How’s Life in Luxembourg?
How’s Life in Luxembourg? Luxembourg’s current well-being, 2018 or latest available year CIVIC INCOME AND ENGAGEMENT WEALTH Hav ing House- no say in House- Voter hold gov ernment* income hold turnout w ealth S80/S20 SOCIAL Lack of income social share ratio* CONNECTIONS HOUSING support* Housing Social affordability inter- actions Ov er- crow ding WORK-LIFE Gender rate* BALANCE gap in hours Employ - w orked* ment rate
Time off Gender WORK AND w age JOB QUALITY Gender gap* gap in feeling Long hours in paid safe SAFETY w ork* Homicides* Life Negative ex pectancy affect Gap in life balance* ex pectancy by SUBJECTIVE Life satisfaction Student education HEALTH WELL-BEING Ex posure to (men)* Access Students skills in outdoor air to green w ith science pollution* space low skills* AVERAGE INEQUALITY KNOWLEDGE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SKILLS QUALITY Note: This chart shows Luxembourg’s relative strengths and weaknesses in well-being compared to other OECD countries. Longer bars always indicate better outcomes (i.e. higher wellbeing), whereas shorter bars always indicate worse outcomes (lower well-being) – including for negative indicators, marked with an *, which have been reverse-scored. Inequalities (gaps between top and bottom, differences between groups, people falling under a deprivation threshold) are shaded with stripes, and missing data in white.
Luxembourg’s resources for future well-being, 2018 or latest available year
Natural Capital Economic Capital Human Capital Social Capital
Educational Greenhouse gas Produced fixed assets attainment of young Trust in others emissions per capita adults … Financial net worth of Trust in Material footprint Premature mortality government government
Red List Index of Labour Gender parity in Household debt threatened species underutilisation rate politics
Note: ❶=top-performing OECD tier, ❷=middle-performing OECD tier, ❸=bottom-performing OECD tier. ➚ indicates consistent improvement; ↔ indicates no clear or consistent trend; ➘ indicates consistent deterioration, and “…” indicates insufficient time series to determine trends since 2010. For methodological details, see the Reader’s Guide of How’s Life? 2020.
HOW’S LIFE? 2020 © OECD 2020 2
For more information Access the complete publication, including information about the methods used to determine trends at: https://doi.org/10.1787/9870c393-en. Find the data used in this country profile at: http://oecd.org/statistics/Better-Life-Initiative-2020-country- notes-data.xlsx.
Deprivations in Luxembourg Deprivations in selected indicators of current well-being, 2018 or latest available year
LUXEMBOURG
11% 31%
of the population live in relative would be at risk of falling into poverty if they income poverty had to forgo 3 months of their income
29% 4%
of poor households spend more than of the population report low 40% of their income on housing costs life satisfaction
8% 12%
are not satisfied with how they say they have no friends or family spend their time to turn to in times of need
Source: OECD (2020), How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-Being
Note: Relative income poverty refers to the share of people with household disposable income below 50% of the national median; financial insecurity refers to the share of individuals who are not income poor, but whose liquid financial assets are insufficient to support them at the level of the national relative income poverty line for at least three months; housing cost overburden refers to the share of households in the bottom 40% of the income distribution spending more than 40% of their disposable income on housing costs; and low satisfaction with life and with time use refer to the share of the population rating their satisfaction as 4 or lower (on a 0-10 scale).
HOW’S LIFE? 2020 © OECD 2020
3
Inequalities between men and women in Luxembourg Gender ratios (distance from parity) for selected indicators of current well-being, 2018 or latest available year
Feeling safe 0.83
Long-term 0.83 unemployment rate
Employment rate 0.89
Job strain 0.90
Hours worked 0.94 (paid and unpaid)
Perceived health 0.96
Earnings 0.97
Social support 0.98
Life satisfaction 0.99
Student skills (science) 1.01
Satisfaction with 1.02 personal relationships
Life expectancy 1.06
Social interactions 1.13
Homicide victims // 2.33
Long working hours // 2.79 (in paid work) Deaths from suicide, // 2.94 alcohol, drugs
Men doing better OECD average Women doing better
Note: Grey bubbles denote no clear difference between men and women, defined as gender ratios within 0.03 points distance to parity.
HOW’S LIFE? 2020 © OECD 2020
4
Inequalities between age groups in Luxembourg Age ratios (distance from parity) for selected indicators of current well-being, 2018 or latest available year A. Younger and middle-aged people
Employment rate // 0.34
Earnings 0.67
Feeling safe 0.97
Job strain 1.02
Life satisfaction 1.02
Satisfaction with personal relationships 1.03
Social support 1.04
Satisfaction with time use 1.09
Long-term unemployment rate 1.33
Long working hours (in paid work) // 3.59
Middle-aged people doing better OECD average Younger people doing better
B. Younger and older people
Earnings // 0.57
Employment rate 0.70
Job strain 0.92
Satisfaction with time use 0.93
Satisfaction with personal relationships 1.02
Life satisfaction 1.02
Social support 1.04
Feeling safe 1.09
Long-term unemployment rate 1.40
Long working hours (in paid work) // 2.88
Older people doing better OECD average Younger people doing better
Note: Age ranges differ according to each indicator and are only broadly comparable. They generally refer to 15-24/29 years for young people, 25/30 to 45/50 years for the middle-aged and 50 years and over for older people. See How’s Life? 2020 for further details. Grey bubbles denote no clear difference between age groups, defined as age ratios within 0.03 points distance to parity.
