Did anyone else roar laughing upon reading this article? (Indo on quality of life)

hatrickpatrick

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/survey-raises-glass-of-bubbly-to-the-quality-of-irish-life-1879551.html

I was taking this article completely seriously and I was quite happy to be reading and believing many of the facts contained in it. However, this particular sentence completely blew the credibility of the entire piece and on my second read through the whole thing reeked of sneering sarcasm:

Someone who clearly doesn't live here and conducted this survey without opening a newspaper wrote:

Ireland is the 16th least corrupt country in the world

If this is true, then the rest of the world must be run by swindlers and criminal masterminds. You only have to watch one day of new headlines in this country to hear of some new public scandal involving the government, a local council, the banks, the developers, or (far more likely) a conspiracy between combinations of the aforementioned entities.

But oh wait! There's more?

The same misinformed soul wrote:

Ireland only comes 20th in the league of beer drinkers, consuming 43.2 litres of beer each a year.

A six pack has 3 litres, right? Given that "the norm" seems to be drinking one six pack per event (for a lot of people anyway) this is also an unbelievable understatement.

And just when I was about to close the article before I gave myself a hernia from laughing, I came across this final gem which make the first two look like universal gospel truths in comparison:

Brian Cowen's government is the 12th most efficient in the world

Who are these people, how much were they payed to compile the statistics, and what eejit published it without actually reading it first???

TestTransmission

There ya go

The Economist Newspaper Limited
25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG

letters@economist.com.

kowloon

How do you even go about creating stats like these? Isn't corruption, by its very nature, hidden, and therefore difficult to compile any useful statistics on? Do they base it on people who are caught? Do they assume those caught are a fixed percentage of those who are corrupt? All corruption is not equal, are cases of corruption rated? Corruption points perhaps?

I file these types of statistics in the same box as the invisible pixie census.

ei.sdraob

i had a laugh reading this in the indo this morning

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/fionnan-sheahan/damage-limitation-now-fianna-fails-only-option-1885558.html

Cowen was greeted by a mixed group of Sinn Fein protesters and placard-carrying Socialist Workers Party members, dressed as bank robbers. (The Shinners didn't see the irony of standing with people dressed as bank robbers).

:D

Thirdfox

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But oh wait! There's more?



A six pack has 3 litres, right? Given that "the norm" seems to be drinking one six pack per event (for a lot of people anyway) this is also an unbelievable understatement.

I and many of my friends are teetotallers. Others drink a can or two. Children under 18 *shouldn't* be drinking any alcohol at all. Add all the figures up and you'll have to be drinking quite a bit more to increase the averages. So that statement does not seem to be unbelievable in my opinion.

Having said that, wikipedia puts us at number 3(?) in terms of drinking per capita.

And honestly, our quality of life is pretty good (as someone who has lived in four countries). Even our weather is great - temperate weather as opposed to extreme heat or cold (something else we moan about). It's one of the reasons I'm not particularly keen to emigrate again, I genuinely like this little island.

edit: just looked at your post again - number 20 in beer consumption...well maybe we consume other types of alcohol. The Economist may not necessarily be at odds with the wiki statistics. Of course all statistics are lies, 87.5% of people know that

brianthebard

The difference between what the indepedent printed and what you see and believe to be the reality OP is what I like to call 'after hours statistics', ie the sort of stuff that people have experienced and thus believe is universally true. So you go out for a party and see someone with a six pack; this automatically means everyone who goes out drinks a six pack per night out, right?

Fr Tod Umptious

brianthebard wrote: »

The difference between what the indepedent printed and what you see and believe to be the reality OP is what I like to call 'after hours statistics', ie the sort of stuff that people have experienced and thus believe is universally true. So you go out for a party and see someone with a six pack; this automatically means everyone who goes out drinks a six pack per night out, right?

Spot on, good post.

