Naturally, it is a lot better to work for richer entities with less control and attention over money spent, milk the fat cows.

Stress level is something innate to a person. If they have anxiety problems, they will find what to stress over, no matter what. Even in absolute crime ridden hellholes in Latin America, most people have calm, stress-free lives, and in many Western societies people are literally dying of stress over things they largely imagine ("climate apocalypse", microplastics, etc).

Quality of life depends on someone's personal choices apart from the things i have already covered...

One thing to add is perhaps, climate metrics. Such as variations of temperature and precipitation over year etc. Because there are excellent places where climate just sucks and it kills all the fun (like UK).

There are certainly things that matter a lot, but idk how to measure them in a way that sounds trustworthy and quantitative enough. Like corruption. Say Serbia vs Belarus: countries are largely same thing except for that metric, and Serbia looks like an absolute piece of shit comparatively, and that's the only difference - but idk how to quantify.

Well, there's also race. Politically incorrect but everyone no matter the race will agree it's important [shows the Family Guy meme].

2. Per capita GDP growth rate, averaged over ~10 year economic cycle.

3. Per capita GDP itself. Log scale.

4. Protection of private property rights. Measured as ratio of private net worth to GDP (if rights are not protected, businesses aren't worth much even if they make a lot of money because people know they can be taken away and that's priced in).

Only problem is that flights are frequently full so they sometimes force me to check in what i should take onboard, and i hate waiting for checked in bags. And on turboprops, there's that 'delivery at aircraft' thing (while it's not as annoying, it sucks dragging bags around a dense, small aircraft).

Question is what takes priority, in the economy of full employment and lack of any external stress or obvious conflict, and very low crime - it's logical that prices take the top place, simply because what else?

In the end of the day, Russia burnt through their entire Soviet stocks in roughly 2-2.5 years, while US spent a very small proportion of theirs and Europe, maybe about half. And now consumption on both sides is similar with expenses on the Western side to feed that machine being almost invisibly small. Nothing bad happened.

This was seen as a major risk of Apple ("what's going to happen if Steve dies, last time they got rid of him it almost went under"), and held its stock back for a considerable time before market accepted that dependence on that 1 person wasn't as big as feared.

This is seen as a major risk of SpaceX now, too. Companies are not people. A company that's worth something - not just makes a profit - shouldn't be dependent on one person, because you can't sell a person due to 13th Amendment, but being worth something means that one can buy and sell.

Falcon 9 refurbishment costs can't be high because whole thing takes under 2 weeks with less than a week spent in hangar for any refurbishment work... There may be no refurbishment at all on many flights, just some checks.

And yes, they ate entire worldwide commercial launch market and it wasn't enough... So there's Starlink. They appear to have no war around creating demand for themselves with their own payloads because others are not up to that task - there is too much rot and dysfunction everywhere in the space business worldwide except SpaceX, so they are kinda forced to vertically integrate.

There is no reason to say that its development is slow. Falcon 9 took 8 years from concept to first flight and another 8 years to high cadence, reliable reusable flights. Starship is now only 10 years in development and already went through several iterations.