I want to be at the pinnacle of the happiness ladder, too. I recently had a flight on Norwegian Air, and did briefly feel a bit happier. I need "hygge".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-39325206 :cheer:
In looking at the list of countries and checking the stamps on my passport it is now clear to me what I have been doing wrong all these years.
Yes--henceforth only go to the "hygge" or "hoo-ga" environs, and book a flight on Norwegian air if at all possible.
I am beginning to think all this is very confusing.
According to the experts, the US is number 15 in the Ranking of Happiness right behind Mexico.
Would that not mean Mexico should indeed be happy to pay for a wall to keep Americans out? (Figure 2.2 on Page 28)
Otherwise, it implies Americans are irrational since they could be happier by migrating.:unsure:
http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/04/WHR15.pdf
"I am beginning to think all this is very confusing."
If we want to go over the wall to Mexico, no matter who pays for the wall, we should probably borrow ladders from Mexico, since their ladders have one more rung on them, according to the happiness scale, and would make getting over the wall easier.
Of course, the eggheads from Harvard would instead have us climb up the Cantril ladder.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/sdsn-whr2017/HR17-Ch7_lr.pdf
Below is another example of how problematic it can be when people start asking questions.
I think both links have provided needed substance to the "happiness rankings", and substance to the the notion that social happiness cannot be attained just by increasing the wealth of a nation, but, rather, requires social equality as a primary requisite. It is well known in the US that 1% of the citizens possess about one half of all the nations wealth, which undoubtedly breeds inequality and social malaise. And it has been pointed out in the links, that our government, by not investing in social programs and by embracing the notion that less government and free market capitalism will somehow lead to the best society, is actually doing the opposite of what is needed to achieve a unified and "happy" country, a country somewhat akin to the "happy" Scandinavian" nations.
"The central thesis of the book is that inequality is not an accident, but rather a feature of capitalism, and can only be reversed through state interventionism.[16] The book thus argues that, unless capitalism is reformed, the very democratic order will be threatened." The book in question is Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", which does have it's critics but has been widely praised and points to why government intervention is required to stop the growth of inequality and social unrest. In order to make America great again, government must spread the wealth and bring back the equality that has been steadily eroded by the increasing wealth of of the very few. Yet the government intention seems to be the opposite.
That the book is one I have discussed many times with friends who are interested in this field.
There are some questions about the methodology the author used but the really important thing about it is that it creates a good opportunity for a productive discussion. At the time it came out a few years ago it really generated a lot of interest but as far as I know it has not developed beyond that stage. It is probably a bit too technical to interest the general public and that may be the reason why it never seemed to go mainstream.
The real message from these diverse perspectives mentioned in this thread is that the actual set of problems the nation faces are more complex than the simplistic rhetoric of the recent election campaign and the continuing public dialogue that is limited to sound bites suggest.
Until we get to point at which it is at least possible to agree on that truth then nothing can really change. Half the population will continue to believe the issue is that the market is not being allowed to work properly while the other half with point out, quite correctly, that even if the market were allowed to operate freely it would not resolve the problems in question but would simply aggravate them. Efficiency and equity are mutually exclusive: one cannot have both. Societies that function well find an acceptable balance between the two that is agreeable to the vast majority of the population.
Very well put. It will be some time before we reach, if ever, the top 5 on the Happiness rankings.