Americans are unhappy. Here are the 5 happiest countries in the world
The Nordic countries of Finland, Denmark, and Iceland once again topped the list of the happiest countries in the world, while the United States failed to recover from last year's historic drop out of the top 20, the Gallup World Happiness Report revealed.
The countries that rank in the upper echelons of joy are 'not surprising,' to Julie Ray, Gallup's managing editor for world news.
'Finland, in particular, has a lack of inequality,' she told Quartz. 'Strong safety nets and relatively strong economies are characteristic of the top of the list.'
A strong economy, however, is not enough to guarantee the happiness of a country's citizens. The United States, which ranked 24th in the world, was one of several wealthy, industrialized nations that has seen a decrease in overall happiness. Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Canada have all experienced noticeable declines – while less affluent countries like Mexico and Costa Rica rank among the happiest in the world.
'This year's report quantifies the human elements of life that are often hard to measure,' said Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, director of Oxford's Wellbeing Research Centre, in a statement. 'These findings push us to look beyond traditional determinants like health and wealth and encourage people to get back around the table together.'
The Gallup analysis suggests that people in Latin American countries are especially happy, relative to their countries' gross domestic products, because of the close social and familial ties which exist in their cultures.
Living with four to five people and sharing meals with others, for example, are both considered optimal for overall happiness. In less affluent countries, like Mexico, bigger households are more common than in Europe or the United States – which could counterbalance a relative lack of wealth.
'Although income does play a big role in people's life evaluations, it's not just money that explains why people are happy,' Ray said.
In fact, this year's Gallup report places special emphasis on themes of 'sharing and caring' as significant factors in the overall happiness of individuals and entire countries. So-called 'deaths of despair' – which are deaths linked to suicide or drug and alcohol use – are less common in countries where people frequently engage in benevolent acts.
'If you're giving to others by donating your time, donating your money, or even helping a stranger, that improves your wellbeing,' said Ray. 'You're giving to somebody else, but you're getting happiness in return.'
Click through to see the five happiest countries in the world.
For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
3 days ago
- Forbes
Who You Name Manager Isn't Just A Promotion. It's A Culture Decision
Human hand picking up a person from the row. Gallup's most recent workforce study uncovered a pressing concern for organizations focused on future-ready leadership. Gallup found that only 26 percent of current managers in the U.S. exhibit high natural talent for the role. This finding, based on Gallup's validated management talent screener, measures five critical dimensions: motivation to lead, drive for results, relationship-building ability, accountability, and systems thinking. This data is not just a research finding. It is a wake-up call for any organization committed to strategic talent development, succession planning and performance culture. That's why investing in high-potential talent matters. Gallup found that these managers are significantly more likely to engage in behaviors that create real value—sharing advice and ideas, mentoring others, building networks, going above and beyond, staying customer-focused, and offering meaningful feedback. And the effect multiplies when they're also engaged at work. These aren't soft perks. They're mission-critical behaviors in today's volatile, fast-changing business environment. As leadership roles evolve amid disruption, hybrid work, wellbeing demands and early-stage AI adoption, organizations must take a more intentional, evidence-based approach to selecting who leads. Right now, too many managers are being placed in roles based on tenure, technical success, or timing. And it's not working. Even among high-talent managers, only 51 percent say their current role is a great fit. That's not the average. That's the best. These are the individuals most likely to thrive. Yet nearly half feel miscast, underutilized, or disconnected from the role they've been given. It's not a lack of ambition. In fact, 42 percent say it is extremely important for them to become a senior leader or lead other managers someday. Meanwhile, 77 percent of those same high-talent managers report feeling confident in their ability to do their current job. But confidence without context is not a reliable indicator of effectiveness—especially as the role continues to shift. The core challenge is not capability, but alignment. Importantly, confidence in meeting today's expectations doesn't guarantee continued performance in a disruptive future. What's needed is a higher degree of future readiness—and that's where things get difficult. Gallup research found that only about 1 in 3 high-potential managers