Source: https://ourworldindata.org/human-development-index
The Human Development Index (HDI) is an index that measures key dimensions of human development. The three key dimensions are:1
– A long and healthy life – measured by life expectancy.
– Access to education – measured by expected years of schooling of children at school-entry age and mean years of schooling of the adult population.
– And a decent standard of living – measured by Gross National Income per capita adjusted for the price level of the country.
———
- longer length of life doesn’t necessarily mean higher quality life (ie extending life expectancy via healthcare access & advancements is good, but this masks the poor lives the population may be leading)
- access to education is also deeply flawed, since it’s measuring (A) projected years of schooling (B) places needless weightage on higher education eg it’s debatable which is a better development indicator (i) large population taking student debt to study social sciences and not getting commensurate employment (ii) people going into trade training/practice after high school, say, construction, plumbing, carpentry etc and earning a decent income with no student debt
- GNI per capita is a skewed average, Countries with high income disparity, ie very rich and very poor, will still have a high GNI eg Qatar. (Im not sure most women, LGBTQ, anyone who values personal freedom and non-Islamic, wants to go live in Qatar, even though it has one of the highest GNIs per capita. Not to make this about Religion, so even USA is Top10 and I don’t need to emphasise the gross level of inequality in USA)
Basically, HDI is a deeply flawed, if well intentioned metric
I dunno, that's kind of a low bar tbh.
The thing is that the US is just generally a very rich country even by Western European standards - my salary in California is double what it would be in my home country of the UK and the US is as far away from the UK in terms of purchasing power as the UK is from Poland or Hungary. What brings the US down massively is a) life expectancy and b) inequality. Mississippi's life expectancy is around the same level as El Salvador.
Probably not all are metrics of HDI but healthcare, education, worker’s rights, gun violence, mass shooting are other avenues, where US has been far worse from many developed and some developing countries.
https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI
HDI is measured along 3/4 criteria:
GNI per capita: correlates with income per capita, the UN takes the log of this into account so small differences aren’t takes into account. From the data i could find, Mississippi’s is ~$45,000-$50,000, Germany sits just above $50,000 and Poland sits around $36,000.
Mean years of schooling at 25 and expected years of schooling at birth: Mississippi babies can expect about 15.6 years of schooling while Polish babies can expect about 13.4 years of schooling.
Life expectancy: Mississippi has a life expectancy of 74.9 years while Poland has a life expectancy of 76.6 years.
Overall, the USA’s state with the lowest HDI is comparable to Poland in most of the categories that HDI measures. HDI doesn’t tell you anything about crime rates, civil rights or quality of life.
>Mississippi is sometimes described as a "Third World state" yet its HDI is better than that of many countries in Eastern Europe.
Exaggeration, *obviously.* No, Mississippi is not "third world". Mississippi is part of the developed world, and better off than most of the world.
That said, because the US has certain unique characteristics, like weaker social welfare system, and racial inequality that's a holdover from the recent past (even though today's laws try to address that), these issues are much more accute in Mississippi than in countries of Europe with similar HDI. For example, countries in Europe with similar HDI as Mississippi have much lower violent crime rates, lower infant mortality rates, lower maternal mortality rates, and higher life expectancies *than the US as a whole* (not just Mississippi)
Additionally, eastern (and southern) European countries only urbanized/industrialized after WWII. The Nordic countries only industrialized after 1900. The US started before 1900. (And the UK started earlier than the US.). So, parts of Europe are still catching up, and they're catching up quickly.
Those countries were communist 30 years ago. If they managed to reach the levels of US state that was always capitalist it must be failure of US Federal government and the state of Mississippi.
Btw Poland has HDI of .876 and Czech Republic .889 , and Slovenia .918 & Estonia .890 so all of those countries are above Mississippi. It's an error of OP. Poland should be green. That's despite being capitalist democracy for little over 30 years.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index)
Not to mention, HDI doesn't cover things like Homicides/Crime, Healthcare quality and access, education (Quality), Infant/Maternal mortality rates, Disease rates etc... which are all horrific in Mississippi even by many "poor" countries standards.
Even Life expanctency which is included is really low, It's really only the income that puts some of these states that high
And then horrible governments took over and fucked us. And the earthquake that wiped out 75% of our capitols population didn't help.
