition rates even with financial aid.


High tuition rates are subjective. I go to NC state university, and tuition is $6000, I get $2000 in grants a semester and $2000 in federal subsidized loans. And I know people who go here for free! I'd you can afford it you pay, if you can't the govt WILL pay a majority of it.


----------



## Adde

royal rose1 said:


> High tuition rates are subjective. I go to NC state university, and tuition is $6000, I get $2000 in grants a semester and $2000 in federal subsidized loans. And I know people who go here for free! I'd you can afford it you pay, if you can't the govt WILL pay a majority of it.


Of courser it's subjective, but 6,000 dollars for a public university sounds steep considering that you're already paying for it through taxes.


----------



## Rocan

LtBk said:


> With the amount of money US public universities get from state and private sources, it's difficult justifying high tuition rates even with financial aid.


Good point. But I guess they would say "the more the better." Also, US college professors get quite high wages, and are pampered, so that plays into it as well.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> Of courser it's subjective, but 6,000 dollars for a public university sounds steep considering that you're already paying for it through taxes.


It sounds steep to you because you live in a country where salaries are substantially lower than in the US (particularly in professional fields).

Generally you get what you pay for here. Some people go to elite law schools and blow $150k in three years. Sounds terrible, right? Except they can then land a job making $160k/yr out of the gate. They can repay the entire debt (even if they got zero in financial aid) within 5 to 7 years, and then have the rest of their career making over $200k a year. It's all relative.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> It sounds steep to you because you live in a country where salaries are substantially lower than in the US (particularly in professional fields).
> 
> Generally you get what you pay for here. Some people go to elite law schools and blow $150k in three years. Sounds terrible, right? Except they can then land a job making $160k/yr out of the gate. They can repay the entire debt (even if they got zero in financial aid) within 5 to 7 years, and then have the rest of their career making over $200k a year. It's all relative.


Oh my god. This smugness and hyperbole is wearing thin.

No, it doesn't sound steep because our salaries are "substantially" lower than in the US. It sounds steep because I live in a country where public university is free. 

And spending 150,000 on law school doesn't sound like such a slam dunk any more. According to the NYT, only 27% of graduates from the top 50 law schools are hired by the one of the 250 top firms (which have shed 10,000 jobs in the last couple of years), and many graduates from those elite schools now work for 25 or 50 bucks an hour on contract instead. 

More here. 

Plus, the 6,000 dollar/year school is not a top elite law school. It most likely wont give you a 160k/year job out of the gate.

By the way, I looked at that street in Queens. It looked nice. I actually prefer the mixed architecture of older American residential areas to our pretty uniform style here in Sweden. But it doesn't look that affluent to me, though certain houses of course look quite large. I actually looked at some prices, and it might not be "rich" by NYC standards, but it's certainly expensive even by US standards. When the median median house sales price in the country is 212,300 dollars, a six-bedroom house for 1,490,000 is hardly for the middle class.


----------



## royal rose1

Adde said:


> Oh my god. This smugness and hyperbole is wearing thin.
> 
> No, it doesn't sound steep because our salaries are "substantially" lower than in the US. It sounds steep because I live in a country where public university is free.
> 
> And spending 150,000 on law school doesn't sound like such a slam dunk any more. According to the NYT, only 27% of graduates from the top 50 law schools are hired by the one of the 250 top firms (which have shed 10,000 jobs in the last couple of years), and many graduates from those elite schools now work for 25 or 50 bucks an hour on contract instead.
> 
> More here.
> 
> Plus, the 6,000 dollar/year school is not a top elite law school. It most likely wont give you a 160k/year job out of the gate.



The University of Virginia is in line with ivy-leagues and has in-state tuition of $12,500. My school's engineering program is ranked 26th in the country and it is only $6,000 a year! And grads usually make over $100,000


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> Oh my god. This smugness and hyperbole is wearing thin.
> 
> No, it doesn't sound steep because our salaries are "substantially" lower than in the US. It sounds steep because I live in a country where public university is free.
> 
> And spending 150,000 on law school doesn't sound like such a slam dunk any more. According to the NYT, only 27% of graduates from the top 50 law schools are hired by the one of the 250 top firms (which have shed 10,000 jobs in the last couple of years), and many graduates from those elite schools now work for 25 or 50 bucks an hour on contract instead.
> 
> More here.


Hyperbole? Here're some links showing starting salaries for US law schools:

http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/median.php/1/desc/MSPrivate

http://www.ehow.com/info_8601986_average-harvard-law-school-grads

As you can see all top law schools have median private sector starting salaries of between $135k and $145k. That's _median._. And that's a few years ago, so it might be higher now as big law firm salaries continued to go up.

Of course you can just as well go to a crappy private law school, spend the same money and end up with no job. Then you are an idiot. 


You are right of course that the financial crisis has taken a toll on every industry so the same opportunities that were taken for granted in the past are not as plentiful today (though most top law school graduates are still safe). I find it amusing though that you are so dismissive of someone making 50 bucks an hour, which could translate to $100,000/yr for full time work. Do you know a lot of 20-somethings in Sweden that make that kinda money coming out of school?



Adde said:


> Plus, the 6,000 dollar/year school is not a top elite law school. It most likely wont give you a 160k/year job out of the gate.


I never said it would. My point was merely to illustrate that whether the cost 
of something is steep or not is relative to the value of what you are getting.



Adde said:


> By the way, I looked at that street in Queens. It looked nice. I actually prefer the mixed architecture of older American residential areas to our pretty uniform style here in Sweden. But it doesn't look that affluent to me, though
> certain houses of course look quite large. I actually looked at some prices, and it might not be "rich" by NYC standards, but it's certainly expensive even by
> US standards. When the median median house sales price in the country is 212,300 dollars, a six-bedroom house for 1,490,000 is hardly for the middle class.


It is an upper middle class are in NY, nothing more, exactly as I said. Rich people here buy houses $3m and up in the suburbs (or live in Manhattan). And these houses may not look affluent to you but they are probably on average (I am guessing) about 3000 sq feet, or more than double the size of the houses in the Stockholm suburb which you described as "nice" by local standards.


----------



## Chicagoago

Dr_Cosmo said:


> *The safety conditions in the US no matter if cities or suburbs are the worst in the western world*. Statistics and common knowledge speak a pretty clear language. There is a reason why the US has the most Gated communities in the world. Its citizens want extra security, a living condition the state and the society can´t deliver.
> 
> There are many systemic reasons why US cities, large and small ones, are unlikely to achieve the high living condition standards like the EUropeans or the Japanese.


That's completely false. If anything they're probably all fairly similar when you remove the isolated ghetto areas with a large amount of the overall crime, but very small areas of land/population.


----------



## NordikNerd

Mr Bricks said:


> The Swedes sold ore to the Germans and became rich, we had to chase the Germans out while they burned down cities and villages in Lapland. Pick up a history book will ya.
> 
> We chose to build up a welfare state, it had nothing to do with Britain and France.


The history book also says that lots of swedish (and danish) voulonteers fought the soviets for the sake of Finland in WW2. Also many finnish children got shelter in Sweden during the war.


----------



## Adde

Dahlis said:


> This illustrates the problem wich construction in Stockholm. Those new built row houses look terrible, and the fact that they are more expensive than the houses in the first picture is just stupid.
> 
> The housing shortage has made it possible for construction companies to charge a lot of money for the houses without having to care about looks. Houses built by individuals never look this bad.


I'm conflicted when it comes to the new builds. They're overpriced (it's in Sollentuna for gods sake!) but the interiors are very nice and I can see how the lifestyle might be attractive - a lot of young families with children moving in, nature just around the corner and a reasonable commute to the city. 

As far as the aesthetics go, I see why people like it. It's different from the standard 70's suburban architecture, and it feels modern in a minimalist way. I think they're fine, though a bit unimaginative. 

I was trying to find a new residential area with detached villas, but none of the ones I know of were on street view. They tend to have much bigger houses and more architectural variety (though weirdly small gardens).

(By the way, when I was looking around for newer residential areas I came across the fact, which I didn't know of, that a lot of municipalities in Stockholm actually limit the size of new residential houses. The limits can be something like 160 sqm for 1-story houses and 120 sqm/floor for 2-story houses (this is in Värmdö).)


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> I'm with jonesy - those swedish new builds look damn good to me.
> 
> Fitz, for all we disagreed in this thread, I think we can probably agree on one thing at least: Neither of us wants to live in Vienna.


 
That is true. Then again, I wouldn't want to live in any of the cities ranked in the top 10. I realize of course that I may not be representative of the majority. Yet on all my travels I have never ever heard someone say "I'd love to live in Dusseldorf" (or Geneva or Frankfurt or Copenhagen).

So if "quality of life" as assessed by Mercer has little to do with where people actually want to live, what is it that US cities need to compete for?


----------



## Adde

After poking around a little bit, I found that it's like I thought - the size and style of Swedish detached villa's is mostly down to tradition. Here is a new middle class area being built in the suburbs of Södertälje, a town just south of Stockholm. Older houses in the area seem to sell for around 250,000 - 300,000. 

Apparantly the town relaxed the building codes, and this what ended up being built.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> After poking around a little bit, I found that it's like I thought - the size and style of Swedish detached villa's is mostly down to tradition. Here is a new middle class area being built in the suburbs of Södertälje, a town just south of Stockholm. Older houses in the area seem to sell for around 250,000 - 300,000.
> 
> Apparantly the town relaxed the building codes, and this what ended up being built.


 
THAT is nice. The difference is that in the US you will see developments like that in a much more integrated and urbanized suburban setting. Not just out in the sticks. But again that may be merely a function of preference, history and urban development patterns.


----------



## NordikNerd

Fitzrovian said:


> That is true. Then again, I wouldn't want to live in any of the cities ranked in the top 10. I realize of course that I may not be representative of the majority. Yet on all my travels I have never ever heard someone say "I'd love to live in Dusseldorf" (or Geneva or Frankfurt or Copenhagen).
> 
> So if "quality of life" as assessed by Mercer has little to do with where people actually want to live, what is it that US cities need to compete for?


I think most people want to live where they can speak their native tounge and where their friends and family live.


----------



## PadArch

Mr Bricks I never critised the welfate state in nordic countries.. I am a big supporter of the welfare state. In fact if you actually read my comments carefully I never criticised any aspect of the nordic countries. The only thing I criticised is a smug attitude and the incorrect assumption that certain nordic countries relative economic prosperity compared to the rest of western europe is mainly creditable to themselves. In other words: get off your high horse.


