The lottery of life: Where to be born in 2013. Poland ranks 33 out of 80.

Here is a recent article from The Economist: economist.com/news/21566430-where-be-born-2013-lottery-life


For 2013 Poland ranks 33 out of 80. The article also shows that back in 1988 Poland ranked 23 out of 50.

Although the survey is looking at the present and likelihood for the future I found the information more or less confirmed migration patterns in and out of Poland over the past decade as well.

Destination countries popular with Poles unsurprisingly ranked higher (UK=27, Ireland=12, Germany tied with USA= 16). Although I often heard that Britain has been the primary destination for Poles oddly the UK's ranking wasn't that much better. But as this survey suggests people have reasons to leave beyond just finding a job or a better paying one and I'm sure language barriers in otherwise more attractive countries always play a significant role.

Also unsurprising were the rankings of the home countries for the significant number of migrants who often see Poland as a promised land of milk and honey such as Turkey=51, India=66, Pakistan=75, Ukraine=78 and Nigeria=80.

Sometimes we see this trend played out right here on PF with consistent enquiries made by various posters from these different parts of the world.

its not really odd when you think about Poles with hardly any outgoings earning 5000 PLN per month as opposed to UK families who have families and all the associated costs.

geez guys, it's not where you're born but what you make out of it. You can be born in a rich country and still be very poor or you can be born in a poor country and be very rich. It's you (and the circumstances) who makes the difference.

I interpreted the article to be about the circumstances created in each country which then compared them to each other.

I went on to explain that this quality-of-life survey further reflected immigration trends over the past decade concerning Poles and Poland.

I know your intentions but we both know that your personal success is based mainly on your brains, hard work and persistence. Living in a successful country can be definately beneficial but it's no guarantee of success whatsoever.

Yes and no. It is a complex interaction and the circumstances a motivated person or someone with a great mind lives in can either further or hinder them in life. I think circumstances explain why some countries (like Switzerland ranked 1st in the survey) go from strength to strength in producing a highly educated population with many opportunities and a high standard of living while other countries slowly plod along or even fall behind.

Some Poles have been extremely successful in Poland while millions of others unfortunately found the need to leave in order to improve their lot in life.

Although the survey did not address migration I did in my thread because what I found interesting from the survey is how Poles over the years went to countries that were only marginally better in terms of this quality-of-life survey. Why did most Poles make do with Britain and not better scoring countries like Switzerland or Norway? I think the language barrier played a role. The UK being more densely populated than some of the top ranked countries would also present greater opportunities in terms of work but not necessarily a higher standard of living.

Yes, it does boil down to the individual and some will be more successful in life than many others no matter where they go. Everyone makes their own bed in life. However, some have to make do with straw while others are handed fine linen. Some individuals are perfectly happy living in the equivalent of a barn after their work day is done while others realize they are being had and stand no chance regardless of their talents.

There are many factors involved but one matter the survey looked at was trust in institutions. I took this to mean the level of corruption in a country and people's awareness and regard for it. In my comparison to migration patterns it wasn't surprising that Poles chose the marginally better UK over someplace like Nigeria which is notorious for extreme levels of inequality and rife corruption at every level of that society. Sure membership of the EU makes movement from Poland to Britain easier. But many Nigerians have settled in the UK as well as Poland. There is no reason Poles shouldn't equally be able to go to work and live in Nigeria. This quality-of-life survey makes it clear why virtually none do. Poles know their talent would be wasted in a country like Nigeria and their own personal aspirations and development would go nowhere.

Poland's ranking suggests it will continue to offer a quality-of-life in the top 1/3 of countries surveyed. However, this position may also indicate that Poland will continue its trend of outward migration of native Poles to other top 1/3 countries while attracting migrants to replace them increasingly from the bottom 1/3.

this is exactly what I was saying Bieganski.

To be honest! this list is very very biased!! because of the omission of many countries! the globe doesn't consists only of 80 countries! Come on, I can find 10 countries better than Nigeria to have better life opportunities instead of getting into a gang and get yourself killed! No offence! But it's true!! a quote from one paragraph from the link on top: "Among the 80 countries covered, Nigeria comes last: it is the worst place for a baby to enter the world in 2013." so what happens to the rest of the other countries? A country like Seychelles and Mauritius dominates Africa. Yet nowhere to be heard despite having a positive growth year by year.

Look at the stats of Seychelles: a GDP of $11,170/ capita and of Nigeria: $1,490/capita, Mauritius: $8,654/capita...

Ease of doing business published by the World Bank (that directly implies that there would be investors seeking to invest in these countries as it's easier and could be in a way 'cheaper'- so what is this paragraph talking about in the original article:-

''Warren Buffett, probably the world's most successful investor, has said that anything good that happened to him could be traced back to the fact that he was born in the right country, the United States, at the right time (1930). A quarter of a century ago, when The World in 1988 light-heartedly ranked 50 countries according to where would be the best place to be born in 1988, America indeed came top.'' if there is investment in an economy then there is more chance to it moving to the right direction..

doingbusiness.org/~/media/GIAWB/Doing%20Business/Documents/Annual-Reports/English/DB13-full-report.pdf

Page 3!