I am 37, I have had 1 liter of beer in the last three weeks, I have a wife who is breast feeding and she has had 0 liters in the past year, I have a 2 and a half year old daughter who has had 0 liters in the past 2 and a half years and a 3 month old who has had o liters in 3 months, all these add to up the stats that are in the research.

I recall a report back around 2004 that said Ireland was the 2nd best place to live in in the world

There was all sorts texing in to radio shows etc saying '2nd best place to live in, how come , I am stuck on the M50, it's raining etc etc,...

What they failed to say was
1. We have a temperate climate (as mentioned above)
2. We do not suffer volcanoes or earthquakes
3. We have a stable democracy.
5. we have a lot of personal freedoms
6. we have great access to media
7. The distribution is of wealth is 'relatively' even.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

2. We do not suffer volcanoes or earthquakes

Or plagues of locusts!

Of course what you say is correct. Or put it another way, when people say these polls are wrong, could someone take a lot of the countries that finish below us and show that they have less corruption or higher standards of living. One quick Google check reveals that poverty, human rights abuses, corruption and massive scandal is, sadly, rife in most countries.

We are definitely tops in the 'beating our chests and wailing that we're the worst' poll anyway.

Nehaxak

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

7. The distribution is of wealth is 'relatively' even.

Explain that point you made please with actual facts.

Fr Tod Umptious

Nehaxak wrote: »

Explain that point you made please with actual facts.

I don't have facts just an opinion based on my observations from visiting other countries

I believe that there is a majority in this country that are not living in poverty, the opposite is true in other countries

Take a place like India for example.

You have super super wealthy people and at the same time you have millions living in poverty

Yes we have very very rich here and the very very poor but not in the same proportions.

MikeC101

For the beer stat, it justs means that beer might not make up a massive amount of alcohol consumed in the country - we might be drinking a lot more spirits for example.

Corruption: It's certainly possible we're 16th least - depending on the definition. I'd like to see it put into a better context, eg compared to the EU or OECD rather than worldwide. A lot of the stuff that happens here, politicians expenses, signing off huge bonuses to officials to get them to retire quietly etc, may not fall under the definition of corruption used. Plus, from my experience of other countries, there's a lot less corruption at lower levels - eg you don't have to pay off the cops to avoid made up fines and so on, which has happened in me to a surprisingly high percentage of countries I've been to.

The efficiency of the government, I have no idea. How is it calculated? GDP to number of ministers, length of time to make decisions, what?

Edit: On reading the article, I don't find much of it hard to believe at all.

Ireland comes 14th in overall alcohol consumption with each member of the population downing 67.7 litres of alcohol per year.

That's not hard to believe at all. Consider the difference in attitudes to alcohol - for example having a limited amount on a fairly regular basis, a glass of wine with dinner every day for the whole family, versus the binge drinking attitude of drinking as much as possible once a week.

There's nothing really all that shocking about the article - just because your own bias isn't confirmed by it, or you're not looking critically at exactly how these statistics are compiled, does not mean they're incorrect, or laughable.

Nehaxak

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't have facts just an opinion based on my observations from visiting other countries

I believe that there is a majority in this country that are not living in poverty, the opposite is true in other countries

Take a place like India for example.

You have super super wealthy people and at the same time you have millions living in poverty

Yes we have very very rich here and the very very poor but not in the same proportions.

That's a poor example mate, India is a huge country with vastly differing ways of life and populations, going so far as some parts of their country believing themselves to be seperate countries within. India is an absolute basket case of corruption and inequalities.

You can't compare Ireland with developing countries to explain away your view that distribution of wealth is relatively even. We have a vastly superior country in many aspects to developing countries for sure, but that doesn't mean wealth is spread around evenly.

I've lived and worked in many of these countries in the past 10 years and I know damn well how better off we are here with our quality of life compared.

I don't think for one moment that wealth in this country is in any way spread evenly. Even those who desired to own their own bit of land, roof over their head, nice car and all that - for the most part and for the majority, it was only wishfull thinking until the inevitable bubble burst and they were left heavily in debt up to their eyes and negative equaity.

