> “Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to ten at the top. Suppose we say that the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. If the top step is 10 and the bottom step is 0, on which step of the ladder do you feel you personally stand at the present time?”
My immediate problem with this is the lower bound of responses in a given country would be determined by your perception of the safety nets available to you. Someone in a Scandinavian country where there are virtually no unsheltered homeless people probably doesn't index their zero to "dying of exposure on the sidewalk due to untreated mental illness," while an American who sees that regularly would.
That seems to be working as intended? The unhappiness of both "dying of exposure on the sidewalk due to untreated mental illness" and the constant gnawing fear that this is a realistic outcome due to medical bankruptcy or whatever should pull down a country's happiness index.
I've always figured that this is in fact a big reason why the Nordic countries do so well on the survey: the average is lifted not by shiny happy people holding hands, but by the strong safety net ensuring that you can't fall into a pit of despair.
You're misreading the comment. hamdingers is suggesting that the fear of "dying of exposure on the sidewalk" is inflating a country's happiness index, because people are using "dying of exposure on the sidewalk" as a realistic worst-case baseline.
No, the two people before you both understood that point, the disagreement is only on wether it is unfair that a country with a lot of people fearing dying of cold on the sidewalk is considered "less happy".
Bhutan is not ranked in the World Happiness Report, and at least one source (https://www.vox.com/policy/471950/gross-domestic-product-eco...) says that international comparative data contradicts the Bhutanese government's claim that their people are particularly happy.
Seriously, though, I think it is because it has a good natural environment and strong extended families. But that is about to change with their new planned city.
Someone in a Scandinavian country is probably well informed of how terrible it is for the poorest and most vulnerable outside their country. The indexes are probably the same.
The person in the Scandinavian country, when asked this question, will think "hmm, well I am not in America, so I will add 3 steps to my answer" and, och se där, up they go to the top of the World Ranking.
Some might do that, but hopefully most people read the question properly and see it specifically asks about the situation for you, so thinking about the starving children in Gaza is not part of the question.
True, although i do think its likely that its not top of mind. When things aren't relatable, its hard to take them into account in everyday life, even when you're factually aware of it.
>...Someone in a Scandinavian country where there are virtually no unsheltered homeless people probably doesn't index their zero to "dying of exposure on the sidewalk due to untreated mental illness," while an American who sees that regularly would.
Maybe I am not understanding this - do you think the average American regularly sees people dying of exposure on the sidewalk? Or what do you mean?
When I was going to grad school in DC, I'd suggest to classmates that we place bets on the date of the first person dying of exposure in the city every winter.
This bet kinda horrified some people, but I think I got my point across.
My immediate problem with this is the lower bound of responses in a given country would be determined by your perception of the safety nets available to you. Someone in a Scandinavian country where there are virtually no unsheltered homeless people probably doesn't index their zero to "dying of exposure on the sidewalk due to untreated mental illness," while an American who sees that regularly would.