HOW’S LIFE? 2020 © OECD 2020
5
Inequalities between people with different educational attainment in Luxembourg Education ratios (distance from parity) for selected indicators of current well-being, 2018 or latest available year
Job strain // 0.74
Long-term 0.36 unemployment rate
Earnings 0.35
Employment rate 0.13
Feeling safe 0.08
Perceived health 0.07
Life satisfaction 0.03
Satisfaction with 0.00 personal relationships
Social support 1.00
Satisfaction with time 1.05 use
Long working hours // 1.54 (in paid work)
People with tertiary education doing better OECD average People with upper secondary education doing better
Note: Grey bubbles denote no clear difference between groups with different educational attainment, defined as education ratios within 0.03 points distance to parity.
HOW’S LIFE? 2020 © OECD 2020
6
Inequalities between top and bottom performers in Luxembourg Vertical inequalities for selected indicators of current well-being, 2018 or latest available year
Household income of the top 20% relative to the bottom 20% Share of wealth owned by the top 10%, percentage
12 90
80 10 70
8 60 51.7 48.7 50 6 5.4 4.9 40
4 30
20 2 10
0 0
Earnings of the top 10% relative to the bottom 10%, PISA score in science of the top 10% relative to the bottom 10% full-time employees 6 2 1.74 1.67 5
4 3.4 3.1 3 1
2
1
0 0
Life satisfaction scores of the top 20% relative to the bottom 20% Satisfaction with time use scores of the top 20% relative to the bottom 20% 4 4
3 3 2.78 2.67
2.1 1.9 2 2
1 1
0 0
Note: For all figures, countries are ranked from left (most unequal) to right (least unequal).
HOW’S LIFE? 2020 © OECD 2020
7
Trends in current well-being since 2010 in Luxembourg - I
Household income (household net adjusted disposable income, Average USD at 2017 PPPs*, per capita) OECD LUX ~ 28 000 ~42 000
Household wealth Average (median net wealth, USD at 2016 PPPs) OECD LUX ~162 000 ~450 000
Income andIncome Wealth
S80/S20 income share ratio (the household income for the top 20%, Inequality divided by the household income for the OECD LUX bottom 20%) 5.4 4.9
Housing affordability (share of disposable income remaining after Average housing costs) LUX OECD 34 79.1 79.2
Housing Overcrowding rate (share of households living in overcrowded Inequality
conditions) OECD LUX 12 8
Employment rate (employed people aged 25-64, as a share of Average the population of the same age) LUX OECD 74.9 76.5
Gender wage gap (difference between male and female median Inequality wages expressed as a share of male wages) OECD LUX 12.9 3.4
Work and Job Quality
Long hours in paid work (share of employees usually working 50+ Inequality hours per week) OECD LUX 7 2.8
Life expectancy (number of years a newborn can expect to Average Health live) OECD LUX 80.5 82.2
Note: The snapshot depicts data for 2018, or the latest available year, for each indicator. The colour of the circle indicates the direction of change, relative to 2010, or the closest available year: = consistent improvement, = consistent deterioration, = no clear trend, and white for insufficient time series to determine trends. The OECD average is marked in black. For methodological details, see the Reader’s Guide of How’s Life? 2020. * = Purchasing Power Parity.
HOW’S LIFE? 2020 © OECD 2020
8
Trends in current well-being since 2010 in Luxembourg - II
Student skills in science Average
Skills (PISA mean scores) LUX OECD 489 Knowledge and 477
Exposure to outdoor air pollution Inequality (share of population > WHO threshold) Quality LUX OECD 62.8
Environmental 73
Life satisfaction Average (mean value on a 0-10 scale) OECD LUX 7.4 7.6
Negative affect balance (share of population reporting more negative Inequality
Subjective Well-being Subjective than positive feelings and states yesterday) OECD LUX 13 11
Homicides Average (per 100 000 population) OECD LUX 2.4 0.5
Safety Gender gap in feeling safe (percentage difference that women feel less Inequality safe than men when walking alone at night) OECD LUX -16 -10.3
Time off (time allocated to leisure and personal care, Average No data available for Luxembourg.
Balance
Work-life Work-life hours per day)
Social interactions Average (hours per week) LUX OECD 3.9 6
Lack of social support (share of people who report having no friends
Social Connections Social Inequality or relatives whom they can count on in times of trouble) OECD LUX 8.6 8.3
Voter turnout* Average
Civic Civic (share of registered voters who cast votes) OECD LUX Engagement 69 90 Note: See note on page 7. Luxembourg enforces compulsory voting, marked with *.
HOW’S LIFE? 2020 © OECD 2020