strongly agree they understand the gaps between what they know now and what they'll need to lead in the future. Even the most promising managers need structured guidance, focused coaching and intentional confidence building to close that gap. The question organizations must be asking is: Are we matching the right people to the right roles, at the right time and in line with what the future demands? Gallup also found that 30 percent of employees are actively seeking new roles within their current organization. Of those, 72 percent are looking for a promotion over a lateral move. This reflects a longstanding cultural narrative: advancement equals up. But that assumption can backfire—especially when management is viewed as the default step forward. Leadership is not the right next move for everyone. When employees are placed in people-leader roles based on tenure, ambition, or availability, it creates downstream risk. Teams underperform. Culture fragments. Burnout and disengagement rise. Misfit roles aren't just a hiring mistake. They're often a result of old habits. Promotions get handed out based on tenure, loyalty, or urgency to fill a gap. Sometimes it's just easier to move someone up than pause and ask if they're truly wired to lead. There's also a quiet bias at play. When someone wants to lead, we assume they can. But ambition isn't the same as ability. Without a clear look at motivation and natural talent, good people land in the wrong roles for the wrong reasons. If lateral pathways are going to become part of an internal mobility strategy, then talent must become the non-negotiable filter. Lateral movement should be designed to stretch strengths, not patch internal gaps or offer placeholder promotions — or worse pseudo-promotions — titles or roles with limited or no real authority. They are still called managers. But they do everything but manage. Gallup's findings show clear differences in why individuals pursue leadership. High-talent managers are far more likely to cite motivations like developing others, fostering team success, and creating a better work environment. Others, on the other hand, more often mention compensation, title, or organizational pressure. While all motives are human, only some are sustainable. When people step into leadership without a people-first mindset, the risk is not just poor performance. It is cultural erosion. Organizations must evaluate not just if someone can manage, but why they want to. The expectations placed on managers today are broader, more human-centered even as they are increasingly tech-driven, and more complex. Yet, managers are less engaged than before and many are looking for change. They are also struggling more than the people they lead. And even with all that they are still expected to: And yet, many selection processes are still designed around static role descriptions, past performance, or organizational convenience. Technology is accelerating this gap. Gallup reports that only 15 percent of white-collar employees use AI weekly, yet 45 percent of those who do report greater productivity and efficiency. While AI is not the main story here, it is a signal. Managers who are more naturally adaptive—those with higher leadership talent—are also more likely to engage with new tools and you still the pizza in the lead differently because of them. AI will not replace managers, but it will make clear who is learning, growing, and leading effectively in a changing environment. Here are five strategic shifts organizations can make to close the gap: Leadership should not be a thank-you for past performance. It is a specialized role requiring the right match of talent, motivation, and organizational need. Growth does not always mean promotion. Design lateral roles with intent, and use talent as the starting point—not the fallback plan. Relying on instinct or tenure leads to misalignment. Use validated assessments to understand natural leadership ability before making selection decisions. High-talent managers need challenge, mentorship, and runway. Others may need targeted support, or a different kind of growth path altogether. Focus on indicators like adaptability, systems thinking, resilience under pressure, and the ability to elevate others. These matter as much as technical skill or functional success. Managers account for as much as 70 percent of the variance in team engagement and performance. Who you choose to lead your teams has an outsized impact on your culture, your brand, and your bottom line. Right now, many managers are in roles that don't match their talent or their motivation. Others are stepping into leadership because it's the only visible form of progress. And even your highest-potential leaders may be feeling disconnected from the role they're in. That is not a pipeline problem. That is a perspective problem. It is time to replace default promotion paths with deliberate selection strategies. It is time to reward stewardship, not just ambition. And it is time to ask better questions—about who is built to lead, why they want to, and how we can help them do it well. The future of your culture depends on the choices you make today about who you trust to lead it. Disclosure: My day job is focusing on leadership development and strategy research for Gallup.
