WEF Human Capital Report 2015

[Puupi]

http://reports.weforum.org/human-capital-report-2015/

"Talent, not capital, will be the key factor linking innovation, competitiveness and growth in the 21st century, and we must each understand better the global talent value chain. Better data and metrics are critical to this understanding. The Human Capital Index quantifies how countries are developing and deploying their human capital and tracks progress over time. This Report provides comprehensive information on the talent base in each country, including information on education levels of the employed, unemployed and the inactive members of the population as well as the specific qualifications of the latest entrants to the workforce."


I was rather surprised to see Finland ranking #1... o_O

[Wildtree]

I don't like these kind of statistics.... They are skewed..... Inconclusive, to use a better word..
Notice the population sizes of the top 20 nations.... There are in fact only 3 countries with a population size of over 50 million people.
With smaller populations it's a lot easier to rule such statistics. Of course it's also possible to bottom feed for the same reason.

[Puupi]

I don't like these kind of statistics.... They are skewed..... Inconclusive, to use a better word..
Notice the population sizes of the top 20 nations.... There are in fact only 3 countries with a population size of over 50 million people.
With smaller populations it's a lot easier to rule such statistics. Of course it's also possible to bottom feed for the same reason.

Maybe smaller nations are more effective and "better" so to speak.

[Wildtree]

Maybe smaller nations are more effective and "better" so to speak.

I think they're easier to effectively govern them. To control funding better. Simply a lot easier oversight, and cheaper to run.

Plus.... let's say you have 1 million Euro.. You spend that on a town of 100 people, and you focus on getting them all highly educated.
90 of them manage to achieve that.....
Then 90% of that town are educated above average.
Now, without having more money... But a town of 1000 people.. Suddenly your percentage falls dramatically. And so on...
All in all, it's a lot easier to be efficient with smaller numbers of population than with larger numbers.

[Deleted]

With smaller populations it's a lot easier to rule such statistics.

I didn't get that impression, eye balling the ranking. It looks broadly similar to the rankings you'd get by other indicators of socio-economic development, such as GDP per capita or life expectancy. Typically, they don't correlate much with population size. The industrialised OECD countries are at the top, the low income countries like those in much of Africa, at the bottom.

I think they're easier to effectively govern them. To control funding better. Simply a lot easier oversight, and cheaper to run.

On the other hand, there may be economies of size. High population, if associated with high population density, lowers the costs of providing education (and other services). Scale can allow impressive concentrations of specialisms and talent, particularly in research. The US university system dominates the world in research in part due to the amount of talent it attracts.

Plus country size is variable, being determined by past political history. Big countries may have become big because they can handle that level of organisation. Countries may breakup if that seems more efficient. Or large countries may devolve administration to get the benefits of being small.

Plus.... let's say you have 1 million Euro.. You spend that on a town of 100 people, and you focus on getting them all highly educated.
90 of them manage to achieve that.....
Then 90% of that town are educated above average.
Now, without having more money... But a town of 1000 people.. Suddenly your percentage falls dramatically. And so on...
All in all, it's a lot easier to be efficient with smaller numbers of population than with larger numbers.

That's a pretty flawed logic. Countries don't have 1 million Euro regardless of their scale. Bigger populations will have bigger workforces and thus more Euro.

I will concede, however, that developing countries with high proportions of children will find it harder to climb these education league tables. Proportionately, it will be harder for them to school all their youth. However, that's about the age distribution of the population and not its size.

[Mayhem]

I think they're easier to effectively govern them. To control funding better. Simply a lot easier oversight, and cheaper to run.

Plus.... let's say you have 1 million Euro.. You spend that on a town of 100 people, and you focus on getting them all highly educated.
90 of them manage to achieve that.....
Then 90% of that town are educated above average.
Now, without having more money... But a town of 1000 people.. Suddenly your percentage falls dramatically. And so on...
All in all, it's a lot easier to be efficient with smaller numbers of population than with larger numbers.

Your math is odd. Your reasoning is the number of people but you explain it by having less money? That makes no sense.

[Poopymonster]

Maybe smaller nations are more effective and "better" so to speak.

'Murrica, too big to succeed?

[Independent voter]

I was thinking of starting a business that consisted of working with employees from all over the world via the Internet. I gave up on it but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of businesses like this up and running already.

You get your 3D models from Joe in Italy.

Jane from Vietnam does the art.

Pete from Poland does the animation.

Trust was the biggest issue, how to find dependable people who could deliver. How could you yell at them when you had to? etc