Hacker News

High inequality, but also very high on social support:

https://data.worldhappiness.report/table?_gl=1*13j5g4a*_gcl_...

One thing to note is that the idealized Sweden and many benefits remain because we had a much lower wealth inequality 30 years ago but (mainly) right-wing governments have been very "successful" at removing the barriers that kept the wealth inequality low.

- Inheritance tax was abolished in 2005 - Wealth taxation was abolished in 2007 - "income tax reduction" was initiated in 2007

Meanwhile our schools have gotten larger classes and worse results, especially the income tax reduction was insidious since it was a nationally mandated tax reduction that mainly hits the tax revenue of cities and regions (ie, political entities that had no part in the laws that lowered their tax revenue).

Basically, Sweden has been speed-running into re-making our society into a mini-US and even surpassed the US in some regards.

Sweden 2025 isn't the same as in 1985, and policies enacted around 2005 are the ones that are really starting to hit with their secondary effects today (Iirc Denmark has had fairly many right-wing governments over this period as well).

The thing about the Nordics is that you can not consume that wealth personally without being heavily taxed - when it is tied up in company assets.

Exactly and I'm glad to see this the top comment.

I live in Denmark. I am Danish. Too many people nurse fantasies of the Nordics as some kind of socialist utopia.

The fact is Denmark grows more corrupt by the day. They keep pushing the retirement age so I will be working until I'm 72. Healthcare quality has been dropping for more than 40 years now. The wealthy own the majority of land. We are currently home to a government that is leading the EU in its push for a surveillance mandate that is frankly terrifying in its scope. That same government pushed through the most garbage mega-project I have personally ever witnessed—that we the taxpayers are supposed to fund—despite voter outcry. Digital tenders get sold in backroom deals to a single company that is so ethically bankrupt they've been called out numerous times for workplace violations by our unions.

We're all fucked in the global slide toward authoritarianism and the wealthy's capture of the world economy. And while they get fat supping on our labor we're at each other's throats for who can be crowned the greatest victim.

> many people like to issue catastrophic warnings about how wealth inequality destroys a society- then quickly change the subject when you note that the Nordics are more unequal than America

A missing piece of the puzzle may be regulatory capture and a strong political/legal structure that resists the worst ambitions of cruel people whether they be wealthy or poor.

You can think of wealth like the potential energy of a spring under tension. If used properly it is capable of powering the most amazing and intricate social mechanisms but if poorly regulated it destroys social fabric and the well being of every day people.

Things like Citizens United and lobbyists representing cruel wealthy interests running unchecked over American democracy are examples of the socially destructive potential energy of wealth.

I'm also curious if there's a selection pressure in play where the more cruel wealthy people in the Nordic countries move to the US because they see more opportunity to make money and be cruel in that environment while wealthy people who have some affinity with their nation and the people of it choose to remain and don't or can't lobby for terribly antisocial policies.

> Just kind of an underdiscussed piece, especially as many people like to issue catastrophic warnings about how wealth inequality destroys a society- then quickly change the subject when you note that the Nordics are more unequal than America

Ask someone from the Nordics about housing prices. Do you think they’ll change the subject?

> Fun fact, but there's essentially zero correlation between income inequality & wealth inequality- and the Nordics have some of the highest wealth inequality in the world.

If there's so little correlation between income inequality and wealth inequality, why are we even supposed to care about wealth inequality? That wealth is essentially frozen in place. It's hopefully being invested in sensible ways, but no one sensible is going to spend it down anytime soon. The thing with wealth is that once you spend it, it's gone for good - so wealth accumulation, especially on any kind of multi-generational scale, tends to be associated with remarkable frugality.

Americans are literally socially selected for that mindset. Around the world, the vast majority of people don’t want to leave their home countries: https://news.gallup.com/poll/652748/desire-migrate-remains-r.... Even in sub-saharan africa, only 37% would emigrate if they had the choice. In asia it’s single digits. So a large share of America’s population is literally made up of the most antisocial 10-20% of the population that would leave, along with their descendants.

Taxes as various European states and US states are sometimes on par. Everyone pays for somebody’s health problems, Americans as well, through insurance, it is just health insurance is mandatory in Europe. The other stuff boils down to effective use of tax money, it is easier to do it in a smaller state compared to US or Canada or similar. Individualism has an effect but at this day and age it is about lobby groups politicising any topic they do not like. FYI nobody likes to pay taxes.

>Why should I pay for someone's healthcare when I live healthy and all I see that others are smoking?

In the EU (I have no idea about America) tobacco is heavily (and I mean heavily in some countries) taxed because of this.

We are too well-programmed to be individualistic, the crowd said in unison.

Meh... that's not uniquely American.

I lived in Asia and the country had a very capable public healthcare system with universal coverage. Generally a very socially harmonious society that heavily balances personal status with that of society.

But cover the cost of drug for orphan diseases? "Why should my costs go up because of some child that costs half a million a year?"

It was quite shocking.

Historically these "tax for the common good" policies have only been abused. Most of us are suspicious of/frustrated with them. If you want to improve the common good kill the income tax.

One reason is that it's unsustainable with a top heavy population age histogram, and leads to lower and lower quality of life for younger people.

>Why should I pay for someone's healthcare when I live healthy and all I see that others are smoking?

This is a common bad, not a common good. Fundamentally people follow incentives, and when you financially punish good behaviour and reward bad behaviour (make someone with healthy habits pay for someone else's unhealthy habits), you disincentivise the good behaviour and incentivise the bad behaviour. At a society-wide scale, that leads to more of the bad behaviour.