----------



## PadArch

Fitzrovian said:


> THAT is nice. The difference is that in the US you will see developments like that in a much more integrated and urbanized suburban setting. Not just out in the sticks. But again that may be merely a function of preference, history and urban development patterns.


You call that nice? Hell no! uke:


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> Yet on all my travels I have never ever heard someone say "I'd love to live in Dusseldorf" (or Geneva or Frankfurt or Copenhagen).


Northern European cities seems to do quite well in the "Cities you'd love to live in"-thread here on this forum. 

And I agree with NordikNerd, the smaller a language the less likely it is you're gonna meet random foreigners who wants to live there. 




Fitzrovian said:


> THAT is nice. The difference is that in the US you will see developments like that in a much more integrated and urbanized suburban setting. Not just out in the sticks. But again that may be merely a function of preference, history and urban development patterns.


Yeah, that's pretty much completely down to urban development patterns. We generally don't build integrated, "urban" suburbs here. Historically, the city "proper" has been well defined and separate from the suburbs. We tend to build suburbs as islands surrounded by green areas. Eventually some of the green areas in between suburbs get developed and you end up with something a bit more integrated, but it's rarely planed that way. 

There is a strong push for filling in the suburban structure in the inner suburbs right now, but that's mostly being done by building new city blocks and multi-family housing. Villas are mostly built in new areas at the outskirts.


----------



## Adde

PadArch said:


> The only thing I criticised is a smug attitude and the incorrect assumption that certain nordic countries relative economic prosperity compared to the rest of western europe is mainly creditable to themselves. In other words: get off your high horse.


But bringing up the war is just silly. First of all, surviving the war quite intact did help, but we were so much poorer than most of Europe that it really didn't make that much of a difference. Second of all, the rebuilding of Europe acted as a huge economic engine during the 50's and 60's, so it's not as if the rest of Europe languished in their ruins for decades while we prospered. And thirdly, the policies that led to the economic development of Scandinavia were mostly in place by the mid 30's and had already had a huge effect in our economies by the time the war started.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> Yeah, that's pretty much completely down to urban development patterns. We generally don't build integrated, "urban" suburbs here. Historically, the city "proper" has been well defined and separate from the suburbs. We tend to build suburbs as islands surrounded by green areas. Eventually some of the green areas in between suburbs get developed and you end up with something a bit more integrated, but it's rarely planed that way.
> 
> There is a strong push for filling in the suburban structure in the inner suburbs right now, but that's mostly being done by building new city blocks and multi-family housing. Villas are mostly built in new areas at the outskirts.


All correct. But what you also need to realize is that when you have these types of developments so far out and away it makes them much more undesirable than comparable, but more integrated, US style suburbs where everything is around the corner (albeit still requiring an auto-dependent lifestyle). In the US, by virtue of the suburban development patterns, it is easier to opt for the suburb but still feel like you are in an urbanized setting with the city not too far away. That's what makes US urban areas, and the quality of life of most people who live there, so underrated in these surveys.


----------



## Jonesy55

Fitzrovian said:


> THAT is nice. The difference is that in the US you will see developments like that in a much more integrated and urbanized suburban setting. Not just out in the sticks. But again that may be merely a function of preference, history and urban development patterns.


:laugh: I think we obviously just have different tastes, that's probably my least favourite of the neighbourhoods Adde has posted so far!

It doesn't look that remote though, according to Google maps there's a bus stop right at the entrance to the street taking you into the town centre in a few minutes or maybe 10-15 minutes by bike. And the town itself is only 25 minutes by train or car from central Stockholm.


----------



## Galro

Adde said:


> Apparantly the town relaxed the building codes, and this what ended up being built.


OMG. That's ugly. Especially the first house to the right. Are people actually living there of own free will?


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> All correct. But what you also need to realize is that when you have these types of developments so far out and away it makes them much more undesirable than comparable, but more integrated, US style suburbs where everything is around the corner (albeit still requiring an auto-dependent lifestyle). In the US, by virtue of the suburban development patterns, it is easier to opt for the suburb but still feel like you are in an urbanized setting with the city not too far away. That's what makes US urban areas, and the quality of life of most people who live there, so underrated in these surveys.


Perhaps. But it's not as these suburbs are in the actual sticks. Usually there's a suburban center within walking distance with grocery stores and other amenities. This particular area seems to have two schools, a doctors office, a church, an old-peoples home, a sports center, grocery store and a restaurant within the suburb, and it's only 3 km (1,8 miles) from the city. 

Many suburbs in larger cities like Stockholm have their own "small town" center that they're built around. I grew up in one of those suburbs, and just a few minutes away on foot were everything you'd expect of a small town: stores of all kinds, several schools, sports center, aquatic center with hockey rink, a train station, a large hotel etc.


----------



## Fitzrovian

@ Galro and Jonesy -

Fellas fellas... let's not get into the aesthetic debate, it's pointless. I am not a big suburb fan to begin with. But at least these houses look fairly large, have decent size plots and are actually different from one another. Unlike that other hideous new development Adde showed us where every house looked the same. 

@ Jonesy: fair point on proximity and transportation. Still, living in a suburb like that, you _feel_ very remote and detached from the urban fabric.


----------



## Adde

Galro said:


> OMG. That's ugly. Especially the first house to the right. Are people actually living there of own free will?


Haha yeah, they are. Apparently the buyers got to design the houses themselves, with the help of an architect of course. So this is what they all wanted. I think some of them looks nice, while some of them are quite tacky. 

Here is an article about the area, with an interview with two of the architects that have been involved, plus interviews with people from the city government. It's in Swedish.


----------



## Fitzrovian

^^ Btw, looked around Sodertalje town center. Looks far from charming.


----------



## Adde

Yeah, Södertälje is a crappy town. Virtually the entire old town center was torn down in the 50's and 60's and was replaced by truly ugly concrete blocks. It might be one of the least preserved towns in the country. Not surprisingly, the natives have fled it, so today it's got one of the country's largest percentages of immigrants. It has also been an industrial town since the early 1900's, which doesn't help in the charm department.

The other small towns around Stockholm, like Uppsala, Sigtuna, Mariefred, Norrtälje and Strängnäs are much nicer.


----------



## Dahlis

Fitzrovian said:


> @ Galro and Jonesy -
> 
> Fellas fellas... let's not get into the aesthetic debate, it's pointless. I am not a big suburb fan to begin with. But at least these houses look fairly large, have decent size plots and are actually different from one another. Unlike that other hideous new development Adde showed us where every house looked the same.
> 
> @ Jonesy: fair point on proximity and transportation. Still, living in a suburb like that, you _feel_ very remote and detached from the urban fabric.


I think both those areas are poor representations of suburban Stockholm. Im not a suburb fan either but suburbs can and are made much more urban than this.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Dahlis said:


> I think both those areas are poor representations of suburban Stockholm. Im not a suburb fan either but suburbs can and are made much more urban than this.


Dahlis, it's interesting you make this point. I have actually Streetviewed around Stockholm quite a bit, and I have noticed that most suburban areas feel very villagy and quaint. You don't feel like you are in an urbanized area when you see them. This is purely a matter of personal preference of course, but US suburbs generally tend to have much more of an urbanized feel and infrastructure. So you can have your house and nice backyard but you still feel like you are in an urban area, with all the conveniences that entails. There are plenty of exceptions of course... and again this is just a matter of preference.


----------



## Jonesy55

Fitzrovian said:


> Dahlis, it's interesting you make this point. I have actually Streetviewed around Stockholm quite a bit, and I have noticed that most suburban areas feel very villagy and quaint. You don't feel like you are in an urbanized area when you see them. This is purely a matter of personal preference of course, but what I like about US suburbs is that they generally have much more of an urbanized feel and infrastructure. So you can have your house and nice backyard but you still feel like you are in an urban area, with all the conveniences that entails. There are plenty of exceptions of course... and again this is just a matter of preference.


That's just the scandinavian preference for being around nature I think, it is quite different to much of Europe. I don't think any Stockholm suburb is going to be very far from facilities though however it looks.

Not sure what you mean about the US though, many residential areas I've looked around seem very unurban, though I guess it varies. Suburban NYC is probably very different to suburban areas in the South or the Great Plains. I was looked around Raleigh today for example.


----------



## Dahlis

Fitzrovian said:


> Dahlis, it's interesting you make this point. I have actually Streetviewed around Stockholm quite a bit, and I have noticed that most suburban areas feel very villagy and quaint. You don't feel like you are in an urbanized area when you see them. This is purely a matter of personal preference of course, but US suburbs generally tend to have much more of an urbanized feel and infrastructure. So you can have your house and nice backyard but you still feel like you are in an urban area, with all the conveniences that entails. There are plenty of exceptions of course... and again this is just a matter of preference.


Stockholm has to many suburbs, but not as many as most US cities though. The older and closer suburbs are ok but the outher ones are really villages.

This is an example of a good one:

http://maps.google.se/maps?q=ensked...id=r-_Kz3CO37cXNzyqft8unA&cbp=12,91.7,,0,11.9

This is Enskede a old suburb complete with metrostation, single family houses, flats and shops.


----------



## master-chivas

top cities to live in:

1: Tripoli, Libia
2: Baghdad, Iraq
3: Cd. Juarez, Mexico
4: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
5: Caracas, Venezuela
6: Karachi, Pakistan
7: Detroit, U.S.A.
8: Cairo, Egypt
9: Chechenia, Russia
10: New Orleans, U.S.A.

not arguable


----------



## Fitzrovian

Jonesy55 said:


> That's just the scandinavian preference for being around nature I think, it is quite different to much of Europe. I don't think any Stockholm suburb is going to be very far from facilities though however it looks.
> 
> Not sure what you mean about the US though, many residential areas I've looked around seem very unurban, though I guess it varies. Suburban NYC is probably very different to suburban areas in the South or the Great Plains. I was looked around Raleigh today for example.


It varies. But take a look at something like Evanston, Ill or Brookline, MA for examples of what I mean. Beautiful, old style suburbs with great town centers and good transit connections to the city.