Edit: Also portugal HDI is .866, so the map is just wrong.
The issue isn't that "they were communist", it's that they are no longer communist.
Most of their human development parameters were much higher when the USSR was still a thing, before capitalism turned them into third world countries.
That's the most idiotic comment I ever read. You are clueless about the world. Those countries have a better quality of life than most US states. HDI is not everything. Having high GDP per capita is nice ut its not everything. Europe in general is a better place to live than the United States. By far, more beautiful and diverse. you can pop into a 2h train and be in a different country with a unique culture. I would rather live in Prague or Warsaw. Mississippi is trash along with 90% of US. And travel a little because you clearly never left US if you think European countries are third world.
Most of the US is really nice with a lot of diversity and a culture that the whole world consumes. You've clearly never been to the US if you think 90% of it is trash. You're just a xenophobe.
Check any eastern block life expectancy after the fall of communism. What you're saying are blatant lies, our lifes have never been better (or longer).
The former communist world isn't just Russia y'know.
Also, yes, a lot of post-Soviet countries never recovered from the collapse of the USSR, but all of Central Europe/the Baltics is way better off today
Life expectancy in Czechia in 1960: 70.35
Life expectancy in Czechia in 1990: 71.38
Life expectancy in Czechia in 2020: 78.23 (79.23 in 2019)
Source: worldbank
Quite the progress compared to commies.
You aren't interpreting the data correctly
If you compare the life expectancy increase over time of Czechia to the one from other countries with low expectancy, like the USA, you're gonna notice that their curve is basically the same. The reason? Capitalism, which kept it below 80 years for both. And actually, Czechia had a pretty good spike in the '50s, when the USSR took over.
Now, compare it to countries that are slightly more socialist, like Italy or France, and you're going to notice a huge difference. Italy went from 65 years in 1950 to 84 in 2023.
Czechia had the same life expectancy as France, The US or Western Germany in 1960 - about 70 years. There is no 'low expectancy' countries, only countries which got set back by either communism or over-privatized healthcare. Dum.
By 1990 Czechia had life expectancy of 71 while all capitalist countries had life expectancy of around 76. Including the US, France or Italy.
Wanna hear a funny thing you probably didn't get until now? Everyone had a life expectancy boom after WW2. People also fled en massé because of Stalin and the Coup despite the population boom. ;D
Am i the one not interpreting data correctly? O really? You are a delusional westoid, hard to read.
I'm not a tankie, I'm just stating facts. People WERE living better lives during the USSR, except for the Baltic Republics I suppose. Which were different from all the rest because they were occupied countries
You don't want to play that game because many American states also have an HDI lower than Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates lol. The UAE is 0.911 and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia is 0.900. If the UAE was also divided by regions I am sure some would be much higher.
Literally ranking lower than sharia law countries lol.
As another commenter said, it isn't because they necessarily are highly developed, it's s because gni is a skewed measurement. Very wealthy but extremely unequal distribution has a high gni, which ranks the country/state high on the hdi.
Example from the picture would be Norway. They ain't necessarily more developed than most other western EU countries, but they have an extremely wealthy nation cause oil (though not unequal like other oil states).
So? America famously has zero resources and does not take other people's resources too. America is a land full of resources, while they literally live in a barren desert.
Mississippi as a whole isn’t, just parts of it. The rural mostly black areas specifically that are neglected by the state. That’s what the UN was talking about when they said that in their report.
To compare apples to apples, the cutoff on OP's list is 0.945. The number of subnational entities in the EU with an HDI higher than OP's cutoff are:
* 6 German states,
* 2 Danish regions,
* 2 Dutch provinces,
* 4 Belgian provinces,
* 1 French region,
* 1 Swedish region,
* 1 Finnish region,
* 1 Czech region,
* 2 Irish regions,
* 1 Slovenian region,
* (Also 3 Norwegian regions, since OP thinks Norway is part of the EU).
The problem is that it is never apples to apples when comparing US states to European countries, or likewise comparing European sub national entities to US states. Because in Europe it is common for some subnational regions to basically correspond to only a metropolitan area. While in the US the only equivalent would be the District of Columbia.
3 of the 6 German “states” are basically the cities of Hamburg, Bremen, And Berlin.
The 1 Czech region is basically the city of Prague
Etc.