I would be hoping that might change if Labour got their act together and got themselves a sizeable amount of candidates elected to government, along with some independent socialists. It might be enough to sway things in favour of spreading the wealth of the nation around more evenly, assuming Labour hold to their ideals and don't embroil themselves as FF have done with the very small minority of highly wealthy elite in our country. The Golden Circle will be sure to grasp whatever party is in government next time around but I'd be hoping FG/Labour resist the temptation to get into bed with them.

I could put forward some opinions myself on wealth distribution in this country, though with no facts or stats to back this up, just my own opinion...

The poor (15%)
The just getting along ok group (60%)
The doing just fine group (20%)
The wealthy (5%)

Nehaxak

Nehaxak wrote: »

I would be hoping that might change if Labour got their act together and got themselves a sizeable amount of candidates elected to government, along with some independent socialists.

Sort of like a marriage of right and left wings?

Nehaxak

Deleted User wrote: »

Sort of like a marriage of right and left wings?

I'd be thinking more along the lines of those that get elected from the people before profit group and suchlike. I wouldn't consider Labour right wing tbh

adamski8

Nehaxak wrote: »

I could put forward some opinions myself on wealth distribution in this country, though with no facts or stats to back this up, just my own opinion...

LOL cant believe your post which wasnt backed up by "actual facts" that you seemed to require from a previous poster. guess we should believe your opinion over his :rolleyes:

Nehaxak

adamski8 wrote: »

LOL cant believe your post which wasnt backed up by "actual facts" that you seemed to require from a previous poster. guess we should believe your opinion over his :rolleyes:

is that it ? Have you nothing better to give ?
Care to share and debate a bit rather than just stab me with a rolleyes smiley ?

irish_bob

Nehaxak wrote: »

is that it ? Have you nothing better to give ?
Care to share and debate a bit rather than just stab me with a rolleyes smiley ?

what do you propose in order to make ireland more equal as you put it , can you provide some basic suggestions , im genuinley interested

ei.sdraob

irish_bob wrote: »

what do you propose in order to make ireland more equal as you put it , can you provide some basic suggestions , im genuinley interested

well for one


http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/

... aim is to win the support of the majority of the Irish people for ending the capitalist system and for building socialism—a social system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are publicly owned and utilised for the benefit of the whole people.

adamski8

Nehaxak wrote: »

is that it ? Have you nothing better to give ?
Care to share and debate a bit rather than just stab me with a rolleyes smiley ?

well i was going to but im going to spend a couple of days doing some research so i can back up my argument :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Nehaxak

adamski8 wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Drive-bye rolleye's smiley attack...

djpbarry

Nehaxak wrote: »

I don't think for one moment that wealth in this country is in any way spread evenly.

That depends on what you mean by “spread evenly”. Wealth in Ireland is similarly distributed to many other developed countries. According to the Gini coefficient (which is not strictly comparable across countries, but is the most common means of measuring inequality) Ireland is approximately “as equal” as Switzerland, “more equal” than Spain, Australia, the UK, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, Israel and the US and only slightly “less equal” than Belgium, France and Canada.

Nehaxak

djpbarry wrote: »

That depends on what you mean by “spread evenly”. Wealth in Ireland is similarly distributed to many other developed countries. According to the Gini coefficient (which is not strictly comparable across countries, but is the most common means of measuring inequality) Ireland is approximately “as equal” as Switzerland, “more equal” than Spain, Australia, the UK, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, Israel and the US and only slightly “less equal” than Belgium, France and Canada.

Yep, I know all about the HDI stats but they are fairly outdated for Ireland.
I wasn't too far out though with regards the percentage of poor I'd guessed at 15% as the UN gives the figure of 16%

In regards the "Share of income or consumption of the richest 20% in Ireland" - rated at 42% - compared to the poorest 20% - that's at 7.4%

There's an awful lot more gets calculated for the HDI index and we as a country are much better off than many others but if you were to go by the inequality in income or expediture part, it's fairly unequal in regards the spread between rich and poor and the gaps therein.

