|
Post by luckyluc on Apr 2, 2007 14:32:42 GMT -5
This morning I heard something incredible on CBC radio. On the latest 2007 quality of living survey our little town of Ottawa won no. 18 before Paris (33) or New York (48) So I found their website and after further reading now I understand the difference between quality of living and quality of life. "A city with a high Quality of Living index is a safe and stable one, but it may be lacking the dynamic je ne sais quoi that makes people want to live in world-renowned cities such as Paris, Tokyo, London or New York. Sometimes you need a little spice to make a city exciting. But that "spice" may also give a city a lower ranking" For my part I will take less living for more life, specially Parisian life. ;D www.mercerhr.com/referencecontent.jhtml?idContent=1128060#lefe
|
|
|
Post by Happygoin on Apr 2, 2007 15:27:34 GMT -5
I'm sure you're right about the spice factor, Luc. I'd take Paris over almost any other city too.
|
|
|
Post by phread on Apr 3, 2007 16:27:59 GMT -5
Well, um, I have to say that Paris is a great city, but living here and earning one's livelihood here is very different than visiting for a few months at a time. There are lots of things that mike life here more of a challenge.
First there is the high cost of living against low salaries. Then there is a general malaise and disrespect that is leading to events like the outbareak at the Gare du Nord, or getting smacked on the back while minding one's own business at the Hotel de Ville. Those are just my personal hghlight of the days, but I did choose to live here, so there absolutely an upside, too!
|
|
|
Post by luckyluc on Apr 3, 2007 20:48:33 GMT -5
Oh I agree with you Phread, the survey took in account the safe and stable aspect of a city, basically the same way our diplomat get a "extra difficulty pay" when they are posted in places like Cairo or Bamako. My point was that yes Paris daily life, even with money as a buffer,is difficult, I prefer that to the safe and dullness of living here where everyone think the same and look the same .
Regarding the Gare du Nord event, I am curious to see the impact it will have in the election. Sadly the only one that could benefit from it is Le Pen. Again, instant communication with cellular phone play an important role in the rumours mill.
There was a very interesting interview about a book written by a policemen regarding the relation between the banlieusards and the flics. It is called Journal d'un flic the author is Philippe Pichon. I was impressed by the author's understanding of all the different elements of the equation including the desire that consumerist exerts on the zonards. I just ordered it on amazon and I will let you know about it.
|
|
|
Post by phread on Apr 4, 2007 2:45:01 GMT -5
In re, Gare du Nord. I don't kow the final efect, but I do know that it has not been good for Royale, which surprised me. I saw it as a failure of the job Sarkozy has done to date. The rest of France saw it as a warning of what would be happening more and more if the Socialists win. On a personal note, I was wavering, and that event sealed it for me. Off to the Mairie today to take care of my Absentee Ballot.
|
|
|
Post by kasthor on Apr 4, 2007 3:25:36 GMT -5
Well, the happenings at gare du nord have actually a very neutral effect. One would think that it benefits more to Ms Royal, the socialists do actually claim that these events would be more frequent with Sarkozy as president. They also claim that it is a result of nov '05 events (for which they hold Sarkozy responsible). Now, all this is just half true, it was just a matter of time until people from the banlieue rebel... They have been parked there since 40 years, we all know about the slums in Nanterre in the 60's. Now all of a sudden France discovers that there is somehow misery there (right/left/center/communists etc) and make it an electoral topic... People are not that stupid, they know that no government so far (left or right) has done anything for them, so the effect is in my opinion rather neutral, it just reinforces everybody's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Happygoin on Apr 4, 2007 6:52:08 GMT -5
Phread, while I certainly agree with you that living in a city is far different than visiting one, I live in (very near) Boston. There has been quite a spike in violence so far this year. It is so near crisis that the Guardian Angels gang from NYC have recently come to town to patrol, over the strenuous objections of law enforcement officials. The cost of living is the second highest in the US. The highest housing costs, by far, are in the Northeast. Salaries aren't nearly keeping up with the soaring cost of living. Young people are leaving the Northeast before the ink on their diplomas is dry. So, in that our perspectives are so very different, Paris looks pretty good to me these days.
|
|
|
Post by sistereurope on Apr 4, 2007 7:24:38 GMT -5
I just can't believe that Pittsburgh rated higher than Paris...
|
|