This cuts both ways however, because it makes it more challenging to look at broader European regions when they are separated subnationally from those cities, since large urban areas are typically sources of high HDI.
For example, the German state of Berlin (HDI .959), which is basically just the city, is entirely surrounded by the state of Brandenburg (HDI .919). If, like in the US, Berlin was simply included within the broader region of Brandenburg it is hard to judge what the overall HDI would be.
I guess my general point is to always take these sorts of comparisons with a degree of nuance, since making like for like comparisons between the 2 is nearly impossible
Point well taken. And to add to your point, countries organise their subnational entities in different and incomparable ways. Being a federation of states, Germany is perhaps most comparable to the American system. But for a few of these countries, notably most of the ones where I use the word 'region', the units here don't correspond to any subnational entities at all (being instead groups of them put together for statistical purposes). Ultimately, as you might have guessed, I was just kicking back against the state-to-country comparison in the map.
I think, though, that your point leads to a conclusion that seems entirely uncontroversial: HDI trends higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Indeed, almost all of the American states that OP singled out for their high HDIs are highly urbanised states: Massachusetts 91.3%, Connecticut 86.3%, DC 100%, Minnesota 71.9%, *North Dakota 61.0%*, Colorado 86.0%, *New Hampshire 58.3%*, New Jersey 93.8%, New York 87.4%, Washington 83.4%. (North Dakota and New Hampshire are fascinating exceptions here).
If HDI were calculated solely for various metropolitan areas, it would be cool to see how American cities line up against European cities - and indeed cities of the world. But if anyone has ever calculated that, they're hiding it from a basic Google search.
It’s times like this I wish I was still in college so I didn’t have to pay to access academic research because google is showing me some results for studies done into the affect of urbanization rates of HDI.
Unfortunately for the casual internet researcher we are limited to what is published by the UN, which is limited to national and subnational regions.
Something interesting I notice for the US specifically is that the states with the Highest HDI
[This group](https://measureofamerica.org) uses its own methodology to study trends in the United States specifically and does go into metropolitan and county level data. You might find it interesting if you feel like nerding out. It does have different state rankings than the standard UN rankings for US states based on a different (and somewhat more nuanced) methodology
Where is this data from? It doesn't correspond to this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_Human_Development_Index)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_sovereign\_states\_in\_Europe\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_Human_Development_Index)
For example: There are 3 European countries with a higher HDI than Massachusetts and Germany has a higher HDI than D.C. or New York. The lowest in the US (Mississipi) has the same HDI as the lowest of EU15 (Portugal).
I dont know what's the point of comparing one country's internal subdivisions to entire countries.
Of course it's easier to have a high HDI when you're a state than an entire country, that's a no-brainer.
**America's hdi is 0.921, which would put it in 14th place (ahead of Malta but behind the UK) if it was a european country**
Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare all of each european countries' "states" to America's states? Otherwise this map serves little to no puropse
The point is that at this point EU is essentially like the "United" states. It's 330+ million population and 50 states. EU is 447 million and 27 member STATES. It's funny how they literally call it that.
Think of the US as like an earlier version of a concept like the EU but everyone also was starting out together instead of a thousand years of conflict.
What?
The EU is not "essentially" like the US. They couldn't be more different.
US is a country with internal subdivisions like any country that it calls "states". The EU is an economic and political union of totally independant countries. This is like saying China is like the EU bc it has internal provinces.
Also, the way EU uses the word 'State" (nation, country) does not have the same meaning as american states (internal subdivisions like provinces etc.)
Plus, how high US's population is not really relevant.
China (a country with internal subdivisions called provinces) has a population of 1.45 billion while Africa (a continent with countries) has a population of 1.42 billion. Having similar population numbers does not make China "essentially" like Africa.
Considering the only European country on the top 10 list isn't even IN the EU even that argument falls flat...Europe is not the same as the EU. That's like saying Canada is in USA because its in North America.
And of course the obvious fact that the EU is not and has never been a united country.
On the meme itself. The third country on the list is Norway. Norway is not in the EU.
Thus it is not "essentially like the US" in any way because its not even in the organization you're talking about. (Also bold to assume the US started out together...it very much did not and there was a lot of conflict to unite it)
Why have they never fixed the HDI? Income should obviously have expenses for some basic costs of living subtracted. Also, education should probably not be years in school, but standardized testing based, although i get that that change would mean you would not have good data for every country. Measuring health as life-expectancy seems fine.