CNN
4 days ago
- CNN
Finland women's soccer manager apologizes for mistakenly calling up retired 51-year-old instead of 23-year-old
The manager of Finland's women's national soccer team has apologized after mistakenly calling up a 51-year-old with the same surname as a 23-year-old who she meant to select. Outi Saarinen called up former player Stina Ruuskanen for the team's game against Serbia this week, instead of Djurgården defender Nanne Ruuskanen. The mistake was made too late for it to be corrected in time for the game, meaning Stina Ruuskanen was formally named in Finland's squad and Nanne Ruuskanen missed out. 'Nanne was, of course, disappointed but took the news very well considering the circumstances,' Saarinen said in a statement on the Finnish Football Association website. 'I am very sorry for the mistake.' Stina Ruuskanen – who last played for the Finnish national team 29 years ago when she made two appearances for the Helmarit and has been retired for years – took the call-up in good spirits. 'I'm definitely ready if the call comes! Just yesterday I was playing in a hobby league match … so my game feel is good,' she told the Finnish newspaper Ilta-Sanomat, per Reuters. Finland went onto draw against Serbia, missing out on the opportunity to win its UEFA Nations League group.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Chile abortion rights bill could shape Boric legacy as Latin American neighbors look on
By Alexander Villegas and Lucinda Elliott VALPARAISO, Chile (Reuters) -An effort by Chilean President Gabriel Boric to expand abortion rights in the final months of his administration could finally give him a progressive legacy after three years in office but it is an uphill task that Latin American conservatives are hoping will fail as they seek to reverse gains for the abortion rights movement in the region. Leftist Boric set off a fierce debate in Congress this week with a bill to ease restrictions on abortion. The attempt to fulfill a campaign promise comes at the tail end of an administration that has failed to deliver on progressive proposals such as wideranging tax reforms and a liberal new constitution, which was rejected at a referendum in 2022. Chile's proposed law would decriminalize abortion and allow for the termination of pregnancies up to 14 weeks under any circumstance, putting the country on par with neighboring Argentina. Recent expansions in Colombia and Mexico have cemented even broader abortion rights. But Boric's proposal does not appear to have the support in Congress to pass, potentially making the issue a central part of campaigns ahead of a November vote to replace him as president and elect most of the legislature. Reproductive rights may also face push back in neighboring Argentina where abortion was decriminalized in 2020. Argentine President Javier Milei, an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, has cut some federal funding for contraceptives and emergency contraception, commonly known as the 'morning after pill.' "Demographic policies should be rethought beyond the atrocity of killing human beings developing in their mother's womb," Milei wrote in a recent op-ed. Milei has focused on taming runaway inflation, but mid-term elections later this year are likely to broaden his support, based on his strength in a recent Buenos Aires vote. That could test his readiness to push through a socially conservative agenda. Constanza Schonhaut, a lawyer and executive director of human rights organization Corporacion Humanas, noted that the abortion debate has increasingly transcended borders as both far right groups and feminist organizations form alliances online. "What happens in Chile can influence other countries and vice versa," Schonhaut said. "In an increasingly connected world, it is not only feminist organizations that are coordinating internationally." When Boric announced the legislation during his last annual address to the nation on Sunday, legislators waving green and purple bandanas that represent abortion rights cheered. "Generations of women have lived and fought for this," Boric said. "Don't deny them at least the democratic debate as citizens capable of deciding for themselves." Members of the conservative bench jeered and shouted, "No abortion!" and several walked out. "Why does (Boric) insist knowing he doesn't have the votes? Why? To insult us," Johannes Kaiser, a far-right firebrand legislator and among the leading presidential contenders, told reporters after leaving the room. A Monday poll showed 25% of voters favor the new proposal while 55% prefer to stick with the current legislation and 19% favor banning abortion. LATIN AMERICA Chile's minister of women and gender, Antonia Orellana, who is overseeing the bill through Congress, acknowledged the proposal faces an uphill battle but said that was also the case with a 2017 law that allowed abortion in limited circumstances, such as rape. "It was work that took a long time and that's what we're aiming for," Orellana said, adding that the goal is to create a "genuine debate." Chile has rejected two attempts to rewrite the constitution, including one supported by Boric that would have expanded rights and a second conservative-led attempt that threatened the limited rights women have to abortion. "Our country gave a very clear sign that it doesn't want to roll back women's rights," Orellana said, noting that abortion rights were not the main reason voters rejected the first proposal, but defending them was a key reason women rejected the second one. The World Health Organization estimates that three of every four abortions in Latin America were unsafe last year. Despite legislation, many abortions take place outside the public healthcare system. The election outlook in Chile is unclear. Polls consistently show the top candidates varying from right to far right. For Congress, a May poll by Centro de Estudios Publicos shows left-wing parties with 17% support, 19% for conservatives and 39% for centrist parties. Politicians like Milei, Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, whose country has Latin America's strictest abortion ban, have gained popularity in Chile as crime and immigration have come to top voters' mind. This has propelled candidates like Kaiser, who proposed shutting down the border and deploying the military to fight crime, to the top of polls, alongside fellow ultra-conservative Jose Antonio Kast and current frontrunner, experienced conservative Evelyn Matthei. Elisa Walker, a Chilean lawyer and policy expert based in Washington says the bill will likely depend on the next administration. "This is a bill that is always challenging to discuss. There's no ideal or perfect timing," she said.