Again, from the World Bank report: this chart shows how well these countries they are doing.

Yes, many might argue that I have no point here, but to be honest the article published by Economist Intelligence is either talking about those kids who will have no burden to pay the countries debt, as 'implied' in paragraph 8 or it's just b*llsh*tting around..

I am not an Economist or Accountant or whatsoever, but to be honest, 'Economist Intelligence' should have been much more clearer when they realise an article and outline everything as other bodies of Statistics.

OK. But I'm sure you will agree that you don't see many native born Swiss, Norwegians, Canadians, Americans or British emigrate to other countries. Places like Canada, America and Britain may be net importers of migrants but for various reasons they overall have the capacity to offer opportunities both to their native population and the immigrants they attract. It would be nice to see Poland stabilized where it was no longer an exporter of its own native born labor force.

The Economist has been around since mid 1800's. It is a well respected publication and you can be sure people working at the World Bank do indeed read it on a regular basis. I don't see what benefit they could get from being biased.

You made a point about GDP in various countries. However, this does not necessarily translate into a better quality-of-life for its citizens which is what The Economist survey addressed. Therefore you are not comparing like with like.

Ease of investment in an economy can certainly help to move things in the right direction. But just as important is return on investment. A lot of people will gladly take other people's money and prefer if no questions are asked. But who truly benefits? In corrupt societies the greasy palms always come out on top. And investors who don't know how to grease the right palms in a corrupt society might as well toss their money into the nearest wishing well.

everyone is biased, one way or another. Opinions are as good as people who have them.

Oh no? How can you explain Poles who don't amount to a hill of beans in Poland become successful in the United States or Mexicans who live in squalor in Mexico but maintain a living in the US. Of course it matters where you are born. Just read the posts on this forum. Luck matters.

Try telling that to conspiracy theory believers (plenty of them in Poland) who think that all good jobs go to family and friends of the company owners/ directors...

Of course it does and it is pathetic that some people fail to acknowledge that fact.

There are a lot of people born on third base who make it to back to home plate thinking they've hit a home-run.

No, opinions are only as good as the things which influenced a person enough to form those opinions.


Humm yes, lots of Nigerian and Zimbabwean millionaires running around.

Thank you! Therefore, it doesn't mean that a kid born in Nigeria, for example, will have better life opportunities ahead. Because this thing is biased. What are the exact bases used to calculate these figures?


That does not mean that they are 100% trust worthy! News needs to be sold mate- like hot cakes! There is not a better way to kickstart the year with some 'partially' biased info!


ahhh! so you see again! I am 101% sure that Nigeria is much more corrupt than the Seychelles & Mauritius! You can't deny that!

SOL is much more better in Mauritius than in Nigeria!

Would your parents have wanted your country of birth to have been like Nigeria in terms of infrastructure, life expectancy, crime rates, literacy etc?

Of course the people in any major publication are going to present anything and everything with a bias but so what? Does that invalidate the argument that luck affects our chances for success? It looks like you and Bieganski agree mostly on the main point of this thread.


I wouldn't say that, I just can't seem to find what you mean to be saying...

Ok, for that I would say no! neither me nor you would want our kids to be born in Nigeria! It's not only about luck its about how worthy you make you like become! The choice is always on the person! You could be living in Switzerland but choose to become a hacker or you could be living somewhere in the slums in India but choose to be an actor or a professional! well the fact also depends on the opportunities you get to give it a go! So luck is not really the bottom line of things.


What i am trying to say mate is that, the article/table is misleading given all the points ive outlined earlier! Like I said, there are other countries which should have been on that list and could well be placed 50th or below! Ok, should Greece still be on that list? :O mmmmmmm

Nope. They do not see Poland as the Promised Land. They see it as a potentially easy (I am not saying it is) entry point into the EU and Schengen.

Into a banker family - anywhere expect for the North Korea.

A) The question was if your parents would have wanted YOU born in a country with the same situation as Nigeria (at the time you were born) in terms of economic opportunities, infrastructure, crime rate, literacy rate, etc, etc. You misunderstood the question.

But let us pretend that was the question, what disadvantages would being born in Nigeria bring your children in the future that they wouldn't have a good chance of avoiding elsewhere?


How's that?


This is true but the choices AVAILABLE are what we seem to disagree on. I would argue luck plays a very large role in what choices one has available to them and whether they are equipped or not to foresee the probable outcome of those choices.


So what? People make choices, I think everyone on this board already knew that.


A lovely statement but you've provided no logical support for it that I can see. Maybe the fault is mine but I am hoping you can reformulate your ideas into something more convincing.


So you think there should be or could be other countries on that list where life is generally "unluckier?" Yet you're also saying luck doesn't play any factor in leading a fortunate life? You'll have to forgive me if I am confused by your thinking.

Please tell me how I have misinterpreted what you've written.

Small update "Poland's economic freedom score is 68.6, making its economy the 42nd freest in the 2015 Index. Its score is 1.6 points better than last year...". link heritage.org/index/country/poland