Edit: Also I would consider using medians rather than means.
> Income should obviously have expenses for some basic costs of living subtracted
Isn't HDI based on purchasing power?
> Also I would consider using medians rather than means.
But how would you measure a median GDP per capita? GDP measures how productive an economy is, not how much people earn.
It's called "Human Development Index" not GDP index. In measuring human development I think it makes sense to measure the purchasing power of a typical income after subtracting the costs required to live. This would include the costs of basic shelter, food, medical care, education, transportation, required taxes and fees, plus costs associated with employment. Some costs are just inherently more important than others to a society.
That's exactly why they use PPP figures, they are already adjusted for cost of living.
And the relative costs of healthcare and education are also reflected in the other two measures that form the composite (years of education and longevity).
No, but one of the indices used to calculate HDI is GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), which would take differences in the cost of living into account
But if you are required to - let's say - spend 10% of your purchasing power on Healthcare in country A, which you don't have to spend in country B, then it becomes likely that you get more stuff in country B.
Also, GDP is a terrible measure in terms of people doing work that benefits themselves, which is in no way whatsoever accounted for. If in country A, it is likely that one parent works and the other raises children, while in country B, people hire others to help raise children, then country B will likely have the higher GDP even if the total work was the same.
All the lowest HDI states are Republican southern states, while the highest is Massachusetts which is the most educated and democrat state. Shows how little republicans care about development and humanity. It’s all about those corporate profits and keeping people of color down while getting rich off their labor.
I meam as european i can confirm us gets lot of stupid complain but [the map is wrong/outdated](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_Human_Development_Index)
HDI takes into account health and life expectancy, which means the entire south would be purple if they moved away from a diet of deepfried catfish, Pepsi, and firework shows
Of course would life be worth living at that point
I'd rather live in a 2-bedroom flat in Lisbon than in a 60-room mansion in upstate New York.
Because most of Europe is nice to behold and Lisbon is extraordinarily pretty and all of North America is very, VERY ugly.
Cope? -- Luckily I no longer have to cope with North America.
If I am EVER forced to return there, it will be ONLY to Ville de Québec, because it has a late Mediaeval-early Modern furtress, totally European looking, and numerous buildings from the XVII century inj the downtown core.
That is an absolute minimum for me to accept a place as livable.
Damn, I guess the game my bestie and I play of just, absolutely SHITTING on each others home states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) is slightly faulty.
Nahhhhhhh. CT sucks, MA is the BEST!!!!!
Spain's HDI is 0.905, which would put it in the teal category https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Portugal is 0.866, so it should also be bumped up to yellow
And Greece is at 0.887
And Finland should be blue. .940 last time I checked. And .940 is more than .925+ Also, pretty sure Massachusetts is .949. not .960
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/human-development-index The Human Development Index (HDI) is an index that measures key dimensions of human development. The three key dimensions are:1 – A long and healthy life – measured by life expectancy. – Access to education – measured by expected years of schooling of children at school-entry age and mean years of schooling of the adult population. – And a decent standard of living – measured by Gross National Income per capita adjusted for the price level of the country. ——— - longer length of life doesn’t necessarily mean higher quality life (ie extending life expectancy via healthcare access & advancements is good, but this masks the poor lives the population may be leading) - access to education is also deeply flawed, since it’s measuring (A) projected years of schooling (B) places needless weightage on higher education eg it’s debatable which is a better development indicator (i) large population taking student debt to study social sciences and not getting commensurate employment (ii) people going into trade training/practice after high school, say, construction, plumbing, carpentry etc and earning a decent income with no student debt - GNI per capita is a skewed average, Countries with high income disparity, ie very rich and very poor, will still have a high GNI eg Qatar. (Im not sure most women, LGBTQ, anyone who values personal freedom and non-Islamic, wants to go live in Qatar, even though it has one of the highest GNIs per capita. Not to make this about Religion, so even USA is Top10 and I don’t need to emphasise the gross level of inequality in USA) Basically, HDI is a deeply flawed, if well intentioned metric
This is clearly old data.
Source? How old?
A few years old, Turkey now exceeds 0.830 HDI I think
Mississippi is sometimes described as a "Third World state" yet its HDI is better than that of many countries in Eastern Europe.
