The OECD Better Life Initiative has an index (see http://www.oecdbette...g/#/11111111111 ) that shows life satisfaction across member countries based on a number of variables, including life satisfaction, work-life balance, environment, etc.

All things being equal, Australia appears to have the "best life" of the OECD countries, and one can be grateful for not being a Turk. The Asian tigers in the OECD - Japan and Korea - are both in the bottom half of the rankings, with Korea being toward the lower end.

If this scale is valid it seems that a "better life" is certainly about more than income and material goods.

You can vary the index to suit your priorities. For example, if you believe care of the environment has a really high priority, you can tweak the scale accordingly. Doing so alters Australia's ranking to second and Sweden moves from third to first position.

Ignorance is bliss.

when I worked around mostly Australian toursit they told me the big difference between them and Americans was that Americans live to work and Ozzys work to live.

Well, from today onward the Aussies have got to work harder, according to their gummint.

And don't count on the mining tax to give benefits - the Labour gummint will waste it, the Coalition will abolish it.

I tweaked the index according to my ideas, and frankly the difference between the top 18 is minimal (1 point covers them all). It's a pity Singapore wasn't included; it should rank higher than Japan and Korea. Thailand... well, perhaps better left out.

Where's Madagascar?

Where's Madagascar?

Off the SE coast of Africa

Well i fiddled around with it, then fiddled it a bit more.

Apart from Australia, all the top half were cold countries and I hate the cold.

So they need a few more factors in there.

Personally I'm happy where I am - wherever that happens to be at the time. xcept that job I had in Siberia - building an exploration camp near Lake Baikal. That was a big mistake.

Where's Madagascar?

Off the SE coast of Africa

Doubtless, zzaa, the Madagascarians (or whatever they're called) would welcome you (read Flashman on the subject!).

Where's Madagascar?

Off the SE coast of Africa

Doubtless, zzaa, the Madagascarians (or whatever they're called) would welcome you (read Flashman on the subject!).

Easy to speculate when you haven't a clue about me, Birdy.

The piece is about OECD countries, as stated in the OP.

Madagascar, Singapore, one hundred and fifty other countries are not in this 'club' of rather rich countries - although some of them should be.

The piece is about OECD countries, as stated in the OP.

Madagascar, Singapore, one hundred and fifty other countries are not in this 'club' of rather rich countries - although some of them should be.

Yes, I was rather surprised Singapore wasn't a member.

Madagascar? No, that was a zzaa fantasy.

I guess that one's Better Life would be a candidate for interpretation.

Every situation and lifestyle could easily be different from the next.....as would standards of comfort.

Ratings, surveys, polls, and studies are always to be suspect. As there is no such beast as an absolute.

Unfortunately, most are suckered in.

I guess that one's Better Life would be a candidate for interpretation.

Every situation and lifestyle could easily be different from the next.....as would standards of comfort.

Ratings, surveys, polls, and studies are always to be suspect. As there is no such beast as an absolute.

Unfortunately, most are suckered in.

Isn't that an absolute assertion?

Bottom line: I'll hide the deep countryside. You can have your fancy of what passes as a "better life".

Bottom line: I'll hide the deep countryside.

Hide it if you want. I will not be trying to find it.

Bottom line: I'll hide the deep countryside. You can have your fancy of what passes as a "better life".

Just not so deep that you have no Internet.

Bottom line: I'll hide the deep countryside. You can have your fancy of what passes as a "better life".

Just not so deep that you have no Internet.

Pashaw! No interwebs? Truly wouldn't bother me at all......:jap:

Bottom line: I'll hide the deep countryside. You can have your fancy of what passes as a "better life".

Just not so deep that you have no Internet.

Pashaw! No interwebs? Truly wouldn't bother me at all......:jap:

But then you would have to live without ThaiVisa!!

Bottom line: I'll hide the deep countryside. You can have your fancy of what passes as a "better life".

Just not so deep that you have no Internet.

Pashaw! No interwebs? Truly wouldn't bother me at all......:jap:

But then you would have to live without ThaiVisa!!

I could manage nicely.

You could yell at children who step on your lawn as a substitute.

You could yell at children who step on your lawn as a substitute.

Astroturf?

Bottom line: I'll hide the deep countryside. You can have your fancy of what passes as a "better life".

Just not so deep that you have no Internet.

We should be so lucky...

SC

When looking at countries to live, would these photos attract you?

(continued in next post)

Continuing with photos of this Middle Eastern haven

More to come ...

There's lots of nice sea views too ....

Last set coming up - nice place isn't it?

OK - last set. Then I'll give you a contact address.

I do not get any commission - this is a purely charitable exercise.

That's it chaps.

And the address?

Gaza.

An interesting game, but the results are highly suspicious.

For me, New Zealand came out number 1, followed by Canada, with Australia, Iceland and Sweden essentially tied for third.

On the other hand, these are all based on their own internal numbers, which don't jive with what I know about some of these countries. I mean, Chile got a 0 for environment? 0??? I've been to Chile, I thought it was actually quite beautiful outside of the cities. At the same time, Iceland got a 9, and while it does have some very beautiful fjords, I don't think there is a single tree on the whole island. (OK. I'm exaggerating. There might be 1 tree. But you get the point.)

So I tend to distrust their internal ratings of the rest of the countries as well.

An interesting game, but the results are highly suspicious.

For me, New Zealand came out number 1, followed by Canada, with Australia, Iceland and Sweden essentially tied for third.

On the other hand, these are all based on their own internal numbers, which don't jive with what I know about some of these countries. I mean, Chile got a 0 for environment? 0??? I've been to Chile, I thought it was actually quite beautiful outside of the cities. At the same time, Iceland got a 9, and while it does have some very beautiful fjords, I don't think there is a single tree on the whole island. (OK. I'm exaggerating. There might be 1 tree. But you get the point.)

So I tend to distrust their internal ratings of the rest of the countries as well.

I enjoyed the deserts of Saudi and Libya. But I would not want to live there permanently. Whereas the local inhabitants tend to think it is the best life - they could move towards the cities, but choose not to.

Similarly there are people who enjoy living by the sea, when typhoons can destroy their homes, or living by rivers, when floods inundate their homes every five or ten years.

Ease of shopping is the ideal for others, isolation for some.

Most people tend to think of their childhood surroundings as being the best surroundings, which is probably why each country will promote it's own best features according to local custom.

Me - I was bombed out at four years old, didn't have a settled home for about ten years, which is probably why I've spent my life wandering the world, looking for paradise.

Still looking.

An interesting game, but the results are highly suspicious.

For me, New Zealand came out number 1, followed by Canada, with Australia, Iceland and Sweden essentially tied for third.

On the other hand, these are all based on their own internal numbers, which don't jive with what I know about some of these countries. I mean, Chile got a 0 for environment? 0??? I've been to Chile, I thought it was actually quite beautiful outside of the cities. At the same time, Iceland got a 9, and while it does have some very beautiful fjords, I don't think there is a single tree on the whole island. (OK. I'm exaggerating. There might be 1 tree. But you get the point.)

So I tend to distrust their internal ratings of the rest of the countries as well.

for me trying to judge a small country like New Zealand against a huge country like the USA is near impossible. I was in NZ last Oct it was nice and TBH it felt like being in Oregon and Wyo in the US. Canada is huge land mass with very little population mass, Swedan is both small land mass and small population having said this if you go to the north west of the USA canadians own more land there then US citizens, Kansas has a small town that was settled by immigrants from swedan and is a little swedan with customes and costumes. At the end of the day IHO it all comes down to what an individual is looking for, such as mountians, oceans, cities, etc...