----------



## zaguric2

The worst is a think Sierra Leone,and the best Norway


----------



## Fitzrovian

master-chivas said:


> top cities to live in:
> 
> 1: Tripoli, Libia
> 2: Baghdad, Iraq
> 3: Cd. Juarez, Mexico
> 4: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
> 5: Caracas, Venezuela
> 6: Karachi, Pakistan
> 7: Detroit, U.S.A.
> 8: Cairo, Egypt
> 9: Chechenia, Russia
> 10: New Orleans, U.S.A.
> 
> not arguable


It's funny that you have put Rio and New Orleans into that exclusive club. :bash:


----------



## Adde

Dahlis said:


> This is an example of a good one:
> 
> http://maps.google.se/maps?q=ensked...id=r-_Kz3CO37cXNzyqft8unA&cbp=12,91.7,,0,11.9
> 
> This is Enskede a old suburb complete with metrostation, single family houses, flats and shops.


Enskede is one of the oldes suburbs though, built in the 1910's-1930's in the "Garden city" style of urban planning. For some reason it didn't stick and in the 50's and 60's the more common "village surrounded by nature"-suburb took over.

Enskede is nice, though quite expensive these days. An old relative of mine lived there all her life, and when she died a couple of years ago the house that she and her husband built in the 30's and that had never been refurbished, sold for something like 500,000 USD.


----------



## Jonesy55

Fitzrovian said:


> It varies. But take a look at something like Evanston, Ill or Brookline, MA for examples of what I mean. Beautiful, old style suburbs with great town centers and good transit connections to the city.


They do look nice, much better than the cookie-cutter developments I've seen in the US cities with big recent expansion.

I still think those Stockholm suburbs are not actually any further removed from general facilities though even if the aesthetic is more rural. Obviously Stockholm is much smaller than say Chicago but I mean in comparison to similar sized US cities.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Jonesy55 said:


> They do look nice, much better than the cookie-cutter developments I've seen in the US cities with big recent expansion.


Most upscale US suburbs (particularly in the Northeast and the Midwest) that were developed in the first half of the 20th century close to the city limits will look just like that. Take a look at Shaker Heights, OH - a suburb of Cleveland, a city one would not normally associate with great "quality of life". 



Jonesy55 said:


> I still think those Stockholm suburbs are not actually any further removed from general facilities though even if the aesthetic is more rural. Obviously Stockholm is much smaller than say Chicago but I mean in comparison to similar sized US cities.


Perhaps. Maybe it just feels that way. And I suspect the quality of facilities is not gonna be quite the same.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> Perhaps. Maybe it just feels that way. And I suspect the quality of facilities is not gonna be quite the same.


Why do you think that, and what kind of facilities are you talking about?


----------



## Jonesy55

Fitzrovian said:


> Perhaps. Maybe it just feels that way. And I suspect the quality of facilities is not gonna be quite the same.


So what facilities does say the Cleveland metro area have that the similarly sized Stockholm metro area doesn't in your opinion?


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> Why do you think that, and what kind of facilities are you talking about?


 
I have never been to a Scandinavian suburb so I may be off. Based on my streetviewing I didn't really see any facilities at all in close proximity to the heavily residential areas. Maybe it's just a different style, and it's all concentrated in the local town center.

Upscale old-style suburbs in the US will typically have a charming town center with quaint shops and restaurants. But on top of that you will have huge 24 hr supermarkets, shopping malls, and never-ending roads filled with shopping and dining facilities. Many of those will be in the classic US "shopping plaza" style -- some are ugly, some are nice. But it all goes to making those suburbs feel much more like you are still in a city.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Jonesy55 said:


> So what facilities does say the Cleveland metro area have that the similarly sized Stockholm metro area doesn't in your opinion?


 
See my response above. Pure speculation. But to give you an idea of what I mean, take a look at the large intersection of Mayfield Rd and Richmond Rd in Lyndhurst, OH (close to Shaker Heights). This is a classic American middle class suburban set-up. A long road (Mayfield) stretching for miles with non-stop facilities, and surrounded by quiet residential blocks.


----------



## wino

Dr_Cosmo said:


> There are many systemic reasons why US cities, large and small ones, are unlikely to achieve the high living condition standards like the EUropeans or the Japanese.


please don't forget the Canada and Australia. these 2 countries are most consistent in getting high HDIs


----------



## Svartmetall

Fitzrovian said:


> Dahlis, it's interesting you make this point. I have actually Streetviewed around Stockholm quite a bit, and I have noticed that most suburban areas feel very villagy and quaint. You don't feel like you are in an urbanized area when you see them. This is purely a matter of personal preference of course, but US suburbs generally tend to have much more of an urbanized feel and infrastructure. So you can have your house and nice backyard but you still feel like you are in an urban area, with all the conveniences that entails. There are plenty of exceptions of course... and again this is just a matter of preference.


Um, you do realise that the Stockholm metropolitan area is made up of 2/3 apartments, right? I'd love to know how one can refer to that level of apartments as "village-like" to paraphrase. 

As for convenience, well, life here is pretty convenient especially in terms of public transportation - hence why according to the modal split, 44% use public transport compared to 33% by car (rest walking and cycling). Convenience is exactly what life here is. Nearly everywhere is connected to some form of rail, and those areas that aren't have a good bus service. 

I said it before, and I'll say it again, street view doesn't give an accurate representation of Stockholm. Perhaps I should post a few more photographs in my thread?


----------



## Fitzrovian

Svartmetall said:


> Um, you do realise that the Stockholm metropolitan area is made up of 2/3 apartments, right? I'd love to know how one can refer to that level of apartments as "village-like" to paraphrase.
> 
> As for convenience, well, life here is pretty convenient especially in terms of public transportation - hence why according to the modal split, 44% use public transport compared to 33% by car (rest walking and cycling). Convenience is exactly what life here is. Nearly everywhere is connected to some form of rail, and those areas that aren't have a good bus service.
> 
> I said it before, and I'll say it again, street view doesn't give an accurate representation of Stockholm. Perhaps I should post a few more photographs in my thread?


You are jumping in midstream. We were discussing quiet, single family home areas.

And I have seen some of your more urban outlying areas and have found them unremarkable to be honest. Mostly plain looking buildings and facilities. 

If you want to see a true world class "urban style" suburb look at something like Bethesda, Maryland. I'd be curious if you have something like that in Sweden.


----------



## Copperknickers

Fitzrovian said:


> I have never been to a Scandinavian suburb so I may be off. Based on my streetviewing I didn't really see any facilities at all in close proximity to the heavily residential areas. Maybe it's just a different style, and it's all concentrated in the local town center.
> 
> Upscale old-style suburbs in the US will typically have a charming town center with quaint shops and restaurants. But on top of that you will have huge 24 hr supermarkets, shopping malls, and never-ending roads filled with shopping and dining facilities. Many of those will be in the classic US "shopping plaza" style -- some are ugly, some are nice. But it all goes to making those suburbs feel much more like you are still in a city.


I don't know about Stockholm, but if its anything like the rest of Northern Europe, they are there. You just aren't seeing the supermarkets and peripheral 'suburb centres', because they are on the edge of residential areas rather than having them built around them like in the USA. And of course Europe does not have the same culture as North America as having 'diners' with their own seperate buildings: you'll most likely get a complex of purpose built shops with a couple of fast food buildings rather than a more upmarket Grill that you would get in America. The malls also are there, just not like in America, but in almost camouflaged blocks next to apartments rather than with their own specific site. There just isn't room in much of Europe to have huge sites allotted to retail and leisure, you'll generally get a couple of massive ones that are very well linked with transport and the likes (unlike American ones).


----------



## Jonesy55

Fitzrovian said:


> See my response above. Pure speculation. But to give you an idea of what I mean, take a look at the large intersection of Mayfield Rd and Richmond Rd in Lyndhurst, OH (close to Shaker Heights). This is a classic American middle class suburban set-up. A long road (Mayfield) stretching for miles with non-stop facilities, and surrounded by quiet residential blocks.


Hmm, I have to say that doesn't impress me as much, I see a very unwalkable neighbourhood with ugly concrete parking lots everywhere, plain unadorned and purposeless patches of grass between road and sidewalk and between house and sidewalk just making everthing further apart than it needs to be....


----------



## Fitzrovian

Jonesy55 said:


> Hmm, I have to say that doesn't impress me as much, I see a very unwalkable neighbourhood with ugly concrete parking lots everywhere, plain unadorned and purposeless patches of grass between road and sidewalk and between house and sidewalk just making everthing further apart than it needs to be....


But you were asking me about facilities, weren't you? 

I agree that's not the most visually appealing area. But you are talking about a hardcore middle class suburb of a rust belt city in Ohio. Still, even there, if you browse around the residential blocks you will see houses that are typically larger and have more land than comparable areas in Europe. And believe me, quality of life there is excellent (though quite boring).


----------



## Svartmetall

Fitzrovian said:


> You are jumping in midstream. We were discussing quiet, single family home areas.
> 
> And I have seen some of your more urban outlying areas and have found them unremarkable to be honest. Mostly plain looking buildings and facilities.
> 
> If you want to see a true world class "urban style" suburb look at something like Bethesda, Maryland. I'd be curious if you have something like that in Sweden.


Why should places people live be limited to where only 1/3 of our population lives? Seems like a very limited discussion from our perspective I guess.

Hm, it looks prettysubstandard to be perfectly honest. What is so remarkable about it? Nearly all our T-bana (metro) stations are around TOD, and are far more pedestrian/people friendly than this development area. This is why I've said that it's difficult to get a proper impression of our suburban areas as the roads are often separated from where people go. Whole suburbs have been designed like this. 

Here are some pictures of a suburb still under development in Stockholm called Kista. It's only a short glimpse, but it shows what you can't see with Street View. 


























































































































































Not the best pictures, but still, it gives an impression. Sure it's plain and the apartments were built in the 1970's, but it is well landscaped, pedestrian friendly and, above all, well connected with a metro station above the shopping mall and a large commercial/business district attached to the residential to make it a mixed-use suburb.

It was pretty cold and it was a Sunday hence the lower people numbers, but still, it's a suburb at least and it's about 12km away from the city centre.


----------



## Fitzrovian

@ Svart -- 

This looks better than most I have seen. There is some nice looking new construction and shopping, even if some of the buildings still look very minimalistic and even commie-block style (which I have found to be the case in other Scandinavian countries as well).