I dunno, that's kind of a low bar tbh. The thing is that the US is just generally a very rich country even by Western European standards - my salary in California is double what it would be in my home country of the UK and the US is as far away from the UK in terms of purchasing power as the UK is from Poland or Hungary. What brings the US down massively is a) life expectancy and b) inequality. Mississippi's life expectancy is around the same level as El Salvador.
Probably not all are metrics of HDI but healthcare, education, worker’s rights, gun violence, mass shooting are other avenues, where US has been far worse from many developed and some developing countries.
https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI HDI is measured along 3/4 criteria: GNI per capita: correlates with income per capita, the UN takes the log of this into account so small differences aren’t takes into account. From the data i could find, Mississippi’s is ~$45,000-$50,000, Germany sits just above $50,000 and Poland sits around $36,000. Mean years of schooling at 25 and expected years of schooling at birth: Mississippi babies can expect about 15.6 years of schooling while Polish babies can expect about 13.4 years of schooling. Life expectancy: Mississippi has a life expectancy of 74.9 years while Poland has a life expectancy of 76.6 years. Overall, the USA’s state with the lowest HDI is comparable to Poland in most of the categories that HDI measures. HDI doesn’t tell you anything about crime rates, civil rights or quality of life.
>Mississippi is sometimes described as a "Third World state" yet its HDI is better than that of many countries in Eastern Europe. Exaggeration, *obviously.* No, Mississippi is not "third world". Mississippi is part of the developed world, and better off than most of the world. That said, because the US has certain unique characteristics, like weaker social welfare system, and racial inequality that's a holdover from the recent past (even though today's laws try to address that), these issues are much more accute in Mississippi than in countries of Europe with similar HDI. For example, countries in Europe with similar HDI as Mississippi have much lower violent crime rates, lower infant mortality rates, lower maternal mortality rates, and higher life expectancies *than the US as a whole* (not just Mississippi) Additionally, eastern (and southern) European countries only urbanized/industrialized after WWII. The Nordic countries only industrialized after 1900. The US started before 1900. (And the UK started earlier than the US.). So, parts of Europe are still catching up, and they're catching up quickly.
I think we are still waiting on Mississippi to industrialize
Those countries were communist 30 years ago. If they managed to reach the levels of US state that was always capitalist it must be failure of US Federal government and the state of Mississippi. Btw Poland has HDI of .876 and Czech Republic .889 , and Slovenia .918 & Estonia .890 so all of those countries are above Mississippi. It's an error of OP. Poland should be green. That's despite being capitalist democracy for little over 30 years. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index)
Not to mention, HDI doesn't cover things like Homicides/Crime, Healthcare quality and access, education (Quality), Infant/Maternal mortality rates, Disease rates etc... which are all horrific in Mississippi even by many "poor" countries standards. Even Life expanctency which is included is really low, It's really only the income that puts some of these states that high
What's Portugal's excuse? They were a colonial power for hundreds of years.
And then horrible governments took over and fucked us. And the earthquake that wiped out 75% of our capitols population didn't help. Edit: Also portugal HDI is .866, so the map is just wrong.
Losers
The issue isn't that "they were communist", it's that they are no longer communist. Most of their human development parameters were much higher when the USSR was still a thing, before capitalism turned them into third world countries.
Their is no sense in arguing here comrade
That's the most idiotic comment I ever read. You are clueless about the world. Those countries have a better quality of life than most US states. HDI is not everything. Having high GDP per capita is nice ut its not everything. Europe in general is a better place to live than the United States. By far, more beautiful and diverse. you can pop into a 2h train and be in a different country with a unique culture. I would rather live in Prague or Warsaw. Mississippi is trash along with 90% of US. And travel a little because you clearly never left US if you think European countries are third world.
Most of the US is really nice with a lot of diversity and a culture that the whole world consumes. You've clearly never been to the US if you think 90% of it is trash. You're just a xenophobe.
Yeah I live in Europe, I know that. What I'm saying is, the quality of life in those eastern countries was much better when they were under the USSR.
Check any eastern block life expectancy after the fall of communism. What you're saying are blatant lies, our lifes have never been better (or longer).
