Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just some Sunday morning meditations on my part after reading the news and thinking about things friends of mine, from around the world, who I work with tell me. I was contemplating what wonderful countries, such as the Scandinavian ones, Britain, France, Japan, etc. are and contrasting them to Syria as it currently is, some of the African countries, and others along that line.
I am interested in what the folk here think is the dividing line between a country with a good standard of living is and one without such a good standard.
To me, availability of food, shelter, clothing, medicine, education, freedom of thought, expressions,and religion, employment, along with a sense of satisfaction, community cooperation, and safety are the hallmarks of a good standard of living. What, however is the root cause of these artifacts?
Many of us are fortunate enough to live in countries where these things, although not perfectly distributed, are more in abundance than other countries. Some of these other countries not as blessed have resources, capable people, and other factors in their favor, but don't seem to hit that mark.
What are your thoughts, folks? What separates the living standards between countries?

How far the dollar can take you. Availability of space. What climate you like. What you can do without.

I will not live in Europe
I will not live in Eastern Europe
I will not live in Russia
I will not live in North America (I will maintain my house here though)
I will not live in South America nor Latin America
I will not live in Australia
......

Thailand is the goal
Out in the country

 Jihadin wrote:
How far the dollar can take you. Availability of space. What climate you like. What you can do without.

I will not live in Europe
I will not live in Eastern Europe
I will not live in Russia
I will not live in North America (I will maintain my house here though)
I will not live in South America nor Latin America
I will not live in Australia
......

Thailand is the goal
Out in the country

Yeah, thailand, where you can get 15 years in jail for insulting the king on twitter.

Why Thailand

He really likes Thai food. Duh!

 Frazzled wrote:
He really likes Thai food. Duh!

But is that real Thai food, or westernised Thai food?

I've been to Thailand. Seemed pretty real to me

I think he picked Thailand because of how far money can go there.

Thailand offers little in the way of legal protection to foreigners or ownership rights on property. Lawyers are supposed to be terribly corrupt are often part of the problem.

Suffice to say Thailand is fine for a holiday but I'd be fethed if I would live there.

I wouldn't live in there either. Which is why I was wondering why he wanted too.

yellowfever wrote:
Why Thailand

Young hookers?

Two good books on this subject are "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Why Nations Fail".

Both look at this problem from different angles, and I think the problem is so complex it needs to be looked at from many angles before it can be solved.

Guns, Germs and Steel is more interested in the scientific and environmental reasons why the world ended up the way it is. It's got some great insights.

Why Nations Fail came out a bit later, and sort of explains things from a political standpoint.

Neither book is perfect, but both provide a pretty thoughtful analysis of your question which is miles better than anything I could post.

Thanks, I'll check the books out, but don't be shy about sharing an opinion, either. It would probably be better than anything I could come up with.

Young hookers with diseases. Besides you can get young hookers in almost any country.

<--Half Thai with family there.

So why is no one else throwing out ideas?
So far I've dominated the first page

 Da Boss wrote:
Two good books on this subject are "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Why Nations Fail".

Both look at this problem from different angles, and I think the problem is so complex it needs to be looked at from many angles before it can be solved.

Guns, Germs and Steel is more interested in the scientific and environmental reasons why the world ended up the way it is. It's got some great insights.

Why Nations Fail came out a bit later, and sort of explains things from a political standpoint.

Neither book is perfect, but both provide a pretty thoughtful analysis of your question which is miles better than anything I could post.

Interestingly enough, the complexity seems to 'average out' to a simple overall trend when one backs out far enough:

Given regions/societies/countries of the world go through (inconsistent) cycles of doing well and doing poorly once they reach a settled level of civilization. The area that is now China has done this several times, the middle east had two upswings (ancient mesopotamia and the golden age of islam), north/central America was in such an upswing before smallpox, etc. The west has had two upswings, the first was Rome and the second just happened to coincide with the technology threshold of the industrial revolution, leading to the western-dominated world of today. Technological advancement has broken the rules in this system, so to speak, by changing them so fast that the trend can't stabilize.

