437_sejda-DYJ.pdf - TABLE 3 Inequality-adjusted Human...

  • No School
  • AA 1
  • 4

This preview shows page 1 out of 4 pages.

Unformatted text preview: TABLE 3 Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index Human Development Index (HDI) HDI rank TABLE 3 VERY HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 1 Norway 2 Switzerland 3 Australia 4 Ireland 5 Germany 6 Iceland 7 Hong Kong, China (SAR) 7 Sweden 9 Singapore 10 Netherlands 11 Denmark 12 Canada 13 United States 14 United Kingdom 15 Finland 16 New Zealand 17 Belgium 17 Liechtenstein 19 Japan 20 Austria 21 Luxembourg 22 Israel 22 Korea (Republic of) 24 France 25 Slovenia 26 Spain 27 Czechia 28 Italy 29 Malta 30 Estonia 31 Greece 32 Cyprus 33 Poland 34 United Arab Emirates 35 Andorra 35 Lithuania 37 Qatar 38 Slovakia 39 Brunei Darussalam 39 Saudi Arabia 41 Latvia 41 Portugal 43 Bahrain 44 Chile 45 Hungary 46 Croatia 47 Argentina 48 Oman 49 Russian Federation 50 Montenegro 51 Bulgaria 52 Romania 53 Belarus 54 Bahamas 55 Uruguay 56 Kuwait 57 Malaysia 58 Barbados 58 Kazakhstan 30 Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI) Value Value Overall loss (%) Difference from HDI rankb 2017 2017 2017 2017 0.953 0.944 0.939 0.938 0.936 0.935 0.933 0.933 0.932 0.931 0.929 0.926 0.924 0.922 0.920 0.917 0.916 0.916 0.909 0.908 0.904 0.903 0.903 0.901 0.896 0.891 0.888 0.880 0.878 0.871 0.870 0.869 0.865 0.863 0.858 0.858 0.856 0.855 0.853 0.853 0.847 0.847 0.846 0.843 0.838 0.831 0.825 0.821 0.816 0.814 0.813 0.811 0.808 0.807 0.804 0.803 0.802 0.800 0.800 0.876 0.871 0.861 0.854 0.861 0.878 0.809 0.864 0.816 0.857 0.860 0.852 0.797 0.835 0.868 0.846 0.836 .. 0.876 0.835 0.811 0.787 0.773 0.808 0.846 0.754 0.840 0.771 0.805 0.794 0.753 0.769 0.787 .. .. 0.757 .. 0.797 .. .. 0.759 0.732 .. 0.710 0.772 0.756 0.707 .. 0.738 0.741 0.710 0.717 0.755 .. 0.689 .. .. 0.669 0.737 8.0 7.8 8.2 9.0 8.1 6.0 13.3 7.4 12.5 7.9 7.5 8.0 13.8 9.4 5.6 7.7 8.7 .. 3.6 8.0 10.3 12.8 14.3 10.3 5.6 15.4 5.3 12.3 8.3 8.8 13.5 11.5 9.0 .. .. 11.7 .. 6.8 .. .. 10.4 13.6 .. 15.7 7.8 9.0 14.3 .. 9.5 8.9 12.7 11.7 6.5 .. 14.3 .. .. 16.4 7.9 –1 –2 –4 –7 –2 5 –14 1 –10 0 2 0 –11 –3 10 3 1 .. 16 2 0 –6 –8 1 11 –12 11 –4 5 3 –8 –1 5 .. .. –1 .. 10 .. .. 2 –7 .. –7 8 4 –6 .. 1 3 –1 1 9 .. –4 .. .. –8 6 InequalityInequalityInequalityCoefficient Inequality adjusted life Inequality adjusted Inequality adjusted expectancy education income of human in life in in index index inequality expectancy educationa index incomea (%) Value (%) Value (%) Value 2017 2015–2020c 2017 2017d 2017 2017d 2017 7.9 7.5 8.0 8.6 7.8 5.9 12.7 7.2 11.9 7.8 7.4 7.7 13.1 9.1 5.5 7.5 8.7 .. 3.6 7.8 10.1 12.2 14.0 10.1 5.5 14.9 5.2 11.9 8.2 8.5 13.1 11.3 8.8 .. .. 11.3 .. 6.7 .. .. 10.1 13.2 .. 14.9 7.7 8.8 13.9 .. 9.3 8.8 12.3 11.4 6.5 .. 13.9 .. .. 15.4 7.9 2.7 3.5 3.6 2.8 3.0 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.6 3.0 3.4 4.3 5.6 4.0 2.8 4.3 3.6 .. 2.9 3.0 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.9 4.0 4.3 3.5 3.6 4.7 5.2 .. 5.4 5.9 5.2 5.5 8.9 5.9 2.9 5.6 6.1 4.7 4.1 9.5 7.1 8.0 4.4 6.7 6.8 4.9 8.7 9.0 6.3 5.9 7.0 10.1 0.933 0.942 0.935 0.922 0.913 0.945 0.961 0.937 0.947 0.925 0.905 0.921 0.865 0.912 0.920 0.913 0.909 .. 0.955 0.922 0.921 0.932 0.929 0.930 0.912 0.945 0.876 0.944 0.901 0.850 0.912 0.900 0.847 0.837 .. 0.797 0.844 0.831 0.834 0.767 0.792 0.918 0.828 0.863 0.822 0.853 0.790 0.818 0.725 0.842 0.788 0.797 0.776 0.784 0.807 0.790 0.803 0.802 0.692 6.1 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.6 10.2 3.7 8.2 5.3 4.3 1.4 5.5 3.7 1.9 1.7 8.7 .. 1.6 2.6 9.4 7.0 18.5 8.6 2.2 18.6 1.6 10.5 6.9 2.3 13.1 11.7 4.7 .. 