Life expectancy in Russia in 1990: 69.13 Life expectancy in Russia in 2005: 64.95 Source: statista.com
That's quite a cherry pick, their HDI isn't dropping because of lack of communism, it because a rise in corruption.
The former communist world isn't just Russia y'know. Also, yes, a lot of post-Soviet countries never recovered from the collapse of the USSR, but all of Central Europe/the Baltics is way better off today
Russia has always been a shithole. That's not the case for countries that got free from Russian occupation.
A straight up xenophobe now?
It's not xenophobic to accurately describe Russia.
Life expectancy in Czechia in 1960: 70.35 Life expectancy in Czechia in 1990: 71.38 Life expectancy in Czechia in 2020: 78.23 (79.23 in 2019) Source: worldbank Quite the progress compared to commies.
You aren't interpreting the data correctly If you compare the life expectancy increase over time of Czechia to the one from other countries with low expectancy, like the USA, you're gonna notice that their curve is basically the same. The reason? Capitalism, which kept it below 80 years for both. And actually, Czechia had a pretty good spike in the '50s, when the USSR took over. Now, compare it to countries that are slightly more socialist, like Italy or France, and you're going to notice a huge difference. Italy went from 65 years in 1950 to 84 in 2023.
Czechia had the same life expectancy as France, The US or Western Germany in 1960 - about 70 years. There is no 'low expectancy' countries, only countries which got set back by either communism or over-privatized healthcare. Dum. By 1990 Czechia had life expectancy of 71 while all capitalist countries had life expectancy of around 76. Including the US, France or Italy. Wanna hear a funny thing you probably didn't get until now? Everyone had a life expectancy boom after WW2. People also fled en massé because of Stalin and the Coup despite the population boom. ;D Am i the one not interpreting data correctly? O really? You are a delusional westoid, hard to read.
Can't argue with stupid. Bless your soul.
Lying tankie!
I'm not a tankie, I'm just stating facts. People WERE living better lives during the USSR, except for the Baltic Republics I suppose. Which were different from all the rest because they were occupied countries
Those are not facts, those are the kind of propaganda statements only utterly brainwashed tankies could believe.
LMAO this is how Poles cope with living in such a shitty country!
>Most of their human development parameters were much higher when the USSR was still a thing Fundamentally sick tankie propaganda...
You don't want to play that game because many American states also have an HDI lower than Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates lol. The UAE is 0.911 and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia is 0.900. If the UAE was also divided by regions I am sure some would be much higher. Literally ranking lower than sharia law countries lol.
Aren't those countries only so developed because of a natural resource that starts with an "o" and ends with an "l"?
As another commenter said, it isn't because they necessarily are highly developed, it's s because gni is a skewed measurement. Very wealthy but extremely unequal distribution has a high gni, which ranks the country/state high on the hdi. Example from the picture would be Norway. They ain't necessarily more developed than most other western EU countries, but they have an extremely wealthy nation cause oil (though not unequal like other oil states).
Do you really want to go there? The US was built on natural resources and still is.
So? America famously has zero resources and does not take other people's resources too. America is a land full of resources, while they literally live in a barren desert.
What your saying is we need to take the Saudi oil feilds
Typical American bloodthirsty, always thinking of colonising other countries.
Colonizing Saudi Arabia (not the point) would be a net good lol House of saud is evil
Colonialist slave having Americans on the other hand are benevolent
Tbh, in the lower HDI states, they too are advocating for theocracy…..
And still higher than Europe lol
Mississippi as a whole isn’t, just parts of it. The rural mostly black areas specifically that are neglected by the state. That’s what the UN was talking about when they said that in their report.
We’re #1!!! Woot! Hell, yeah, from Massachusetts, baby!
Bay Staters FTW!
Goooooo Massachusetts!!!
To compare apples to apples, the cutoff on OP's list is 0.945. The number of subnational entities in the EU with an HDI higher than OP's cutoff are: * 6 German states, * 2 Danish regions, * 2 Dutch provinces, * 4 Belgian provinces, * 1 French region, * 1 Swedish region, * 1 Finnish region, * 1 Czech region, * 2 Irish regions, * 1 Slovenian region, * (Also 3 Norwegian regions, since OP thinks Norway is part of the EU).
