BiziBB
Jun 10, 08, 10:42 pm
Better, bitter, potato, potato, interesting rankings from Mercer's latest survey.
Story:
Sydney: the world's 10th best city (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/06/11/1212863680236.html) [SMH]
Sydney is a little less liveable than last year, but it is still better than Melbourne, which in turn is better than Perth, which is way better than Adelaide.
That sounds about right, but then this year's [Mercer] Worldwide Quality of Living Index reckons Adelaide is better than Brisbane, allegedly the least liveable of Australia's big-five capitals. Brisbane worse than Adelaide? Yes - and the gap is widening.
The index, compiled by Mercer, a human resources consulting company, ranks 215 big cities on 39 criteria including crime, pollution, education, restaurants, climate and transport.
Mercer sells its services to companies transferring its employees to various cities, and says anyone going to a city that scores badly (below 90 on an index where the base, New York City, scores 100, in 49th place) expects to be paid a premium.
The index has Sydney as the tenth-most liveable city, down from ninth last year, on 106.3. But it falls behind Auckland (fifth) and just ahead of windy Wellington (12th), a funky upstart that trounces Melbourne (17th) and the other three Australian cities. Zurich is on top, then Geneva and Vienna.
For most of us, the list is meaningless unless there is a job offer in the works in one of the listed cities.
I'm surprised by Auckland but then it has less of a congestion and transport problem than Sydney.
Does anyone have the 2008 list? The Mercer site isn't updated at this time.
http://www.mercer.com/costofliving
I suppose the survey is important to HR people and for cities to promote themselves for HQ / Regional office relocations. NSW already does this (http://www.business.nsw.gov.au/aboutnsw/lifestyle/E1_quality_of_life.htm).
If you feel bad that your city is not on the list or where you want it, at last you aren't here:
Mercer also found the "city with the world's lowest quality of living and lowest levels of personal safety" is Baghdad. The war-torn Iraqi capital sits on the bottom of both lists.
Anyone here from wundy Willington or have you already movd to the lower-quality but much warmer Brisbane? :D
= = = = = =
Edit to add: I bet cost of living is much better in Auckland or at least Wellington, than Sydney or Melbourne.
Here is a collection of kiwi comments to the quesiton of whether the grass really is greener...
http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/your-views/2008/6/11/quality-life-better-auckland-sydney/?c_id=7
Story:
Sydney: the world's 10th best city (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/06/11/1212863680236.html) [SMH]
Sydney is a little less liveable than last year, but it is still better than Melbourne, which in turn is better than Perth, which is way better than Adelaide.
That sounds about right, but then this year's [Mercer] Worldwide Quality of Living Index reckons Adelaide is better than Brisbane, allegedly the least liveable of Australia's big-five capitals. Brisbane worse than Adelaide? Yes - and the gap is widening.
The index, compiled by Mercer, a human resources consulting company, ranks 215 big cities on 39 criteria including crime, pollution, education, restaurants, climate and transport.
Mercer sells its services to companies transferring its employees to various cities, and says anyone going to a city that scores badly (below 90 on an index where the base, New York City, scores 100, in 49th place) expects to be paid a premium.
The index has Sydney as the tenth-most liveable city, down from ninth last year, on 106.3. But it falls behind Auckland (fifth) and just ahead of windy Wellington (12th), a funky upstart that trounces Melbourne (17th) and the other three Australian cities. Zurich is on top, then Geneva and Vienna.
For most of us, the list is meaningless unless there is a job offer in the works in one of the listed cities.
I'm surprised by Auckland but then it has less of a congestion and transport problem than Sydney.
Does anyone have the 2008 list? The Mercer site isn't updated at this time.
http://www.mercer.com/costofliving
I suppose the survey is important to HR people and for cities to promote themselves for HQ / Regional office relocations. NSW already does this (http://www.business.nsw.gov.au/aboutnsw/lifestyle/E1_quality_of_life.htm).
If you feel bad that your city is not on the list or where you want it, at last you aren't here:
Mercer also found the "city with the world's lowest quality of living and lowest levels of personal safety" is Baghdad. The war-torn Iraqi capital sits on the bottom of both lists.
Anyone here from wundy Willington or have you already movd to the lower-quality but much warmer Brisbane? :D
= = = = = =
Edit to add: I bet cost of living is much better in Auckland or at least Wellington, than Sydney or Melbourne.
Here is a collection of kiwi comments to the quesiton of whether the grass really is greener...
http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/your-views/2008/6/11/quality-life-better-auckland-sydney/?c_id=7