Again though, figures are very outdated for Ireland in the HDI.

djpbarry

Nehaxak wrote: »

Yep, I know all about the HDI stats but they are fairly outdated for Ireland.

2005 isn't that long ago.

Nehaxak

In Irelands case, the Income and Expenditure part was last surveyed in 2000.
I'd like to see it updated January next year, see how we've both progressed and possibly declined in 10 years.

irish_bob

personally , i believe the so called people on lowest incomes do quite well in this country , we have an extremley generous wellfare state in this country

talk of more equality etc has more to do with trendy lefty thinking than any borne out facts

optocynic

Nehaxak wrote: »

The poor (15%)
The just getting along ok group (60%)
The doing just fine group (20%)
The wealthy (5%)

That looks relatively even to me.
Only 15% are poor...? That is a rather low number, but 80% in the OK/Doing fine group... seems like a nice balance to me.

And what does poor mean in today's Ireland anyway?
For me, poor is homeless, hopeless, hungry and desperately in need of help.
Are you saying 15% of us are in those conditions?

djpbarry

optocynic wrote: »

And what does poor mean in today's Ireland anyway?

There are two definitions of poverty in general use; at risk of poverty and consistent poverty. According to the CSO:

The at risk of poverty rate refers to the proportion of people with equivalised income below the at risk of poverty threshold. The at risk of poverty threshold is 60% of median equivalised income. The at risk of poverty threshold in 2007 was €11,890 per annum, an increase of 12.5% from €10,566 in 2006. In 2007, 16.5% of the population were at risk of poverty, representing no significant change in statistical terms from the rate of 17% recorded one year previously.
...
The consistent poverty rate refers to the proportion of people who are at risk of poverty and experience two or more of the list of eleven deprivation indicators.
...
For persons who were at risk of poverty, nearly one third (31.1%) reported experiencing two or more deprivation indicators, a decrease from the 2006 figure of 38.1%. As a result the consistent poverty rate fell by 1.4 percentage points year on year, from 6.5% in 2006 to 5.1% in 2007.

For the EU as a whole, the at risk of poverty rate stood at 17.0% in 2006, while the consistent poverty rate was 6.9%.

Euro_Kraut

djpbarry wrote: »

That depends on what you mean by “spread evenly”. Wealth in Ireland is similarly distributed to many other developed countries. According to the Gini coefficient (which is not strictly comparable across countries, but is the most common means of measuring inequality) Ireland is approximately “as equal” as Switzerland, “more equal” than Spain, Australia, the UK, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, Israel and the US and only slightly “less equal” than Belgium, France and Canada.

Ya but ya cant trust the facts. I have a cousin who would tell you otherwise....

Nehaxak

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Ya but ya cant trust the facts. I have a cousin who would tell you otherwise....

You might want to think about rewording that You have to trust the facts as otherwise you've only guesstimates (sp?) and heresay to go on.
Myself I would "feel" poverty to be higher but the facts available to us at the moment, as per what djpbarry quoted, would suggest otherwise.

However, some outputs from the CSO could be construed as misleading as it can take peoples debt into account. If this were the case, myself personally I'm better off financially unemployed now than when I was working as I used some of my redundancy to pay off all my debts. I'm unemployed and completely debt free and have my own house mortgage free, yet there are couples with good paying jobs who could be considered worse off financially than me as they are in debt, what with their mortgage and so forth.

I would agree that poverty is relative and it can cut hard into someones pride to have to ask for help before it gets worse.

nesf

16th least corrupt? Yeah, that's actually possible. Can't remember the last time I had to bribe a Garda or bureaucrat to get a form filled out which is the norm in far too many parts of the world.


Look at it this way, 16th puts us as one of the worst of "better off" countries of which there aren't that many.