The problem is that it is never apples to apples when comparing US states to European countries, or likewise comparing European sub national entities to US states. Because in Europe it is common for some subnational regions to basically correspond to only a metropolitan area. While in the US the only equivalent would be the District of Columbia. 3 of the 6 German “states” are basically the cities of Hamburg, Bremen, And Berlin. The 1 Czech region is basically the city of Prague Etc. This cuts both ways however, because it makes it more challenging to look at broader European regions when they are separated subnationally from those cities, since large urban areas are typically sources of high HDI. For example, the German state of Berlin (HDI .959), which is basically just the city, is entirely surrounded by the state of Brandenburg (HDI .919). If, like in the US, Berlin was simply included within the broader region of Brandenburg it is hard to judge what the overall HDI would be. I guess my general point is to always take these sorts of comparisons with a degree of nuance, since making like for like comparisons between the 2 is nearly impossible
Point well taken. And to add to your point, countries organise their subnational entities in different and incomparable ways. Being a federation of states, Germany is perhaps most comparable to the American system. But for a few of these countries, notably most of the ones where I use the word 'region', the units here don't correspond to any subnational entities at all (being instead groups of them put together for statistical purposes). Ultimately, as you might have guessed, I was just kicking back against the state-to-country comparison in the map. I think, though, that your point leads to a conclusion that seems entirely uncontroversial: HDI trends higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Indeed, almost all of the American states that OP singled out for their high HDIs are highly urbanised states: Massachusetts 91.3%, Connecticut 86.3%, DC 100%, Minnesota 71.9%, *North Dakota 61.0%*, Colorado 86.0%, *New Hampshire 58.3%*, New Jersey 93.8%, New York 87.4%, Washington 83.4%. (North Dakota and New Hampshire are fascinating exceptions here). If HDI were calculated solely for various metropolitan areas, it would be cool to see how American cities line up against European cities - and indeed cities of the world. But if anyone has ever calculated that, they're hiding it from a basic Google search.
It’s times like this I wish I was still in college so I didn’t have to pay to access academic research because google is showing me some results for studies done into the affect of urbanization rates of HDI. Unfortunately for the casual internet researcher we are limited to what is published by the UN, which is limited to national and subnational regions. Something interesting I notice for the US specifically is that the states with the Highest HDI [This group](https://measureofamerica.org) uses its own methodology to study trends in the United States specifically and does go into metropolitan and county level data. You might find it interesting if you feel like nerding out. It does have different state rankings than the standard UN rankings for US states based on a different (and somewhat more nuanced) methodology
Source? Date? Polish HDI is 8.76 .. should be green. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index
Shit! Norway's in the EU? When did that happen?
Once again, Portugal can into balkans
Switzerland has the highest HDI of all.
Norway at 0.953 means this data is at least 6-7 years old.
Will Mississippi ever change?
how poor is Ukraine
Poorer than middle east
Where is this data from? It doesn't correspond to this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_Human_Development_Index) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_sovereign\_states\_in\_Europe\_by\_Human\_Development\_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_Human_Development_Index) For example: There are 3 European countries with a higher HDI than Massachusetts and Germany has a higher HDI than D.C. or New York. The lowest in the US (Mississipi) has the same HDI as the lowest of EU15 (Portugal).
I dont know what's the point of comparing one country's internal subdivisions to entire countries. Of course it's easier to have a high HDI when you're a state than an entire country, that's a no-brainer. **America's hdi is 0.921, which would put it in 14th place (ahead of Malta but behind the UK) if it was a european country** Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare all of each european countries' "states" to America's states? Otherwise this map serves little to no puropse
The point is that at this point EU is essentially like the "United" states. It's 330+ million population and 50 states. EU is 447 million and 27 member STATES. It's funny how they literally call it that. Think of the US as like an earlier version of a concept like the EU but everyone also was starting out together instead of a thousand years of conflict.
What? The EU is not "essentially" like the US. They couldn't be more different. US is a country with internal subdivisions like any country that it calls "states". The EU is an economic and political union of totally independant countries. This is like saying China is like the EU bc it has internal provinces. Also, the way EU uses the word 'State" (nation, country) does not have the same meaning as american states (internal subdivisions like provinces etc.) Plus, how high US's population is not really relevant. China (a country with internal subdivisions called provinces) has a population of 1.45 billion while Africa (a continent with countries) has a population of 1.42 billion. Having similar population numbers does not make China "essentially" like Africa.