9.4 4.5 11.4 1.4 .. 16.2 3.7 16.3 19.0 7.5 3.2 5.0 6.2 .. 2.2 7.4 6.5 6.3 3.7 6.3 7.4 17.8 15.6 5.5 3.2 0.859 0.876 0.904 0.891 0.915 0.889 0.768 0.870 0.764 0.858 0.880 0.887 0.853 0.880 0.887 0.901 0.815 .. 0.835 0.830 0.718 0.813 0.702 0.768 0.866 0.671 0.879 0.708 0.762 0.849 0.728 0.714 0.825 .. 0.647 0.840 0.619 0.819 .. 0.660 0.834 0.635 0.614 0.741 0.789 0.752 0.765 .. 0.814 0.732 0.753 0.714 0.807 0.680 0.679 0.510 0.607 0.734 0.788 14.9 16.8 17.7 20.1 17.7 12.8 25.6 15.3 25.0 15.0 14.4 17.4 28.1 19.5 11.7 16.4 13.7 .. 6.3 17.7 17.7 26.4 20.2 18.1 11.4 23.3 10.8 22.5 13.7 18.9 22.8 18.7 17.1 .. .. 23.9 .. 13.4 .. .. 20.7 20.5 .. 31.1 15.2 17.3 25.8 .. 17.7 14.6 23.6 21.0 10.8 .. 25.3 .. .. 33.6 10.3 0.839 0.799 0.755 0.759 0.763 0.807 0.716 0.789 0.750 0.792 0.798 0.758 0.685 0.726 0.802 0.736 0.788 .. 0.844 0.760 0.805 0.644 0.709 0.739 0.766 0.676 0.771 0.687 0.761 0.694 0.642 0.707 0.697 .. .. 0.649 .. 0.744 .. .. 0.661 0.674 .. 0.561 0.710 0.675 0.585 .. 0.683 0.661 0.604 0.647 0.686 .. 0.598 .. .. 0.508 0.734 | HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDICES AND INDICATORS: 2018 STATISTICAL UPDATE Income inequality Quintile ratio Palma ratio Gini coefficient 2010–2017e 2010–2017e 2010–2017e 4.1 5.2 5.8 5.1 5.1 3.6 .. 4.6 .. 4.4 4.0 6.2 9.4 5.4 3.9 .. 4.2 .. 5.4 f 4.9 5.0 9.8 5.3 5.2 3.7 7.3 3.7 6.6 4.4 f 5.4 7.1 5.3 5.0 .. .. 7.2 .. 4.1 .. .. 5.9 6.4 .. 11.2 4.9 5.2 9.5 .. 6.6 4.8 7.3 4.3 3.8 .. 7.9 .. 11.2 f .. 3.7 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.9 .. 1.0 .. 1.1 1.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 1.0 .. 1.0 .. 1.2 f 1.1 f 1.2 2.0 1.2 1.3 0.9 1.5 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.2 .. .. 1.6 .. 0.9 .. .. 1.4 1.5 .. 2.8 1.1 1.1 2.1 .. 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.0 .. 1.8 .. 2.6 f .. 1.0 27.5 32.5 34.7 31.9 f 31.7 25.6 .. 29.2 .. 29.3 f 28.2 34.0 41.5 33.2 27.1 .. 27.7 .. 32.1 f 30.5 31.2 f 41.4 31.6 32.7 f 25.4 36.2 25.9 34.7 29.0 f 32.7 36.0 34.0 31.8 .. .. 37.4 .. 26.5 .. .. 34.2 35.5 .. 47.7 30.4 30.8 42.4 .. 37.7 31.9 37.4 28.3 27.0 .. 39.7 .. 46.3 f .. 26.9 Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force II Report Figure 3-8. Annual discharges and flow-weighted mean concentrations and loads of DRP (Discharge data from USGS Streamgage Maumee River at Waterville (04193500) and graphed by Heidelberg University, NCWQR) 3.3 2011 and 2012: A Study in Contrasts The year 2010 was characterized by a prolonged dry period beginning about the end of June and extending into 2011. This permitted fields to be prepared for 2011, including application of fertilizer, following harvest in the fall. Rain began to fall in mid-February, and runoff in the Maumee started February 17. From then until June 8, a period of 111 days, the river experienced elevated discharge and loading of phosphorus, culminating with a 15-day runoff event (May 25-June 8) that produced a peak flow of nearly 80,000 cfs (Figure 3-9) and a total discharge of 1.17 cubic kilometers as measured at the USGS stream, Maumee River at Waterville. Compared to all other periods of the same length (1975-end of 2011), this time interval produced nearly the largest discharge and phosphorus loads observed in the 35-year history of monitoring (Table 3-1). 3 Table 3-1. Discharge (km ) and loads (Mg) for February 7 through June 8, 2011. 