As for Bethesda being "substandard"? Lol... just lol. You are talking about a suburb with a median family income of $170k featuring dozens of gleaming high rise apartment buildings and around 200 restaurants in the town center alone. Browse a little, open your eyes and stop being such a booster for christ sake.


----------



## Svartmetall

Fitzrovian said:


> @ Svart --
> 
> This looks better than most I have seen. There is some nice looking new construction and shopping, even if some of the buildings still look very minimalistic and even commie-block style (which I have found to be the case in other Scandinavian countries as well).
> 
> As for Bethesda being "substandard"? Lol... just lol. You are talking about a suburb with a median family income of $170k featuring dozens of gleaming high rise apartment buildings and around 200 restaurants in the town center alone. Browse a little, open your eyes and stop being such a booster for christ sake.


What I see from street view are a few things:

#1. Low pedestrian friendliness. There are few crossings and narrow pavements in a number of places. Lots of clutter on the pavements to restrict pedestrian flow. Nice landscaping though which is important. There are also a number of driveways and bad entrances, like the third link I offered to the bus station I'm assuming since there is a "bus only" sign there. It forces the pedestrians to cross the road to avoid it, thus reducing the ability of people to walk. 

#2. Just like Kista, I don't see much stand-out architecture here to be perfectly honest. There are some nice buildings just as in Kista, but most are run-of-the-mill from what I can see from my browsing on street view. Yes, there are "commie blocks" here, however, they tend to be well cared for and perfectly liveable. I live in something that I guess could be termed a "commie-block" but it's not bland concrete, it is brick with colourful designs on the outside so I guess it could be called something other than a commie-block. I can understand the dislike of commie-blocks in many countries. I'm English so was brought up to hate tower blocks, but when I moved to Sweden, I realised that nearly all of them are well cared for, well maintained and not the run-down rubbish that we have in England, so I got to quite like them! It's the landscaping and upkeep that makes commie-blocks liveable despite their often austere exterior. If something is well-kept, I feel that this is often more important than aesthetics alone. 

#3. Median income and numbers of restaurants don't make an area great to me. I live in a lower socio-economic area, but my facilities are top-notch, and it is definitely very safe here (my wife and I can happily walk home from the metro at midnight without trouble and I've frequently walked home from the station late at night when I work late at Uni). 

Post your own pictures or other examples like I did so that we can have a fair comparison. I dislike street view for this reason. Perhaps it is that street view offers a bad impression, much in the same way it does of Swedish suburbs? However, I don't see pedestrian areas or what not where the street view car couldn't access here.


----------



## Fitzrovian

^^ I don't know how to drop Google links (embarassing, I know) and I am too lazy to look for pics.

The main shopping/dining area in Bethesda is around Bethesda Ave, Elm Street and Woodmont Ave. I dropped the pin at 4825 Bethesda Ave, do the same and browse around there, or Elm or Woodmont.

The apt buildings I was talking about you can find around the intersection of Woodmont Ave. and Old Georgetown Road. Actually Bethesda doesn't even have as many high rises as some other DC suburbs in Virginia.

Edit: PS: I do agree with you though that Streetview does not always give a very representative view -- depending on what time of the day and what time of the year they snapped their pictures.


----------



## Galro

Fitzrovian said:


> The apt buildings I was talking about you can find around the intersection of Woodmont Ave. and Old Georgetown Road. Actually Bethesda doesn't even have as many high rises as some other DC suburbs in Virginia.


Here then:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Woodm...r-zbQmPEDDdjhRQp0o6lg&cbp=12,349.95,,0,-31.87

Looks kitsch.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian, you're not seeing the facilities because most of the detached housing circle around them. 

For instance, I grew up in a suburb called Upplands Väsby. My actual street was only residential houses. But it was built right by an old village with a medieval church, a preschool, an elementary school, a library, and a restaurant. This is all within 2 minutes by foot from my house. The closest high school is 5 minutes by foot. 

Another 10-15 minutes away by foot (by footpaths separate from the all car traffic) is central Upplands Väsby with the train station, lots of smaller village style shops (clothing, electronics, groceries etc), a sports center, an aquatic center, another couple of schools, several restaurants/bars and of course more housing. There's also an small indoor mall, Väsby Centrum, in the middle of central Upplands Väsby, with 66 stores and 10 restaurants. If you want cheaper stuff in bigger stores, you can drive for 10 minutes and you get to a big shopping area with a large hotel/conference center and 10 or so big-box stores (electronics, furniture, clothes etc). 

Anway, this is just Upplands Väsby. The same pattern repeats itself in Kista, in Sollentuna, in Täby etc.


----------



## Dahlis

Adde said:


> Enskede is one of the oldes suburbs though, built in the 1910's-1930's in the "Garden city" style of urban planning. For some reason it didn't stick and in the 50's and 60's the more common "village surrounded by nature"-suburb took over.
> 
> Enskede is nice, though quite expensive these days. An old relative of mine lived there all her life, and when she died a couple of years ago the house that she and her husband built in the 30's and that had never been refurbished, sold for something like 500,000 USD.


The houses are expensive but there are flats aswell, thats what i like about these older suburbs. There is space for all income groups. 

Here is another typical southern Stockholm suburb:

http://maps.google.se/maps?q=älvsjö...=OOe5bXtTH4kLhEjAGsWR3g&cbp=12,276.79,,0,6.42

Älvsjö is also mixed, with flats and shops closer to the commuter rail station and single family houses further out.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Galro said:


> Here then:
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Woodm...r-zbQmPEDDdjhRQp0o6lg&cbp=12,349.95,,0,-31.87
> 
> Looks kitsch.


 
These may not be to your aesthetic style but these are new buildings with great apartments, a wide range of amenities (gym, pool etc.) and walking distance to hundreds of restaurants and shops. And it's 20 minutes by Metro from downtown DC. Not a bad quality of life.


----------



## Jonesy55

Fitzrovian said:


> ^^ I don't know how to drop Google links .


Me neither, how do you drop a streetview link?


----------



## Galro

Go into the street view modus and then just click on the button marked in red and then use the link in blue.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Dahlis said:


> The houses are expensive but there are flats aswell, thats what i like about these older suburbs. There is space for all income groups.
> 
> Here is another typical southern Stockholm suburb:
> 
> http://maps.google.se/maps?q=älvsjö...=OOe5bXtTH4kLhEjAGsWR3g&cbp=12,276.79,,0,6.42
> 
> Älvsjö is also mixed, with flats and shops closer to the commuter rail station and single family houses further out.


Sorry guys, but I find this totally unremarkable. The buildings in the center look very plain. It's hard to even make a comparison with the US because we don't have construction that looks like that (it just won't fly). I don't see a lot of facilities, just a couple of storefronts here and there. The residential streets in the vicinity look cute though, but very quaint and villagy. 

Here is another "urban style" suburb in Arlington, VA -- suburban Washington DC.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bethe...awR80dWL6405EMLFcu9QqQ&cbp=12,302.49,,0,-0.53


----------



## Dahlis

Fitzrovian said:


> Sorry guys, but I find this totally unremarkable. The buildings in the center look very plain. It's hard to even make a comparison with the US because we don't have construction that looks like that (it just won't fly). I don't see a lot of facilities, just a couple of storefronts here and there. The residential streets in the vicinity look cute though, but very quaint and villagy.
> 
> Here is another "urban style" suburb in Arlington, VA -- suburban Washington DC.
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bethe...awR80dWL6405EMLFcu9QqQ&cbp=12,302.49,,0,-0.53


Its not very remarkable its just a suburb where normal people live thats the point. Just like you picture isnt very remarkable. Its a normal suburb, in contrast to the other swedish ones talked about before this isnt far away in the countryside.


----------



## Adde

Fitzrovian said:


> Sorry guys, but I find this totally unremarkable. The buildings in the center look very plain. It's hard to even make a comparison with the US because we don't have construction that looks like that (it just won't fly). I don't see a lot of facilities, just a couple of storefronts here and there. The residential streets in the vicinity look cute though, but very quaint and villagy.
> 
> Here is another "urban style" suburb in Arlington, VA -- suburban Washington DC.
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bethe...awR80dWL6405EMLFcu9QqQ&cbp=12,302.49,,0,-0.53


But you can't compare architecture like that. We're talking about two completely different architectural contexts with different historical heritage. Functionally, the only difference between the "plain" Swedish buildings and the ones in Bethesda is height. Other than that it's just aesthetics. And aesthetically, the US houses look very american. There is probably not a single house like that in Sweden. The Swedish suburb is characterized by 1930's functionalism, with a few older, simple art nouveau-houses and some 1950-00's infill. 

Now to me, the Bethesda area feels oppressive in its height and brownish hue. But that's probably partly because I'm not used to it. The Stockholm suburb is unremarkable but quite light and airy without feeling completely unurban. 

As to shops etc, it's really hard to compare US and European suburbs. The city center plays a very different, and much more active role in Europe compared to most US cities. Älvsjö is close enough to central Stockholm (as well as several shopping centers) for most shoppers to go into town if they want more than basic stuff.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Adde said:


> But you can't compare architecture like that. We're talking about two completely different architectural contexts with different historical heritage. Functionally, the only difference between the "plain" Swedish buildings and the ones in Bethesda is height. Other than that it's just aesthetics. And aesthetically, the US houses look very american. There is probably not a single house like that in Sweden. The Swedish suburb is characterized by 1930's functionalism, with a few older, simple art nouveau-houses and some 1950-00's infill.
> 
> Now to me, the Bethesda area feels oppressive in its height and brownish hue. But that's probably partly because I'm not used to it. The Stockholm suburb is unremarkable but quite light and airy without feeling completely unurban.
> 
> As to shops etc, it's really hard to compare US and European suburbs. The city center plays a very different, and much more active role in Europe compared to most US cities. Älvsjö is close enough to central Stockholm (as well as several shopping centers) for most shoppers to go into town if they want more than basic stuff.


Adde, that's fine mate. I don't doubt the quality of life in these Stockholm suburbs is great. The only reason I have tried to show a few different US suburbs is to illustrate that they are not all ugly, remote exurbs requiring hours on a freeway to get anywhere, as some seem to think (Jonesy, you listening?). There is tremendous urban variety here (especially in the Northeast) catering to every taste. 

I have seen some beautiful suburban areas in London and mainland Europe. Scandinavia, for the most part, is not my cup of tea. The city centers of Stockholm and Copenhagen though are indeed very charming.