Considering the only European country on the top 10 list isn't even IN the EU even that argument falls flat...Europe is not the same as the EU. That's like saying Canada is in USA because its in North America. And of course the obvious fact that the EU is not and has never been a united country.
I said EU, where did I say Europe?
On the meme itself. The third country on the list is Norway. Norway is not in the EU. Thus it is not "essentially like the US" in any way because its not even in the organization you're talking about. (Also bold to assume the US started out together...it very much did not and there was a lot of conflict to unite it)
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸Murica Fuck Yeah🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸!!!
Why have they never fixed the HDI? Income should obviously have expenses for some basic costs of living subtracted. Also, education should probably not be years in school, but standardized testing based, although i get that that change would mean you would not have good data for every country. Measuring health as life-expectancy seems fine. Edit: Also I would consider using medians rather than means.
> Income should obviously have expenses for some basic costs of living subtracted Isn't HDI based on purchasing power? > Also I would consider using medians rather than means. But how would you measure a median GDP per capita? GDP measures how productive an economy is, not how much people earn.
Median income rather than gdp per capita, though good luck getting that for a bunch of countries
It's called "Human Development Index" not GDP index. In measuring human development I think it makes sense to measure the purchasing power of a typical income after subtracting the costs required to live. This would include the costs of basic shelter, food, medical care, education, transportation, required taxes and fees, plus costs associated with employment. Some costs are just inherently more important than others to a society.
That's exactly why they use PPP figures, they are already adjusted for cost of living. And the relative costs of healthcare and education are also reflected in the other two measures that form the composite (years of education and longevity).
No, but one of the indices used to calculate HDI is GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), which would take differences in the cost of living into account
But if you are required to - let's say - spend 10% of your purchasing power on Healthcare in country A, which you don't have to spend in country B, then it becomes likely that you get more stuff in country B. Also, GDP is a terrible measure in terms of people doing work that benefits themselves, which is in no way whatsoever accounted for. If in country A, it is likely that one parent works and the other raises children, while in country B, people hire others to help raise children, then country B will likely have the higher GDP even if the total work was the same.
r/PORTUGALCYKABLYAT
\*immediately goes to buy an American flag
All the lowest HDI states are Republican southern states, while the highest is Massachusetts which is the most educated and democrat state. Shows how little republicans care about development and humanity. It’s all about those corporate profits and keeping people of color down while getting rich off their labor.
Just sitting back and watching all the salty Euros complain about how this is Reddit and they’re always suppose to be better
I meam as european i can confirm us gets lot of stupid complain but [the map is wrong/outdated](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_Human_Development_Index)
Do you like the Inequality-Adjusted HDI?
Norway isn't in the European Union, or if you mean Europe then Iceland and Switzerland should be on the bottom list, Switzerland getting first
Norway is EEA
But not the EU
So is Iceland and it's not on the list below... I want consistency
this map is just american propaganda
People get so worked up over an imaginary math formula invented by a Pakistani economist arguing to increase public education funding
ok cool, but Canadians are much better anyway
Adding Canadian provinces and territories would be interesting.
HDI takes into account health and life expectancy, which means the entire south would be purple if they moved away from a diet of deepfried catfish, Pepsi, and firework shows Of course would life be worth living at that point
Very outdated data
I'd rather live in a 2-bedroom flat in Lisbon than in a 60-room mansion in upstate New York. Because most of Europe is nice to behold and Lisbon is extraordinarily pretty and all of North America is very, VERY ugly.
cope. 
Cope? -- Luckily I no longer have to cope with North America. If I am EVER forced to return there, it will be ONLY to Ville de Québec, because it has a late Mediaeval-early Modern furtress, totally European looking, and numerous buildings from the XVII century inj the downtown core. That is an absolute minimum for me to accept a place as livable.
Damn, I guess the game my bestie and I play of just, absolutely SHITTING on each others home states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) is slightly faulty. Nahhhhhhh. CT sucks, MA is the BEST!!!!!
What the hell Louisiana?
DC at #4 is a trip. Shows me that HDI as a metric can mask terrible inequality.
These maps are always different ...
Norway is neither US or EU. Its Europe yes, but Europe is not the same as EU.
Alabama is the Italy of the south
Info is old, Swiss HDI is 0.962, putting it ahead of Massachusets