Of course this is very much just my opinion on the matter that I am drawing from overall history knowledge rather than specific points of evidence. And this is not to downplay that there are very complicated reasons/situations that cause this overall trend to happens and when/how it happens.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Two good books on this subject are "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Why Nations Fail".

Both look at this problem from different angles, and I think the problem is so complex it needs to be looked at from many angles before it can be solved.

Guns, Germs and Steel is more interested in the scientific and environmental reasons why the world ended up the way it is. It's got some great insights.

Why Nations Fail came out a bit later, and sort of explains things from a political standpoint.

Neither book is perfect, but both provide a pretty thoughtful analysis of your question which is miles better than anything I could post.

Interestingly enough, the complexity seems to 'average out' to a simple overall trend when one backs out far enough:

Given regions/societies/countries of the world go through (inconsistent) cycles of doing well and doing poorly once they reach a settled level of civilization. The area that is now China has done this several times, the middle east had two upswings (ancient mesopotamia and the golden age of islam), north/central America was in such an upswing before smallpox, etc. The west has had two upswings, the first was Rome and the second just happened to coincide with the technology threshold of the industrial revolution, leading to the western-dominated world of today. Technological advancement has broken the rules in this system, so to speak, by changing them so fast that the trend can't stabilize.

Of course this is very much just my opinion on the matter that I am drawing from overall history knowledge rather than specific points of evidence. And this is not to downplay that there are very complicated reasons/situations that cause this overall trend to happens and when/how it happens.

I've heard it said that there is a cycle nations go through where it starts out hard scrabble, or slave, which then goes to where it gains freedom or advances through the hard work of it's citizens followed by pride and decadence which precedes a decline period that plunges it back into the first part of the cycle.


Here's a bit of something talking about it:

http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler1.html

Beer, Boobs and Babes™.

Anything less is uncivilized.

On a serious note: Any government that works to protect it's citizens rights, rather than trying to be the ruler, is my opinion of "higher standard of living" as you ought to have freedoms to achieve your goals.

Isn't the Philippines cheaper than Thailand as far as cost of living?

Personally, I'm looking at Roatán as my retirement destination.

I've always thought that some place like Vancouver would be the place to be.

Well maybe somewhere else in Canada that's warmer but dodges the whole French debate complications.

But then, my knowledge of Canada is kinda like, "America, but crossed with the nicer elements of living in the UK.

Their's nicer elements to living in the UK.

Everything I've experienced / seen about America in my last um... lifetime... Is, unless you happen to be really rather wealthy indeed, it's a pretty bad place to live compared to the UK / Canada / certain countries in Europe.

In saying that, I'd still pick the USA over France, Italy or Spain. Again, assuming a person is not classed as 'very wealthy.'

Germany, I've kinda heard mixed things about. Some say it's awesome, others tell me that 'having dinner in the office, then working through until 10pm at night is a normal thing.'

Oz and New Zealand, sure, maybe, but they have the problems of remoteness. Japan, I believe, is well known for having a pretty bad quality of life overall (The whole 'salaryman' thing.)

 Compel wrote:
Everything I've experienced / seen about America in my last um... lifetime... Is, unless you happen to be really rather wealthy indeed, it's a pretty bad place to live compared to the UK / Canada / certain countries in Europe.

Where in America, though? It's a pretty big place, and standards of living can vary significantly from city to city, let alone from state to state.

Relapse wrote:

To me, availability of food, shelter, clothing, medicine, education, freedom of thought, expressions,and religion, employment, along with a sense of satisfaction, community cooperation, and safety are the hallmarks of a good standard of living. What, however is the root cause of these artifacts?

I would also add social, economic, and geographic mobility to your list.

But, to answer your question, there isn't one. Even if you just look at the history of the United States the movement towards what you describe as a good standard of living was long, slow, and messy; with plenty of opportunities for failure.

Relapse wrote:

Some of these other countries not as blessed have resources, capable people, and other factors in their favor, but don't seem to hit that mark.