----------



## master-chivas

Fitzrovian said:


> It's funny that you have put Rio and New Orleans into that exclusive club. :bash:


I just don't know if you're misunderstanding to my sarcasm or if that was sarcasm to my sarcasm


----------



## royal rose1

According to a recent Forbes Article the US is the 10th happiest country! And it states: 
10 United States
An excellent place to start a business, the U.S. also ranks no. 1 in health, a function of high immunizations, clean water and the highest levels of gov't spending on healthcare. 
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mef45ejmi/10-united-states/
Not too shabby for a country with 310 million!


----------



## Metro007

royal rose1 said:


> According to a recent Forbes Article the US is the 10th happiest country! And it states:
> 10 United States
> An excellent place to start a business, the U.S. also ranks no. 1 in health, a function of high immunizations, clean water and the highest levels of gov't spending on healthcare.
> http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mef45ejmi/10-united-states/
> Not too shabby for a country with 310 million!


Sorry to ask but what is exactly the goal of this intervention? To show that USA aren't as "bad" as some user could think? Of course it is not. But i don't really get it, what it has to contribute in the discussion about what US-cities should improve vs european Top10-cities...and even in the study you gave us the link, scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Switzerland seem to have a better ranking. So it doesn't help finding out what american cities could do better ;-)


----------



## royal rose1

Metro007 said:


> Sorry to ask but what is exactly the goal of this intervention? To show that USA aren't as "bad" as some user could think? Of course it is not. But i don't really get it, what it has to contribute in the discussion about what US-cities should improve vs european Top10-cities...and even in the study you gave us the link, scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Switzerland seem to have a better ranking. So it doesn't help finding out what american cities could do better ;-)


Just saw that article today and I thought it was relevant and could contribute to some points we were making. I don't deny that the US is behind the Nordic countries! If anything I think it's great! We're ahead of Australia, Germany, France, Ireland, and many other countries. Please note: Australia and Germany dominated this list. This proves livability does not = happiness.


----------



## jeromeee

royal rose1 said:


> Just saw that article today and I thought it was relevant and could contribute to some points we were making. I don't deny that the US is behind the Nordic countries! If anything I think it's great! We're ahead of Australia, Germany, France, Ireland, and many other countries. Please note: Australia and Germany dominated this list. This proves livability does not = happiness.


I think your final conclusion is wrong. People that live in the cities that are ranked high are in general happy.
I think the reason why Germany is only ranked 15th has to with some economically underdeveloped regions esp. in the eastern parts, while Munich, Düsseldorf and Frankfurt are very affluent.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Back to the topic, a few more links from "oppressive" "substandard" Bethesda and other neighborhoods in suburban DC.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bethe...=iyX058gHi0C4lwmNU2hPMA&cbp=12,147.18,,0,3.18


http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Alexa...=R6mXZyS-dAl8LBKoxnKodg&cbp=12,113.96,,0,2.39


http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Chevy...8X8y4AyX_jHLyOnCCWroDA&cbp=12,358.73,,0,-4.65


----------



## koolio

royal rose1 said:


> Just saw that article today and I thought it was relevant and could contribute to some points we were making. I don't deny that the US is behind the Nordic countries! If anything I think it's great! We're ahead of Australia, Germany, France, Ireland, and many other countries. Please note: Australia and Germany dominated this list. This proves livability does not = happiness.


I don't think you read the link that you posted yourself. Australia was well ahead of US on that list.


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> Its ignorant, arrogant and borderline racist to believe that the root of economic effectiveness in say, sweden, relative to poorer countries is due to some form of superiority or even better performance. A lot of scandinavians are convinced that their prosperity relative to other countries is because they were smarter/better than those other countries. This is untrue, and does not acknowledge the good fortune that they have had relative to other countries.
> 
> Heck I'm British and I'll freely admit our wealth is largely due to war crimes, theft and 3rd world exploitation. Why can't scandinavians do the same and stop deluding themselves that they live in some kind of utopian dreamland. :bash:


ROFLMAO... PadArch, our mental giant, on the Wealth of Nations. You and eklips make a fabulous duet -- like Marx and Lenin. But you are about 90 years too late to the party...


----------



## PadArch

So Fitz, lets hear it, are you denying these things, for instance do you deny that colonialism happened? Do you deny that the west has exploited the 3rd world? Maybe you think America gained all its riches by honest hard work..:nuts:


----------



## Federicoft

PadArch said:


> Heck I'm British and I'll freely admit our wealth is largely due to war crimes, theft and 3rd world exploitation.


Are you serious? When Britain was busy exploiting the 3rd world and committing war crimes its wealth was perhaps 5% of the present one.
Your wealth is largely due to the enterprise and hard work of your people, just like the wealth of any other nation.
There isn't even agreement amongst contemporary historians that colonialism was an economically profitable enterprise.


----------



## Fitzrovian

Federicoft said:


> Are you serious? When Britain was busy exploiting the 3rd world and committing war crimes its wealth was perhaps 5% of the present one.
> Your wealth is largely due to the enterprise and hard work of your people, just like the wealth of any other nation.
> There isn't even agreement amongst contemporary historians that colonialism was an economically profitable enterprise.


No Federicoft, you are wrong. Western nations' economic prosperity has nothing to do with their culture, enterprise, or legal and economic system, but is a sole function of the theft and plunder they ruthlessly inflicted on the poor third world people.


----------



## Adde

PadArch said:


> Its ignorant, arrogant and borderline racist to believe that the root of economic effectiveness in say, sweden, relative to poorer countries is due to some form of superiority or even better performance. A lot of scandinavians are convinced that their prosperity relative to other countries is because they were smarter/better than those other countries. This is untrue, and does not acknowledge the good fortune that they have had relative to other countries.
> 
> Heck I'm British and I'll freely admit our wealth is largely due to war crimes, theft and 3rd world exploitation. Why can't scandinavians do the same and stop deluding themselves that they live in some kind of utopian dreamland. :bash:


But nobody said any of those things that you are reading into it. Nobody said that that Scandinavians are smarter or better than anybody else. What has been said is that today's economic situation is largely a result of decades of political stability as well as economic efficiency. 

It's pretty self-evident that the prosperity of any country depends on a whole hose of different factors, some of which are external, and some of which are internal. 

External factors include such things as access to international markets for your products, access to qualified expertise that you can't find at home, international capital for investment etc. 

But internal factors are just as important, if not more important. Some of them include political stability, which will encourage investment, provide infrastructure and safeguard things like transparency and discourage bribes etc. Another internal factor is the work force and it's level of education. Another is the ability to take advantage of natural resources, without falling into the trap of the "resource curse", and turn them into functioning export industries, etc.

The Nordic countries have benefited from both internal and external factors in the roughly 100 years or so that economic advancement has actually taken place during. The fact that we are part of Europe with all the possibilities of trade and know-how that entails has of course been critical. 

But non of that would have been possible if the Nordic countries also didn't do a lot of things right internally during the period that we're talking about. Our political climate has been stable for these 100 years, which means that we have been able to continuously improve infrastructure as well as provided a stable and profitable environment for business and industry. Our work force was relatively speaking well educated already by the early 1900's because of a basic school system dating back several centuries, and the existence of several good universities made the transition to a "knowledge-based" economy smother. For some reason our political systems developed an unusual amount of openness and bribes and cronyism has been kept at a relatively low level. 
And we've been able to take advantage of our natural resources and through them create profitable industries. 

These internal factors have been crucial to economic development over the last 100 years. History is a mix of good and bad luck, good and bad policies, and random chance. The Nordic countries have been lucky in some ways; abundant natural resources, proximity to a relatively stable and prosperous region, and a century of political self-determination. But there has also been plenty of good policies that on the whole has outweighed the bad ones. All of this has led to where we are today.


----------



## pesto

It actually took quite a while for this thread to devolve into pure ignorance and hatred. But it did. 

It's a shame that our schools don't teach serious history and economics instead of slogans for half wits. But hate would trump education anyway, so why bother.

Merry Christmas!


----------



## Gobbo

royal rose1 said:


> A recent survey done by mercer ranks the top 10 cities in the world for living. It becomes obvious just by looking at it, that Europe dominates the list! Only 2 cities outside of Europe make the list (Auckland and Vancouver).
> 
> So my questions are-
> 1. Why are these cities on the list in your opinion?
> 2. What can US cities do to compete with these cities? After all, our cities dominate economically, they have the highest GDPs by a long shot, so why can't we translate huge GDPs into making great places to live?
> 
> My answer is high taxes! Obviously each of these countries taxes endlessly, but what is your take on the matter?
> 
> 1 Vienna Austria
> 2 Zurich Switzerland
> 3 Auckland New Zealand
> 4 Munich Germany
> 5 Duesseldorf Germany
> 5 Vancouver Canada
> 7 Frankfurt Germany
> 8 Geneva Switzerland
> 9 Bern Switzerland
> 9 Copenhagen Denmark
> http://www.mercer.com/qualityoflivingpr#city-rankings


Funny enough that in the other thread where we had to choose the cities where we would prefer to live, I had four of those ten cities on my list. So I pretty much agree with the list, even that there are some other cities that I would include (Torino, Hamburg eccettera) and a couple on the list which I wouldn´t put there (maybe Bern, a little too boring, and Auckland, too far away from everything LOL)...but the list seems pretty much okay.

What american cities don´t have? Hmm....I would maybe say:

- they have too much crime
- not enough historical monuments in the city centers
- the architecture seems generally too monotone in US-cities (some skyscrapers in the center and then suburbs with a lot of family houses...)
- the welfare system could be better...

I am not anti-US, but since this thread is about what US-cities need to come on this list, I am just trying to ask the question....


----------



## NordikNerd

Gobbo said:


> What american cities don´t have? Hmm....I would maybe say:
> 
> - they have too much crime
> - not enough historical monuments in the city centers
> - the architecture seems generally too monotone in US-cities (some skyscrapers in the center and then suburbs with a lot of family houses...)
> - the welfare system could be better...
> 
> I am not anti-US, but since this thread is about what US-cities need to come on this list, I am just trying to ask the question....


-To much gun nuts and gangs are flies in the ointment.
-I think Boston, have some interesting historical monuments in the city center
as the Paul Revere house. Also nearby Salem has a witch museum.

that would be my first priority to see if I went there.

the architecture seems generally too monotone in US-cities ?

