New Zealand has good QoL but does have issues with inequality with the Maori (original Polynesian settlers). They are strict about immigration which tries to help reduce immigrant inequality. Australia has better economic QoL, but there is no wildlife in NZ that will kill you.
Kiwis are much more equitable than Aussies. Australia let's foreigners in but we are cunts to them. The economic segregation is riff in Australia; Outer suburbs are where the poor migrants are put with the wealthier migrants getting pushed into their set cultural zones with older generations of migrants.
You might want to look at the IHDI, inequality-adjusted human development index.
It takes the life expectancy, years of education, and GNI (PPP) per capita, and adjusts it for inequality.
Ideally it shouldn't even take GNI into account, imho (but an economic type-agnostic system, that takes the environment into account as well).
The top 15 is:
Iceland (Nordics)
Norway (Nordics)
Denmark (Nordics)
Switzerland (Central Europe)
Netherlands (Western Europe)
Belgium (Western Europe)
Finland (Nordics)
Germany (Central Europe)
Sweden (Nordics)
Ireland (Western Europe)
Slovenia (Southeast Europe)
Australia (Oceania)
United Kingdom (Western Europe)
Canada (North America)
Czech Republic (Central Europe)
The IHDI still has some issues, though, like not taking workplace democracy, environment and sustainability, and public transit into account. Had that been done, Spain probably would rise quite a bit higher.
I'd also add that a lot of these countries have very strict immigration policies.
Nordic countries are the best example. A lot of Europe might fit depending on how low "low social and economic equality" is defined.
Looking at this data Norway seems to have low levels of economic inequality, low rates of poverty, and a high median disposable income (behind Luxembourg but around that of France and Austria).
Its far from perfect, but I imagine social inequality for stuff like gender and race is pretty low, officially speaking at least. I get the feeling that Scandinavians can be a big negative about foreigners, but I have zero firsthand knowledge on that.
Norway admittedly has gigantic, relatively recent, oil and gas reserves that allow it to fund all sorts of social programs. Not saying those are bad or anything, just not a particularly exportable model.
It's actually pretty exportable. There's a lot of countries out there that have natural resources that should be the property of the people instead of wealthy individuals.
If you're going to start nationalizing previously established resources, that's going to have all sorts of wild reprecussions and is not what Norway did.
But beyond the logistics, which similarly profitable resources are you thinking of?
Norway did nationalize their oil though?
previously established
In other words, Norway established this stuff pretty quickly when oil was discovered. That's wildly different from taking over existing private enterprise.
People really don't like it when you take things away as opposed to having a set of rules before anyone begins.
Norway did that, though. The pension fund that's financed from that oil, is nationally owned, iirc.
previously established
In other words, Norway established this stuff pretty quickly when oil was discovered. That's wildly different from taking over existing private enterprise.
People really don't like it when you take things away as opposed to having a set of rules before anyone begins.
We take nothing away and give everything to the people. Capitalists are the problem.
Yeah, this isn't going to be productive or interesting.
Have a nice day.
Well of course it won't be the same. Thats why you have to export it.
All of them. All of a nations natural resources rightfully belong to the people from oil to water. From rare earth minerals to timber.
All of a nations natural resources rightfully belong to the people
Yes and we have a liberal democracy to determine how best to use them. Thankfully, most folks understand that simply nationalizing resources comes with huge reprecussions which greatly outweigh the gains.
Do you have a successful example of your proposal in mind?
A liberal democracy isn't exactly a free democracy. Billionnaires have far more buying power and so the odds are much more in their favour to bribe and corrupt institutions. That is why they like "liberal" democracy and corporate dictatorships.
If you want to understand, then go to one of those US "for profit" prisons. Works well, huh?
Not every liberal democracy is America.
If you want to understand, you might go to Canada where strict campaign finance laws generally reign in billionaires.
Most Oil and Gas reserves remaining in the US are on public land, as is the massive lithium deposit just discovered in southeastern Oregon. Then there are the seabed polymetalic nodules that will be mined sooner or later. There are plenty of opportunities to nationalize natural resources, what is lacking is political will.
Lithium is not nearly as profitable as oil. It costs a huge amount to extract and refine (China has such a chokehold on critical minerals, not because they have so much more but because they've built an incredibly efficient set of supply chains.)
And personally, I am very much not in favour of tearing down what little protected land is left in America. But you will be happy to know that trump strongly agrees with you and is opening up a swathe of public land for oil and gas.
Except that the Nordic model has been replicated across all the Nordic countries, of which only Norway has vast natural resources.
And even then, Norway, under the policies of the Nordic model, was already quite rich before it discovered oil.
Interestingly enough, Norway was already doing quite alright before they discovered the oil - they were at 10th place amongst all European countries. The oil has given them additional wealth, but it has become somewhat of a national myth that the oil is the sole reason for Norway's success, leading to their current reluctance to spin the industry down, despite it running fully counter to Norway's self-image of a green nation.
Tenth among European nations in the 60s isn't particularly good and is not thr standard that makes Norway the model everyone wants to emulate.
Consider how much of Europe was under communism or fascism and there's really not a lot of competition.
It wasn't a terrible place but not the high quality with which we currently associated Norway.
There's the Gini coefficient , which is an index for social inequality. Its easier to spot the blue countries and guess if you'd like to move there.
Edit: although looking at the map, its strange to see India and Japan having the same color. Anecdotally, I think the gap between rich and poor is much greater in India than in Japan, education and drinking water for example. Ive lived in both countries, and I think India should be yellow or orange, like southeast Asia.
Plus immigrant friendly, I guess.
Plus immigrant friendly, I guess.
I mean, this is exactly why I kinda side-eye Lemmings when they are like "why did you choose to move to 'such a shithole'¹ like the US, isn't China much better", (¹their words btw, not mine) like... (first of all, I didn't even choose, my parent did) lol I'd go to Norway if they took us, but no they don't lmao, the US was our only option for emigration... it was either this or stay in mainland China with all that pollution stuff and Hukou bullshit and crowded, and hard to find income.
I don't know from experience, and I haven't researched it, but that kinda sounds like Canada.
Maybe Germany.
Most European countries.
You and tubulartittyfrog have basically the exact opposite comments
Not really. In most European countries inequality is still huge, with service jobs earning less than a living wage.
Xandar
Is that real or is it like Narnia?
Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia fits this bill if we assume for the moment that slaves don't count toward the equality aspect, beings slaves and all.
There are graphs in the book The Spirit Level which show exactly this. The two things correlate. From memory Iceland, Japan and maybe Poland do well, or at least they were when the book was published.
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!