In the study of developing nations there is a phenomenon known as the "resource curse" based on the observation that resource rich countries tend to score very poorly when it comes to traditional economic metrics and HDI. The reason for this is very simple, a government which derives the majority of its revenue from rent has no real need to pay attention to the well-being of its citizens, and so it enriches itself while ignoring their needs and the state of the larger economy. You see this a lot in Africa, and on the Arabian Peninsula...though at the very least states on the Arabian Peninsula often have robust welfare systems.

 DarkLink wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Everything I've experienced / seen about America in my last um... lifetime... Is, unless you happen to be really rather wealthy indeed, it's a pretty bad place to live compared to the UK / Canada / certain countries in Europe.

Where in America, though? It's a pretty big place, and standards of living can vary significantly from city to city, let alone from state to state.

I've heard some pretty nightmarish things about the legal systems in some of the European countries. From an albeit limited perspective, I don't think I would want to live in another country.

 whembly wrote:


On a serious note: Any government that works to protect it's citizens rights, rather than trying to be the ruler, is my opinion of "higher standard of living" as you ought to have freedoms to achieve your goals.

This, this I totally agree with. A place where the government serves to protect it's citizens, not control them, is a good place to be.

 DarkLink wrote:

Where in America, though? It's a pretty big place, and standards of living can vary significantly from city to city, let alone from state to state.

True, for example, I do hear good things about Burbank, compared to LA.

However, ultimately, there are various Governmental / national policies that really do make me go. "Wow, America is a pretty terrible place to live, unless you happen to have enough money that those national / Governmental policies aren't an issue.

But yeah, it basically seems to me. Want an education? Drown in debt. Get sick? Drown in debt. As an outsider, the whole "bootstraps" culture, the whole "I can accept having terrible living conditions in my life now, because one day, one day I might, maybe, tiny, possibly have the chance of making it big" thing, just seems to result in, for the vast majority of people, a terrible quality of life.

 Compel wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:

Where in America, though? It's a pretty big place, and standards of living can vary significantly from city to city, let alone from state to state.

True, for example, I do hear good things about Burbank, compared to LA.

However, ultimately, there are various Governmental / national policies that really do make me go. "Wow, America is a pretty terrible place to live, unless you happen to have enough money that those national / Governmental policies aren't an issue.

But yeah, it basically seems to me. Want an education? Drown in debt. Get sick? Drown in debt. As an outsider, the whole "bootstraps" culture, the whole "I can accept having terrible living conditions in my life now, because one day, one day I might, maybe, tiny, possibly have the chance of making it big" thing, just seems to result in, for the vast majority of people, a terrible quality of life.

I disagree on this. I've lived several places in this country from Maine to California, and aside from a fairly dark point in my life, myself and the people I know in the areas I lived had a very good quality of life despite not swimming in money.

 Compel wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:

Where in America, though? It's a pretty big place, and standards of living can vary significantly from city to city, let alone from state to state.

True, for example, I do hear good things about Burbank, compared to LA.

However, ultimately, there are various Governmental / national policies that really do make me go. "Wow, America is a pretty terrible place to live, unless you happen to have enough money that those national / Governmental policies aren't an issue.

But yeah, it basically seems to me. Want an education? Drown in debt. Get sick? Drown in debt. As an outsider, the whole "bootstraps" culture, the whole "I can accept having terrible living conditions in my life now, because one day, one day I might, maybe, tiny, possibly have the chance of making it big" thing, just seems to result in, for the vast majority of people, a terrible quality of life.

It's not nearly as bad as you make it seem. And if your only frame of reference are places in California, that's just skewing things even further. The quality of life for most people is certainly not terrible.

Well, I did say, "pretty" terrible.

California isn't my only place of reference, it's just what I've recently heard people talking about living conditions.

Another example, a friend, pretty, Scottish, white female, spent a summer out in a prestigious Texan university studying astronomy.

She went out on campus ground one night with another student, male, black, to do astronomy stuff... Cause that's what you do when you're an astronomer.

Apparently her friend got threatened with a gun by campus police who apparently immediately believed she was being kidnapped by him. It took some convincing from the girl to stop him from being taken in.

Time and time again, I hear about individuals in the States talking about medical expenses of family members and it effectively ruining whole families lives.