Have you seen german cities like Mannheim & Cologne, I think all those WW2 torn cities have dull architecture, no historical monuments (except monument of first car) and no medevial cobblestone streets in the centre like Boston. Add to that whole streets filled with noisy kebab-parlors and turkish tourist agencys.

-The Welfare system in Sweden is overloaded, hospitals are overcrowded with patients and understaffed. The Result is that the motto of swedish healtcare is cure yourself.


----------



## earthJoker

Sweden again?:gaah:


----------



## Dahlis

earthJoker said:


> Sweden again?:gaah:


What


----------



## Mr Bricks

PadArch said:


> This is exactly the attitude I am referring to.. It's ignorant, arrogant and sometimes borders on racism.


Playing the old racism card are we? Look, up to 1930 or so Finland was among the poorest countries in Europe. After the war the welfare state was created step by step. When it comes to comparing wealth I don't understand how a huge American car and a big (poorly built) house can be compared to free universal health care, social security and free education.



PadArch said:


> Heck I'm British and I'll freely admit our wealth is largely due to war crimes, theft and 3rd world exploitation. Why can't scandinavians do the same and stop deluding themselves that they live in some kind of utopian dreamland.


The entire western world is built largely on war, crimes, theft and 3rd world exploration. However, what we are discussing is what should we do with all that money?


----------



## Mr Bricks

NordikNerd said:


> Have you seen german cities like Mannheim & Cologne, I think all those WW2 torn cities have dull architecture, no historical monuments (except monument of first car) and no medevial cobblestone streets in the centre like Boston. Add to that whole streets filled with noisy kebab-parlors and turkish tourist agencys.


I never realized Boston was Medieval :nuts::lol:


----------



## PadArch

Mr Bricks said:


> Playing the old racism card are we? Look, up to 1930 or so Finland was among the poorest countries in Europe. After the war the welfare state was created step by step. When it comes to comparing wealth I don't understand how a huge American car and a big (poorly built) house can be compared to free universal health care, social security and free education.
> 
> 
> 
> The entire western world is built largely on war, crimes, theft and 3rd world exploration. However, what we are discussing is what should we do with all that money?


Mr Bricks, I think we both largely agree on what we should do with all that money. I am pro welfare state. However, if you look at where the money comes from, scandinavia's money comes from the same capitalist system as the rest of the western world. You have to realise that when I criticised the scandinavian attitude I only did so out of sympathy fundamentally to how scandinavia has been developed in the last 50 or so years. As I said, the only thing I dislike is the patronising attitude towards lesser mortals outside of the nordic utopia. Lets not pretend our shit doesn't stink. Anyway this is all besides the point of the OP and was an aside that I made simply because I was beginning to detect a scandinavian circle-jerk emerging in a thread that has little or nothing to do with scandinavia.

I digress. The OP is a very useful and interesting question that has been slightly sidetracked by smoke and mirrors from certain parties who want to blow dust in the face of the main point in order to put aside and deviate the focus from the real problems in American cities. Who cares how nice the rich ghettos are in leafy east coast suburbs. If anything, making posts about how affluent certain parts of America are simply smacks of the segregation and ghettoization of american cities. Much has been made to illustrate the quality of life in these suburban districts, but lets not forget the real reason they exist: anti-socialism, individualism, the white flight etc. American cities suffer because they have huge inequalities between rich and poor, and very little social mobility and social cohesion. I don't care how big your house is. I don't care how big your car is. To me these are just symbols of petty triumph over the downtrodden working classes of america who have to clean up the shit of everyone else in the country. This is the big issue. Aside from that many other points stand such as crime, personal safety, infrastructure, pollution, travel distances, pedestrian friendliness, public schools, malls vs authentic mixed town centres, and architectural quality. If you want to be in the top 10, you have to beat the existing top 10 on all these points. Right now, these issues could do with some improvement.


----------



## Dahlis

Mr Bricks said:


> Playing the old racism card are we? Look, up to 1930 or so Finland was among the poorest countries in Europe. After the war the welfare state was created step by step. When it comes to comparing wealth I don't understand how a huge American car and a big (poorly built) house can be compared to free universal health care, social security and free education.


Finland didnt get rich because of the welfare state, Finland got the welfare state because they got richer. The money was made through old fashioned capitalism.


----------



## Dahlis

PadArch said:


> I digress. The OP is a very useful and interesting question that has been slightly sidetracked by smoke and mirrors from certain parties who want to blow dust in the face of the main point in order to put aside and deviate the focus from the real problems in American cities. Who cares how nice the rich ghettos are in leafy east coast suburbs. If anything, making posts about how affluent certain parts of America are simply smacks of the segregation and ghettoization of american cities. Much has been made to illustrate the quality of life in these suburban districts, but lets not forget the real reason they exist: anti-socialism, individualism, the white flight etc. American cities suffer because they have huge inequalities between rich and poor, and very little social mobility and social cohesion.


I think you are mentioning something thats quite important here. Segregation is the main problem not income differences because they will always exist but when the different income groups live in totally different worlds. I do believe that this is a larger problem in the us then in europe since us cities are more suburban than their european counterparts. 

All neighborhoods need to be mixed, thats where difference could be made. Simply do not allow single use areas.


----------



## NordikNerd

Mr Bricks said:


> I never realized Boston was Medieval :nuts::lol:


Actually Boston was founded in 1630 only 80 years after Helsinki !

Both those 2 cities were built in the end of middle ages and the beginning of the renaissance, so historic sights & monuments of the same era are to be found in both Boston and Helsinki.

Also Boston was the centre of the american revolution which makes you feel the presence of history.

There is a general misconception that american cities lack history, but most scandinavian cities are'nt that much older than Boston,MA

Göteborg was founded in 1621 only 9 years a head of Boston.


----------



## yubnub

NordikNerd said:


> Actually Boston was founded in 1630 only 80 years after Helsinki !
> 
> Both those 2 cities were built in the end of middle ages and the beginning of the renaissance, so historic sights & monuments of the same era are to be found in both Boston and Helsinki.
> 
> Also Boston was the centre of the american revolution which makes you feel the presence of history.
> 
> There is a general misconception that american cities lack history, but most scandinavian cities are'nt that much older than Boston,MA
> 
> Göteborg was founded in 1621 only 9 years a head of Boston.


Boston looks very cool imo (im very much looking forward to visiting it next year) but it's stretching it a bit thin to suggest it is medieval in any way. Same goes for many European cities as well, there are plenty of newer cities on this continent as well. Not everything here is old (edit: in other words i more or less agree with you)

EDIT: but thats way off topic. IMO Boston is the sort of city that I would expect to score highly in these types of surveys. It seems to tick all the boxes. Actually just checked and its in at number 36 which is higher than many similar sized European cities


----------



## Fitzrovian

PadArch said:


> Mr Bricks, I think we both largely agree on what we should do with all that money. I am pro welfare state. However, if you look at where the money comes from, scandinavia's money comes from the same capitalist system as the rest of the western world.


Oh that evil capitalism! You know my dear PadArch, you still have a few relocation options left if you hate the capitalist system so much -- North Korea, Cuba, China.... :lol::lol::lol: In fact I think you are quite a hypocrite for failing to have done so already and for continuing to enjoy the fruits of the evil capitalist plunder and exploitation that you loathe so much. How can you live with yourself?


----------



## Mr Bricks

When did I ever say Finland is not capitalist? Quite the contrary, pay attention ffs! Of course Finland got wealthy though capitalism, that is too obvious to say. The difference is we invested in a welfare system. Britain had quite an extensive welfare system before Thatcher, and still has the NHS.

I have no desire to brag, but should an ignorant American come along babbling about how his big car and microwave make America greater then the Nordic countries, I will educate him.


----------



## Mr Bricks

NordikNerd said:


> Actually Boston was founded in 1630 only 80 years after Helsinki !
> 
> Both those 2 cities were built in the end of middle ages and the beginning of the renaissance, so historic sights & monuments of the same era are to be found in both Boston and Helsinki.
> 
> Also Boston was the centre of the american revolution which makes you feel the presence of history.
> 
> There is a general misconception that american cities lack history, but most scandinavian cities are'nt that much older than Boston,MA
> 
> Göteborg was founded in 1621 only 9 years a head of Boston.


The 16th century is not considered part of the Middle Ages so to speak. 

And while Boston is old it is not Medieval in any way. Most of the city consists of 19th century and 20th century architecture, just like in Helsinki. Cities like Stockholm, Tallinn, Riga, Turku etc are all far older. 

There are a hanfull cities in the US that are old, but compared to European cities they are very young. The oldest building in the US dates to 1610 :nuts:


----------



## Federicoft

Mr Bricks said:


> Well you live in Rome. Britain is not a very warm place, that friend of mine found it intolerable.


In Rome January average lows and highs are 2.7C/11.8C
In London they are 2.3C/8.2C


----------



## Ribarca

Federicoft said:


> In Rome January average lows and high are 2.7C/11.8C
> In London they are 2.3C/8.2C


How about rain and wind. The issue in the Netherlands (quite similar climate to the UK) is often not the temperature but the amount of rain and wind.


----------



## Jonesy55

If the rain and wind is inside your home then you do have a problem!


----------



## Federicoft

Ribarca said:


> How about rain and wind. The issue in the Netherlands (quite similar climate to the UK) is often not the temperature but the amount of rain and wind.


Yes, but not when you're at home! With temperatures in the region of 0-10C in your coolest month you just don't need costly heating and insulation systems.
The Netherlands are a very good example of this: building quality is high, still insulation and heating seem to be a bit neglected, people don't seem to care that much about them. It has obviously totally to do with weather, not wealth.


----------



## Ribarca

Federicoft said:


> Yes, but not when you're at home! With temperatures in the region of 0-10C in your coolest month you just don't need costly heating and insulation systems.
> The Netherlands are a very good example of this: building quality is high, still insulation and heating seem to be a bit neglected, people don't seem to care that much about them. It has obviously totally to do with weather, not wealth.


Regarding indoors. Actually in the winter I feel colder in Hong Kong where I live now than back in the Netherlands. We only have two small electric heaters here and the wooden floors get quite cold.

In Holland you program your central heater and it never gets below 21 degrees in the house. New houses in the Netherlands are actually very well isolated and all modern houses have a very high quality central heating system. Subsidy on isolating houses has led to very energy efficient houses. Mostly some of the older houses in the large cities can be improved in terms of energy efficiency.

A completely new city like Almere has even more efficient city wide heating.


----------



## yubnub

Mr Bricks said:


> Even Britain, which has overall better living standards than the US feels a bit "poor" compared to Finland. A friend of mine who lived in England for a while even described the country as "the richest developing country in Europe" which I admit is a bit harsh.
> 
> The things she told me were astonishing: they still use old school electricity meters, she had to use hot water bottles in her bed and wear gloves inside because of poorly constructed houses and poor or no heating. Wherever she went it was freezing. The ironic thing is that athough we have extremely cold climate up here in the Nordic countries we are always warm.
> 
> I have experienced the same in Britain and France, and my gf who lived in Belgium said she experienced it there. The fact is that even Western Europe feels and looks poorer than home whenever I visit. Poor heating, organisation problems, poor preasure in taps and showers etc. Small things you take for granted. Even in Germany they mostly don't like up to Nordic standards.


Dear Mr Bricks. This is pointless anecdotal evidence. Please leave the UK out of this please.


----------



## Ribarca

Jonesy55 said:


> If the rain and wind is inside your home then you do have a problem!


:lol:


----------



## Adde

NordikNerd said:


> This is the closest to pre-19th century architecture I found outside the Old Town.


That's one picture from Södermalm. If you actually walk around, much of Södermalm, especially the northern part, is made up of 17th and 18th century buildings, with some 19th and 20th century infill. The area around Östermalmstorg has also got quite a few pre-19th century buildings, as does of course Blasieholmen and Skeppsholmen.


----------



## Mr Bricks

I travel. And I know there are many greats things in Europe and America. There is so much culture, history and urbanity to explore in for example Britain, Finland pales in comparison. However, we are talking about quality of life here and in that department the Nordic countries are in the top.


----------



## Mr Bricks

yubnub said:


> Dear Mr Bricks. This is pointless anecdotal evidence. Please leave the UK out of this please.


Yeah, but you don't say it is untrue, because you know it isn't.


----------



## Jonesy55

Actually, I do think that wearing gloves indoors and houses with no heating are very rare, though I'm sure there are examples of it.


----------



## yubnub

Mr Bricks said:


> Yeah, but you don't say it is untrue, because you know it isn't.


im sure it was true but trying to draw any kind of point from the experiences of one person is worthless. Its also worth noting that i have lived in the UK for most of my life and never had to wear gloves inside nor have i ever heard of anyone having to wear gloves indoors so in that respect my ancedotal evidence seems more valid than yours. 

Again im not sure why you are trying to take cheap shots at the UK in your argument of Finland V USA? Get back on topic imo


----------



## Rocan

Metro007 said:


> Hmm...not really Fitzrovian. First you are using a list from 2004. And second the ranking seem to be wrong.
> 
> The power of purchasing per capita in Finnland is about 30% higher than in Spain (try to google by yourself and you will find it). In fact only the northern part of Spain and Madrid are almost as rich as the areas in Finnland outside Helsinki (which itself is of course much higher). The south of Spain is about like the Greece (!).
> 
> As i already told you, you won't be on the winner-side if you continue to affirm that Spain is richer than scandinavian countries...why not just stoppping with this?


That's based on gdp per capita!


----------



## Rocan

Mr Bricks said:


> Finland's ppp/capita is $34,585, but as I already said you can't measure wealth this way!:bash: We have higher wages and welfare sevice etc which means that the average Finn is far wealthier than the average American. Finland was recently voted the best country in the world, and Helsinki the most liveable city. The US would never come close to any living standard lists due to poverty, unequal distrbution of wealth, crime and crappy non existant welfare services.


1. You don't have higher wages. Look at OECD link.
2. You are not richer at all, as median equivalised disposable income is far higher in the US. Taking into account health and education. $19k vs $29k. 29 is higher than 19! And this is MEDIAN. I'll grant you that the poor in Finland are probably richer.
3.Being "voted" best city is completely immaterial. 
4. I never used the GDP per capita rubric.


----------



## Jonesy55

Wealth and income are not the same thing though.


----------



## Rocan

No, but that's what he meant, because this whole discussion has been on income. Wealth is a function of income for the most part anyway.


----------



## NordikNerd

Adde said:


> That's one picture from Södermalm. If you actually walk around, much of Södermalm, especially the northern part, is made up of 17th and 18th century buildings, with some 19th and 20th century infill. The area around Östermalmstorg has also got quite a few pre-19th century buildings, as does of course Blasieholmen and Skeppsholmen.


Few buildings outside the old town are 18th century or older. 










The Hereditary Prince's Palace is one exception. This building from 1794 is used by the ministery of forreign affairs.

Most other _non old town _18th century buildings were demolished. 

Looking at Boston, MA and the Paul Revere house from 1680, I actually think _outside old town _Stockholm has not much more of historic value.

For instance When the Paul Revere house was erected, the city of St Petersburg, Russia (geographically europe) didn't even exist, it was only a swamp. 

Reading a bit of american history, which in Sweden almost is an unknown subject in school, gives me a somewhat more fair picture of which countries have a rich history. 

Sweden was not much of a national state in the years before the colonization of the americas. If you are looking for cities with long rich history neither Scandinavia or the US are worth mentioning. Italy and Greece are better options for such topics.


----------



## Jonesy55

Rocan said:


> No, but that's what he meant, because this whole discussion has been on income. Wealth is a function of income for the most part anyway.


A function of income plus rate of saving I would think.


----------



## LtBk

Federicoft said:


> Fitzrovian, I agree with some of your points and I can understand why that certain European self-righteousness towards the US annoys you. For instance, there's no doubt the average American has a higher disposable income than the average citizen of any European country, thanks both to higher wages and lower cost of living. You can't expect to have both a much better welfare system and a higher income, so to other Europeans writing here: let's be honest about this.
> 
> But this doesn't mean we should read about such myths without reacting. They may be part of your national rhetorics, but we all know they are far from the truth. Statistics show that social mobility in the US is pretty low, and that emerging from poverty is particularly hard. The vast majority of poor people in your country are not lazy asses, quite the opposite. They are weaker, less fortunate people who fell out of the extremely thin social security safety net because of personal, medical, family, environmental, sometimes racial conditions and now are almost cut off from society. This has nothing to do with merit, there's no merit in being born in a well-to-do family and no argument of merit can be based on the accidents of one's personal life.
> In Europe, poor people can still live a dignified life, be an active part of society and hope for a better future. As I don't question the fact average standard of living is considerably higher in the US, you shouldn't question Europe is a less inequal and less unjust place, instead of induging in the self-delusion poor people are so because they deserve it. As we could learn something from the US about productivity and reward to hard work, you could learn something from us about substantive and not just formal equality of opportunity.


From the all stats I read, most European countries are just as productive as in the US. I could be wrong, but I don't think workers in the US get awarded for hard work anymore.


----------



## Rocan

^France is roughly as productive per hour as Americans, plus sone other countries. Most however are below by more than a little.


----------



## Rocan

Jonesy55 said:


> A function of income plus rate of saving I would think.


Yes, plus unrealized capital gains.


----------



## LtBk

Going off topic, but would UK cities score higher if they have better mass transit?


----------



## Ephesus29

Ribarca said:


> Regarding indoors. Actually in the winter I feel colder in Hong Kong where I live now than back in the Netherlands. We only have two small electric heaters here and the wooden floors get quite cold.
> 
> In Holland you program your central heater and it never gets below 21 degrees in the house. New houses in the Netherlands are actually very well isolated and all modern houses have a very high quality central heating system. Subsidy on isolating houses has led to very energy efficient houses. Mostly some of the older houses in the large cities can be improved in terms of energy efficiency.
> 
> *A completely new city like Almere has even more efficient city wide heating.*




OT; I wonder if the same city heating system, that the city of North Vancouver here in B.C. Canada has emulated. North Vancouver, (water heating system) has been operational since it was completed five years ago. A 4 by 6 city blocks in the Lower Lonsdale are towards the Quay, is where the system is , with plans to expand the system in the future.

*Speaking about creativity and innovation eh!*:cheers:


----------



## Mr Bricks

Rocan said:


> 1. You don't have higher wages. Look at OECD link.
> 2. You are not richer at all, as median equivalised disposable income is far higher in the US. Taking into account health and education. $19k vs $29k. 29 is higher than 19! And this is MEDIAN. I'll grant you that the poor in Finland are probably richer.
> 3.Being "voted" best city is completely immaterial.
> 4. I never used the GDP per capita rubric.


I am tired of repeating myself. Also funny how my statistics don't count and yours do. However, I think it's useless to point to statistics when visiting these countries show how wrong you are. 



yubnub said:


> im sure it was true but trying to draw any kind of point from the experiences of one person is worthless. Its also worth noting that i have lived in the UK for most of my life and never had to wear gloves inside nor have i ever heard of anyone having to wear gloves indoors so in that respect my ancedotal evidence seems more valid than yours.
> 
> Again im not sure why you are trying to take cheap shots at the UK in your argument of Finland V USA? Get back on topic imo


The experiences of one person is worthless, but I know at least a dozen people who have experienced this, including me, and including someone who has lived in many different places in Europe. It is just something you notice when you travel.

It was not my intention to drag the UK into this mess.


----------



## Adde

NordikNerd said:


> Few buildings outside the old town are 18th century or older.
> 
> ...
> 
> Most other _non old town _18th century buildings were demolished.


That's just not true. Like I said, much of Blasieholmen, Skeppsholmen, the northern part of Södermalm and the area around Östermalmstorg is pre-19th century. Yes, many older buildings have been demolished, but quite a few survive. 



NordikNerd said:


> Looking at Boston, MA and the Paul Revere house from 1680, I actually think _outside old town _Stockholm has not much more of historic value.
> 
> For instance When the Paul Revere house was erected, the city of St Petersburg, Russia (geographically europe) didn't even exist, it was only a swamp.
> 
> Reading a bit of american history, which in Sweden almost is an unknown subject in school, gives me a somewhat more fair picture of which countries have a rich history.
> 
> Sweden was not much of a national state in the years before the colonization of the americas. If you are looking for cities with long rich history neither Scandinavia or the US are worth mentioning. Italy and Greece are better options for such topics.


