> What if random arbitrary QoL indexes don't match real world reality?

That would be up to you to show. By default, I trust the Economist more than I trust a random guy.

> Except that income lets you get better life for you and your family.

We're in a thread about whether the non-monetary QoL aspects make up for less money. This is irrelevant.

> Except that unlike Amsterdam, none of those cities are in the EU therefore not accessible to EU labor, and we were talking about a sum in Euros.

First of all, at these levels you can move almost anywhere. It's not that difficult to get a visa for skilled work. Second, you said Europe. London is in Europe just fine. Talking about Euros hardly matters. Sweden and Switzerland are both part of Shengen, don't use Euros, but you could move there trivially. Zurich probably pays better and has better QoL as well.

>That would be up to you to show.

You want me to show a personal opinion?

>By default, I trust the Economist more than I trust a random guy.

Then why are you living somewhere else with on objectively worse QoL according to "The Economist"? Why are you leaving QoL on the table and not moving to Vienan to get the best in the world?

Why are you on HN then, which is all opinions from random guys? Why aren't you getting all your life information from your trusted source "The Economist" instead? What are you doing here with all these random untrustworthy comments that disagree with what you find on the internet?

You see, in my opinion, people like this, who proudly swallow mainstream media propaganda without question as a badge of honor, are what's wrong with society and the world in general, and it's not worth debating further since they're not arguing in good faith, they already made up their mind and it would a waste of time and energy to continue.