How are the Chileans better off than the Haitians in their recent earthquakes?

Infrastructure.

Chile is the 44th most developed country in the world and Haiti is 149th (according to the Human Development Index report of 2009). This takes into account levels of poverty, infrastructure, etc. Chile has better buildings that are less likely to be damaged, Chile has better methods of getting people to safety, Chile has better hospitals, Chile is also in an extremely active seismic zone so they are used to earthquakes. The most powerful earthquakes in the world happen in Chile.

Chile has a history of earthquakes hence they have engineered safety factors into their buildings something a poor country like Haiti did not have the luxury of.

What @missingbite and @DominicX and @Cruiser said.

Plus the Haiti quake was closer to the surface (8 miles vs 22 miles) and closer to dense populations.

Here’s a pertinent article from the Wall Street Journal:
Why Bigger Quake Sows Less Damage

Chile’s main affected cities (Santiago, Valparaiso, Concepcion) have no where near the population density of Port-au-prince and Jacmel.

@Cruiser While the quake in Haiti was horrible, I’m not sure I would say luxury. It’s kind of like New Orleans with Katrina to a smaller degree. Haiti has historically had a corrupt government that could but doesn’t repair infrastructure. It probably won’t correct itself now. link

@missingbite What you say is probably true…and sadly the greatest carnage in Haiti came in the slums where the people were crammed in like sardines.

@Cruiser I agree. Just to add, I still think that everyone should do all they can for the people of Haiti and now Chile. We should just be careful who we donate to.

@missingbite I know of a lot of people who were involved in the initial efforts to help in Haiti the biggest issue is security not only for the people there but the volunteers and their supplies. It is the wild west down there! Brutal!

I’m hard pressed to say any country is better off than another when both have suffered through an earthquake or any other kind of natural disaster really. No matter how you look at it, it is completely devastating and horrendous on a massive scale.

To put it baldly: Haiti does not have a housing code, or if it does, it is not enforced. Chile, on the other hand, has one of the most severe building codes in this hemisphere. The reason for the high mortality in Haiti was that most of the buildings turned to sand during the quake. One of the things that impresses us, here in the Caribbean is how casualties in the US tend to be relatively small. A lot of that has to do with being prepared. I will tell you this: while praying for the Haitians and sending aid – many of us are thinking, when your neighbour’s shirt tail is on fire, pour water on your own.

@missingbite I am not convinced that aid money is ever handled wisely. I am happy to donate goods and time but I never donate money.

@lilikoi You could be right. I have done some research and sometimes organizations need money more than goods. We have to be sure that the majority of the money goes to the victims and not to the organization. All not for profits need money. The key is to find ones that keep the administrative costs low. I agree that it is always good to donate items if you can.

I surely understand the reason for wanting to donate items rather than money, but unless you have a way of knowing precisely what is needed, where, and how to get it there without it getting lost, stolen or otherwise not intact, money can be much more helpful to the area where it is needed. So investigate the organizations very carefully, There are reputable ones out there. If you send money, it can be used to also reinvigorate the local economy after the disaster (buying supplies locally for example is good for the business that was also hit with the disaster, so you are really helping both the business operator and the person who needs the supplies). Also, some organizations are able to fairly distribute new items (buying 10,000 pairs of shoes/10,000 meals /10,000 equivalent cash distributions)—so that what is being distributed is done fairly – where donated goods vary so much that it is hard to fairly divide them up. It’s a tough call, I totally understand wanting to donate items rather than money, but can understand why money can be more helpful. I suppose the important thing is that people are doing what they can, whatever that is—donating time, money or goods. And regarding the original question, there is a good article on cnn.com about the difference, describing as others on this question have the difference between the disasters in Chile and Haiti, pointing out the differences in infrastructure and the high level of poverty in Haiti (so the suffering is a universal thing, but Chile was much more prepared for this than Haiti).

The building in Chile are not repeatedly weakened by seasonal hurricanes like Haiti is.

To illustrate what @citygrlincountry has detailed regarding donating money vs goods:

I volunteer at a food pantry.

If 100 people bring us a 2 canned goods, we have to sort them. And throw out the rusty ones and those without labels. And figure out who gets the beef stew, who gets the clam juice and who gets nothing.

If 100 people give $1.00 each, we can buy a 400 cans of beans/soup/vegetables/whatever and everybody gets some and we have some left over for the following week.

Rebar.

The Richter scale offers only a very rough approximation of the severity and the impact on people. The same can be said about the hurricane categories.