15-day 15-day 111-day 111-day 111-day Amount as % Amount Percentile Amount Percentile of Annual Average Discharge 1.17 98.8 5.38 99.8 102% Total Phosphorus 690 98.1 2,665 99.99 123% Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus 114 98.3 558 99.8 152% Discharge data from USGS Streamgage Maumee River at Waterville (04193500) 27 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement services than in goods to the United States. In total, the USMCA partners accounted for 11 percent of U.S. imports of services. Travel services dominated services trade among the parties: they made up both the largest share of U.S. services exports to Canada and Mexico, and the largest share of U.S. services imports from those countries. 24 In 2017, travel accounted for nearly a third of services exports from the United States to Canada and for over half of all U.S. services exports to Mexico. Similarly, over a quarter of U.S. services imports from Canada involved travel services, as did over two-thirds of those from Mexico. 25 Figure 1.5 Trade shares of selected countries in U.S. trade in services U.S. exports U.S. imports Canada 7% Mexico 4% Canada 6% China 3% China 7% Rest of the world 82% Mexico 5% Rest of the world 86% Source: USDOC, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), “Table 2.3: U.S. Trade in Services, by Country or Affiliation and by Type of Service,” October 19, 2018. Travel services include travel for educational purposes, personal purposes (other than for health reasons), and business purposes (other than by border, seasonal, or short-term workers). USDOC, BEA, “Table 2.3: U.S. Trade in Services, by Country or Affiliation and by Type of Service.” 25 USDOC, BEA, “Table 2.3: U.S. Trade in Services, by Country or Affiliation and by Type of Service.” 24 34 | CALIFORNIA #3* STATE RANKING $32.68 In California, the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,699. In order to afford this level of rent and utilities — without paying more than 30% of income on housing — a household must earn $5,665 monthly or $67,976 annually. Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year, this level of income translates into an hourly Housing Wage of: FACTS ABOUT CALIFORNIA: STATE FACTS Minimum Wage $11.00 Average Renter Wage $21.50 2-Bedroom Housing Wage $32.68 Number of Renter Households Percent Renters 5,878,380 46% PER HOUR STATE HOUSING WAGE 119 Work Hours Per Week At Minimum Wage To Afford a 2-Bedroom Rental Home (at FMR) 93 Work Hours Per Week At Minimum Wage To Afford a 1-Bedroom Rental Home (at FMR) 3 2.3 Number of Full-Time Jobs At Minimum Wage To Afford a 2-Bedroom Rental Home (at FMR) Number of Full-Time Jobs At Minimum Wage To Afford a 1-Bedroom Rental Home (at FMR) MOST EXPENSIVE AREAS HOUSING WAGE San Francisco HMFA $60.02 Rent affordable at area median income (AMI) San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara HMFA $48.50 Rent affordable with full-time job paying mean renter wage Oakland-Fremont HMFA $44.79 Rent affordable at 30% of AMI $603 Santa Cruz-Watsonville MSA $37.79 Rent affordable with full-time job paying minimum wage $572 Santa Maria-Santa Barbara MSA $36.87 Rent affordable to SSI recipient MSA = Metropolitan Statistical Area; HMFA = HUD Metro FMR Area. * Ranked from Highest to Lowest 2-Bedroom Housing Wage. Includes District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. OUT OF REACH 2018 | NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION $1,699 Two bedroom FMR $1,335 One bedroom FMR $0 $2,010 $1,118 $272 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 35 ...
View Full Document

  • Fall '19
  • Human Development Index, Tour de Georgia

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern

Ask Expert Tutors You can ask 0 bonus questions You can ask 0 questions (0 expire soon) You can ask 0 questions (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes