One more useless ranking that homogenizes people (and countries). “To be born as what exactly where“would be the real question. As man/woman, black/white, straight/gay, rich/poor? In Ohio or California? Berlin or Bavaria?
“The study incorporates hard data on facets such as economic opportunity, health standards and political freedoms; subjective “quality of life” surveys; and economic forecasts for 2030, when an infant born today would be entering adulthood. Even gender equality, job security (as measured by unemployment data), violent crime rates and climate are taken into account. “
How useful do you think such a ranking is?
See the whole article here: A surprising map of the best and worst countries to be born into today.
Places. 
Hm yes, this does oversimplify things far too much. For example, I wouldn’t choose to be born female in any Muslim country, even the so-called ‘liberal’ UAE or Qatar. But men there get an excellent deal. Britain may not have the best economy these days, but for freedom of travel and international employment prospects, my British passport is still a good option.
Exactly my point of view, Sam!
Reblogged this on places | brands and commented:
Most of the Western world in blue, Africa, Asia and Russia mainly in red. No surprises there.
Hong Kong, Taiwan and the UAE are small blue dots among large red swathes. Should Qatar be included for its extensive nationals-only benefits system (free electricity, water, house, education, healthcare, cheap loans)? Political freedom, not so great.
And as the Inpolis blog points out, whether one is born male/female, straight/gay, black/white, rich/poor, etc, still has a strong influence on quality of life, no matter which country.