Eh, I'm an archaeologist, this stuff is kind of my job. Scandinavia might not be Greece or Italy. But the Scandinavian countries have got rich histories. Sweden and Denmark are among the oldest kingdoms in the world, having their origin in the 10th century. Sweden had been a nation state (if you can speak of such at all before the 19th century when the concept were invented) for a long time by the time the Americas were colonized. The first king of the core parts of modern Sweden ruled from the 990's (Olof Skötkonung), 500 years before Columbus and 600 years before colonization really took off. Birger Jarl, who solidified a lot of state organization, ruled in the mid-1200's. The bishoprics of Lund, Skara, Uppsala, Linköping and Västerås all date back to the 11th and 12th centuries. Heck, Sweden and Denmark are the two countries in the world who have fought each other the most times over the last 1000 years of history. 

The Americas has got amazing history, both pre-colonial and post-colonial, but so does the Scandinavian region, even though we ourselves are often woefully unaware of it. 

And what does the Paul Revere House and St Petersburg got to do with any of this? The Paul Revere house is pretty unique in the US (and 1680 isn't that old), and St Petersburg is a young city from a European perspective.


----------



## Rocan

Mr Bricks said:


> I am tired of repeating myself. Also funny how my statistics don't count and yours do. However, I think it's useless to point to statistics when visiting these countries show how wrong you are.


I looked at all your statistics, and none negate what I have said, nor could they as they are official national statistics. Much of what you said is either completely taken into account via the use of median, not relevant, or anecdotal.


----------



## Mr Bricks

Check those links. They are based on something you know. Furthermore I don't think "anecdotal evidence" should be ruled out as nonsense. I think you would get to know Finland a lot better by visiting than just looking at figures and numbers.


----------



## Rocan

I did check the links out, and none have anything to do with what I said. They are rankings based on subjective criteria, which is fine, but not what I was talking about in the first place.


----------



## isaidso

LtBk said:


> Going off topic, but would UK cities score higher if they have better mass transit?


I doubt transit is the problem. Better access to health care, higher education, more green space, and higher income would bump them.


----------



## Jonesy55

How can healthcare access be better than 100% free?


----------



## isaidso

Jonesy55 said:


> How can healthcare access be better than 100% free?


Thatcher dismantled a large part of Britain's public health care system. You pretty much have a two tiered system now, with lots of private clinics, additional fees, and long wait times if you don't have the money to queue jump.

Parts of Britain's health care are 100% free. One also has to ask how successful a free system is when you have to wait 6 months to get the treatment you want. I had to move back to Canada to get my leg fixed. Waiting half a year was not an option for me.


----------



## zaguric2

First is still Norway.


----------



## LtBk

isaidso said:


> Thatcher dismantled a large part of Britain's public health care system. You pretty much have a two tiered system now, with lots of private clinics, additional fees, and long wait times if you don't have the money to queue jump.
> 
> Parts of Britain's health care are 100% free. One also has to ask how successful a free system is when you have to wait 6 months to get the treatment you want. I had to move back to Canada to get my leg fixed. Waiting half a year was not an option for me.


That's what you get when you elect a PM that is too close to American conservatism, and Reagan.


----------



## Dahlis

zaguric2 said:


> First is still Norway.


Yes, but Norweigan economy and politics is completely uninteresting because its not based on any good ideas or intelligent politics. its based on finding massive quantities of oil.


----------



## Galro

Ah, ignorance is still bliss I see.


----------



## Dahlis

Galro said:


> Ah, ignorance is still bliss I see.


You have to agree that thats Norways main industry.


----------



## Galro

Dahlis said:


> You have to agree that thats Norways main industry.


No, I don't have to as it is not. It is the most profitable (even though we are using were little of the profit), but it's by no means our only or even our main industry. And Norwegian politics is of course about a lot of more than just oil.


----------



## Jonesy55

isaidso said:


> Thatcher dismantled a large part of Britain's public health care system. You pretty much have a two tiered system now, with lots of private clinics, additional fees, and long wait times if you don't have the money to queue jump.
> 
> Parts of Britain's health care are 100% free. One also has to ask how successful a free system is when you have to wait 6 months to get the treatment you want. I had to move back to Canada to get my leg fixed. Waiting half a year was not an option for me.


:? Thatcher hasn't been in power for two decades, what you are describing is about 15-20 years out of date. Very, very few people are waiting six months and that's for a very small proportion of non-urgent procedures. The 97-09 government invested a lot and waiting lists are a tiny fraction of what they were in the late 80s/early 90s.










Almost all of Britain's health system is free, the out of pocket and private insurance proportions paid are pretty much the lowest in Europe. Additional fees in the NHS are really limited to dentistry charges and a small minority of prescriptions at less than £8 each, even 85% of prescriptions are free for various reasons.

Hardly anybody buys private insurance and private clinics are only common for a few things like cosmetic surgery or laser eye surgery.

In any case, this survey is about temporary ex-pats who generally don't qualify for public healthcare, at least initially, and have insurance paid by their employers.


----------



## Dahlis

Galro said:


> No, I don't have to as it is not. It is the most profitable (even though we are using were little of the profit), but it's by no means our only or even our main industry. And Norwegian politics is of course about a lot of more than just oil.


That however is smart politics. The oil fund I mean. 

Of course norweigan politics is about more than oil, but its the oil that makes it possible.


----------



## Dahlis

Jonesy55 said:


> :? Thatcher hasn't been in power for two decades, what you are describing is about 15-20 years out of date. Very, very few people are waiting six months and that's for a very small proportion of non-urgent procedures. The 97-09 government invested a lot and waiting lists are a tiny fraction of what they were in the late 80s/early 90s.
> 
> Almost all of Britain's health system is free, the out of pocket and private insurance proportions paid are pretty much the lowest in Europe. Additional fees in the NHS are really limited to dentistry charges and a small minority of prescriptions at less than £8 each, even 85% of prescriptions are free for various reasons.
> 
> Hardly anybody buys private insurance and private clinics are only common for a few things like cosmetic surgery or laser eye surgery.


Plus Thatcher did what had to be done. She didnt mess around and wasnt afraid to hurt peoples feelings but Britain would have been even worse off without her.


----------



## jbkayaker12

Tschau!!!


----------



## Ephesus29

jbkayaker12 said:


> Obviously, you are talking out of your *a$$*, like I said not surprising at all!!!:lol:


Have you checked your post#1178 that I quoted?

And your word.....coming from a person who lives in the entertainment capital of the world...I am not surprise at all.


----------



## SkyBridge

Can someone give me a shout when the 13-year-olds are done playing? Thank you.


----------



## Ephesus29

*U.S. loves Vancouver*; Travel agents love sending Americans to Vancouver, Canada. The city was recently picked as top Canadian destination by US travel agents in an Industry Publication called "*Travel Weekly*". The latest winners of the Magazine's latest *Readers Choice Awards *were announced Dec. 15, 2011 in New York. Vancouver has won in the best Canadian destination category _for nine years running _now.


----------



## jbkayaker12

Here you go again with your city. SSC has enough threads about your city, why don't you go there and post your rambling. By the way not even in your wildest dreams will your city ever get in the same stature as Vegas!! Do yourself a favor and stop trolling this particular thread!!


TSCHAU, so long, bye, ciao!!!:lol:


----------



## mhays

As a resort sure, but obviously one is a real city and one isn't.


----------



## jbkayaker12

mhays said:


> As a resort sure, but obviously one is a real city and one isn't.



Not only Nevada but the many parts of the United States truly benefits from Las Vegas as being a popular destination in the United States. Las Vegas brings in travellers from all over the world and these very same travellers also move on to other destinations in the US. :cheers:

You need to explore a little bit more of Clark County because obviously, you don't know what you are talking about!!:lol:


----------



## Ephesus29

mhays said:


> As a resort sure, but obviously one is a real city and one isn't.


Thanks....btw check the banner. Wonderful skyline of Seattle.:cheers:


----------



## Ephesus29

jbkayaker12 said:


> Here you go again with your city. SSC has enough threads about your city, why don't you go there and post your rambling. By the way not even in your wildest dreams will your city ever get in the same stature as Vegas!! Do yourself a favor and stop trolling this particular thread!!
> 
> 
> TSCHAU, so long, bye, ciao!!!:lol:


Vancouverites, me included would never, never let our city emulate Las Vegas. Vegas' status as the entertainment capital of the world as you put it, won't make Las Vegas in the 10 best places to live in the world. You may have all the entertainment in the world, still your city "Las Vegas" would never make the cut.


----------



## mhays

Ephesus29, kudos for putting up with the troll. And yes, good banner!


----------



## jbkayaker12

Birds of the same feather flock together!!! Enjoy the rainy, cold and dreary Seattle Mhays and as far as your neighbor well, never mind!!:cheers:


Tschau!!!


----------



## Ephesus29

jbkayaker12 said:


> Birds of the same feather flock together!!! Enjoy the rainy, cold and dreary Seattle Mhays and as far as your neighbor well, never mind!!:cheers:
> 
> 
> Tschau!!!


Tell you what...rain or shine Seattleans and Vancouverites are all happy bunch. Only misserable people who by the way flocks to the entertainment capital of the world "Las Vegas" to lift their spirits. We don't need those superficial entertainment to be happy and alive. 

It's all natural and we enjoy it. We call it living.


----------



## Ephesus29

mhays said:


> Ephesus29, kudos for putting up with the troll. And yes, good banner!


Yep...and we are in the same boat. TY


----------



## jbkayaker12

Ephesus29 said:


> Tell you what...rain or shine Seattleans and Vancouverites are all happy bunch. Only misserable people who by the way flocks to the entertainment capital of the world "Las Vegas" to lift their spirits. We don't need those superficial entertainment to be happy and alive.
> 
> It's all natural and we enjoy it. We call it living.



You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper in your pit! Keep telling yourself that and it will eventually help with your misery living in such conditions!!:cheers:


----------



## Ephesus29

jbkayaker12 said:


> You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper in your pit! Keep telling yourself that and it will eventually help with your misery living in such conditions!!:cheers:


This is how snowbirds do.... an address in Tucson, Arizona, or Palm Spring. Or a condo in Hawaii or Mexico. Just as Hollywood stars have their summer addresses here in Vancouver Yaletown, the British Properties in the North Shore, or Whistler B.C.


----------

