Posted on 12/07/2012 1:18:54 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Before it had a chance to recover from a devastating earthquake that killed more than 250,000 people in 2010, Haiti was hit by a drought this past spring, followed by a tropical storm, two months of heavy rains, and eventually, Superstorm Sandy. No wonder the disaster-torn country is considered one of the worst places to live, according to a new global study of infrastructure and quality of life by New York City-based consulting firm Mercer.
According to Mercer, Port-au-Prince, Haiti’s quake-ravaged capital, has the world’s worst infrastructure when judged by metrics including the availability of electricity, fresh water and public transportation; it also has the world’s third-worst quality of life. Thing aren’t getting much better for Haiti either: Since Sandy wiped out 70% of food crops and left another 21,000 people homeless, the U.N. cautions that as many as 1.5 million Haitians might face hunger.
Baghdad, Iraq, ranks worst for quality of life and second to worst for infrastructure. Peace has been slow to arrive in Iraq following the withdrawal of U.S. troops last December, with violence among Shia, Sunni and Kurdish factions prompting deadly attacks on a monthly basis. Just today, the Associated Press reported that unidentified gunmen killed a family of six in Baghdad. In less than a year, almost 2,000 people have died as a result of the ongoing conflict, according to the Guardian
Vienna tops Mercer’s list of cities with the best quality of life for a second year in a row, followed by Zurich, Auckland, Munich and Vancouver. As usual, European cities represent 60% of the world’s top 25 cities for quality of living, according to the survey. No U.S. cities made the top 25, with Honolulu at 28th.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsfeed.time.com ...
Liberal urban mindset. The idea of living in a small town or in the country probably terrifies them.
They are just warning everyone away from Haiti because TIME is afraid the island will tip over or sink if too many people go there.
I’m amazed that this country didn’t make the grade. I guess the MSM would rather live in Europe or Asia, so I recommend that they follow their hearts and leave.
Did you notice how all the cities considered desirable were in socialist nations?
It’s all in the criteria and the weighting of them.
I remember when the “places rated” started for US cities, invariably favoring sunbelt cities due to economic opportunity, low cost of living, warm weather and low taxes. The northeast had a fit about it, and after a few years, the “places rated” rankings had done an about face, favoring leftist coastal cities in the northeast, New England and on the west coast, very few southeastern cities at all, and the few there were, were college towns.
The same is no doubt true of this.
RE: I’m amazed that this country didn’t make the grade. I guess the MSM would rather live in Europe or Asia, so I recommend that they follow their hearts and leave.
_________________________________________
Several Cities in the US are in the top 50 with Honolulu at number 28 and San Francisco at #29 and Boston at #35.
See here:
http://www.mercer.com/qualityoflivingpr#city-rankings
Now, here’s their criteria:
Mercer evaluates local living conditions in more than 460 cities it surveys worldwide. We analyze living conditions according to 39 factors, grouped in 10 categories:
Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement)
Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services)
Socio-cultural environment (censorship, limitations on personal freedom)
Medical and health considerations (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc.)
Schools and education (standard and availability of international schools)
Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transportation, traffic congestion, etc.)
Recreation (restaurants, theatres, movie theatres, sports and leisure, etc.)
Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc.)
Housing (rental housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services)
Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters)
The scores attributed to each factor allow for city-to-city comparisons. The result is a quality-of-living index that compares relative differences between any two locations that we evaluate. For the indices to be used effectively, Mercer has created a grid that allows users to link the resulting index to a quality-of-living allowance amount by recommending a percentage value in relation to the index.
Boston made the list at #s 31 and 35. I would rank it at both one of the best and worst cities to live in 2012.
But hey, another billion dollars from US taxpayers should fix it. /s
RE: . I would rank it at both one of the best and worst cities to live in 2012.
Best in what way and worst in what way?
It’s a great city to walk, it has wonderful restaurants, a fantastic ball park (Fenway park), a great museum and is beautiful, yet it is so liberal, with a mayor who is anti-business and pro-union. Entering the city via Memorial Drive, past MIT, over the “salt and pepper shaker” bridge and into the back bay is spectacular. The north end is fabulous, with restaurants, churches, Paul Revere’s house, cafes and bars.
I wonder where Detroit ranks.
RE: yet it is so liberal, with a mayor who is anti-business and pro-union.
So, how does a city that is so liberal become a great city to live in? Is this the case of one man’s health being another man’s heaven?
Because it is a city with mixed blessings. You may not agree, and that is fine.
The USA is a Socialist nation.
It's all a question of degree.
US cities have been destroyed by the Democrats, welfare and feral blacks that make them violent, unliveable sewers...
Now our overlord and 'savior', Obozo will do to the nation what his posse did to Detroit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.