By Amanda Morrall
Australia may hold an economic advantage over New Zealand by measure of GDP and wages, but will it -- or anywhere else for that matter -- enrich your life?
According to the OECD, our undue focus on GDP misses the point.
The decision on where to build a life --a foregone conclusion for the bulk of the world's population it should be noted -- needs to take into account a ''compendium of well-being factors'' distilled by personal choice, the OECD suggests.
Accordingly, the OECD has come up with a multi-dimension better life index to help the geographical daydreamer find their place under the sun. It uses 11 aspects of well-being, each with a five-star ranking system, to produce a comparative profile of nations tailored to individual preference.
The factors deemed to be essential to well-being in terms of material living conditions are housing, income and jobs. On the quality of life side, the inputs are community, education, environment, governance, health, life satisfaction, safety and work-life balance.
Money's not everything
In its introductory notes, the OECD notes that wealth as a singular measure of well-being is a faulty assumption.
"There’s been a lot of debate lately on measuring the well-being of societies – is wealth all that matters, or should we be looking at other things, like the balance between work and the rest of our lives?
The Index aims to involve citizens in this debate, and to empower them to become more informed and engaged in the policy-making process that shapes all our lives."
Each of the 11 topics is built on one to three specific indicators:
"For example, the Work-Life Balance topic is based on three separate measures: the number of employees working long hours; the percentage of working mothers; and the time people devote to leisure and personal activities."
The OECD says it plans on further enhancing the index by factoring in sustainability of well-being, over time.
The data used to build the better life index is derived from official sources such as the OECD or National Accounts, United Nations Statistics, National Statistics Offices. It also relies on data from public opinion polls put together by Gallup.
34 Comments
Wages are definitely not the only factor to achieve happiness. There are plenty of far more important things in life. That said, financial hardship is unlikely to make people happy (and aren't financial problems one of the main causes for divorce?).
I reckon the best position to be in is to have skills that are in demand. Then not only can you get paid well but work on your terms. Ie, you don't have to sacrifice family/hobbies or work/money - you can actually have both, and it's fantastic.
:) Aside from my husband's questionable fishing skills, trust the little ones to give us our recommended daily dose of laughter!
And don't worry, we do enjoy. There is not a single day that goes by without us being aware of just how very lucky we are in every department of life. Not many mums and dads get to both be at home everyday with their young kids while still having great careers and earning the incomes that go with that, not to mention we are healthy and live in a beautiful country. You're not about to hear me complaining about my life that's for sure!
Agree....ive been in situations where my skills despite being good were not wanted or not wanted enough unless "cheap" in that situation I realised I was screwed staying doing what I was and re-train myself....Ive never looked back....and I cant be threatened my CV will get me as good a job here or in OZ...
regards
I can see where your coming from, lol.... but too much does bring un-wanted problems.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the…
Ahhh, no.
Most of his subjects were not from the western world, which seems to be your frame of reference.
FYI his criteria for inclusion in his studay was 80+, full eyesight and hearing plus fully mobile and sexually active. Oldest couple 110&111.
120+ is the generally accepted upper end, with some saying 135+ as the potential.
Don't know about you Muzza, but I have laid the foundation. Pretty hard in this toxic society though.
"In New Zealand, the average household wealth is estimated at 16 131 USD, lower than the OECD average of 36 808 USD. .. the ideal measure of household wealth should include real assets (e.g. land and dwellings)"
Given a third of NZ households own their own homes without a mortgage, even if we assume the improbable that everyone else had zero net wealth, then the average net wealth of all housholds would be a third of the average house price or about $130,000 NZ or about $US100,000. Stats NZ produce this kind of data anyway, so why should we pay any attention to OECD calculations if they can't even compile the most basic data?
No Conrad. The OECD define wealth to include land and buildings (as I noted in my comment).
Your point about negative equity is ridiculous and not worth rebutting.
Clearly (as per usual) these OECD reports (like most compliled data of this nature) contains so many inaccuarcies that they are unreliable and meaningless.
The perfect, happy and wealthy - 8 wire winter guy:
Quick..take a look...Treasury bloats are heaving themselves up onto the bandwagon...they can at least detect the end of the era in which they were regarded as the most important bunch of Humphreys in wgtn...nearly 5 billion dollars a year they consume...very poor productivity results!...just look at the economy....and in an effort to ward off the swinging axe cutting off the axemans head it's time for them to change costumes...off with the numbers cloak and on with the 'well-being overalls'...greater scope for more and bigger bullshit.
"Treasury is making a move towards measuring the happiness of Kiwis in a bid to improve its policy advice to the Government and respond to its critics." herald
humbug
Rob - I dunno about that. I've always worked to live, and valued my time. After all, it's the only time I'll get.
While my contemporaries tapped into the system, I adventured (see the Neville Peak book "The Tasman"), sailed, flew my hang-gliders high, far and wide, pitched into the community we settled into.
Oddly enough, I looked around in middle age, and most of them are on their second bimbo/second tribe of brats, paunched, stressed-looking, and when you add up what they're worth cashed-up, they don't seem to be 'ahead'. I suspect they are spending it on the first set of brats, and on gifts-to-self-to-make-self-feel-better. I can't think of a one I'd change places with. Can't think of a one who is healthier in a fitness sense, either.
Fear of Peer insecurity, I suspect, is one of the reasons folk who chase wealth are never satisfied.
Well said powerdownkiwi, perhaps this is where Dr Ware's last two factors mentioned above (Spirituality and meditation) fit in?
In my experience the common link between the happiest people I know is an interest in non-material things, be it organised religion or more informal spirituality. Conversely those most obsessed with 'keeping up with the Joneses' tend to be the least happiest people I know. After all any happiness that comes from having the flashest car on the block can only lat until one of the neighbours buys something shinier.
Dunno about the religion part, but most of the scientists and researchers I know (amateur and professional) seem happiest when they are engaged in science and research.
Their interests and work is often derided as not being practical or "down to Earth" by those who think owning the biggest house or flashest car or fastest boat is more important than anything else in the world.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.