I dunno: We’re well into the retirement years of the Boomers, and despite whatever drawdown they’re making, the market hasn’t been suffering; just the opposite.

Norway is sitting on a gold mine, I mean, an oil field. It can afford many things other countries can't, while also prudently saving much of its oil income.

If you don’t mind me asking, how were you able to immigrate there? I have family that lives in Norway on my father’s side and I’ve sometimes fantasized about packing up my life and moving there after I visited them and saw what an amazing place it is. The few times I’ve been manic enough to actually consider its realistic plausibility I’ve always been stopped at the dead end of their immigration policy. Maybe things have changed but when I looked into it, it seemed like a very difficult bar to meet (I would’ve either tried to find a skilled trade immigration policy, or perhaps used my extended family as a reason, but neither of those routes seemed particularly possible).

Can you elaborate? The sibling comment called this situation dystopian, wondering how you cope.

Inequality is never fun for those who believe that they are entitled to more than others.

Regardless - impenetrable housing markets are not a consequence of equality, so you are kind of self contradicting.

It's more correct to say that the job market is split between unionized labor and high-skilled office positions ("funktionær" = "official"), which is basically anything requiring a university education. In recent decades, the latter category has grown exponentially as industrialized economies have turned into service economies.

Collective bargaining and stepladder salaries are not really a thing for officials, and never has been (outside of a few cases in the public sector, like doctors).

For what its worth, unions don't do collective bargaining for tech workers in Denmark.

In Sweden: Yes, they are in charge of keeping the salaries of the educated "elite" working at Ericsson etc low. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltsj%C3%B6baden_Agreement

Why specifically to Norway, and not let's say to Tanzania? I worked with bright folks located in Tanzania in ~2017 and developers salaries were like 1/10 of Canadian.

Cheap, but at least they are lazy (at least that is how it is most the other Nordic countries).

We'll take them up here in Canada instead, thanks. You're welcome too!

So freedom but not like that? I think if more of the world, especially people living in the US, had more of the Norway mentality, "big tech" abuse wouldn't have taken hold in the first place (e.g. the Apples and Googles and Metas of today would never get their sinks installed, let alone 3rd party apps made).

> if a restaurant abuses its staff

What exactly counts as "abuse"?

Here's what I've seen first-hand in a "labour-friendly" country. An employee doesn't show up at his workplace a few days a week, for several months, without doctor's notes or any real reason. Employer finally fires them. Employee goes to court and after a year gets a $20k compensation for "unlawful termination", even though his absence on the workplace was documented (but not properly processed, apparently).

> In the US, that kind of coordinated cross-discipline striking is explicitly illegal (I'd have to go look up my history to confirm, but I believe that was related to the federal intervention to stop the rail strikes because it disrupted mail delivery).

No, it’s just a straight up federal law that bans striking in the railroad and airline industries:

https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/16...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act

The US’s people (by proxy of its democratically elected leaders) believe some workers deserve fewer rights than others.

It isn’t so different than an informal caste system, except it is far more flexible and allows a few to break through, especially if they can prove their economic mettle. The US makes a lot more sense once you realize much (the majority, I would say) accept that some people deserve more than others.

What is most important is trying to not be at the bottom, and staying ahead of those below you. Another easy example is the superior unions for cops and firefighters, who are typically used to maintain the status quo (similar to a king’s guards). These union members will readily support leaders who want to weaken other unions.

So you're saying you heard about the Norwegian shadow government?

edit: for the people who missed it, I was making a joke about the username of the person I was replying to. Not actually a conspiracy theorist

> justice ... misunderstood as entailing equality

How about the view that inequality is fundamentally unfair and unjust because

(1) It is unfair and unjust if some have more goods than others due to factors that they are not fundamentally responsible for

(2) If determinism is true then no one is fundamentally responsible for anything

(3) Determinism is true

Inequality can be a cause of suffering, as it can price average individuals out of essential, limited resources like power, land, and skilled labor. For instance, some combination of skill and knowledge held by a few scientists could be applied to develop technology that improves the lives of millions or to create luxury entertainment for a handful. In an environment of extreme inequality, the concentrated wealth of a few elites can more than the wealth of a million average individuals. Because of that the rare talent is more likely to be used for entertainment purposes.

The average Norwegian monthly salary across every working person is USD 5902 per month - before tax. That works out to USD 70824 per year including 4-5 weeks paid holiday. These are public numbers https://www.ssb.no/en/arbeid-og-lonn/lonn-og-arbeidskraftkos...

Taxes are progressive which means if you earn below average you’re taxed a lot less than if you’re over average. If you have an average salary you’ll get taxed around 25%. If you have a salary twice the average you’ll close in on twice the tax, before any deductions.

Paid holiday, free kindergarten, free medical support and pensions savings are included in the tax you and your employers pay. The employer pays 14% tax on your salary.

If you see life as some game to optimize only for yourself not the people around you then for sure as very high earners, easy to move somewhere else, and some do. But from my point of view that’s a sad outlook on life and it’s not all one sided, that professor payed nothing for top of the line education, or child care, or 9 months parental leave, or medical etc etc. The high earners put away some money instead and enjoy lower taxes than us on that part.

But mostly it’s the idea of people deserving a decent life and high base life quality anyway. Most of my colleagues instead come here from other countries.

This approach has its benefits: excellent infrastructure, clean cities, well maintained countryside, low crime rate and less pressure to "do, do, do it now!" Not everything is about money.

That said, the global economy is about the money, so I have a strong suspicion that this fact will hit Europe hard in the next few decades.

Although not tenured yet, as a professor I know that not many could do the job I do, and I count myself lucky I don’t have to spend my time cleaning (or teaching in primary school for that matter). That I also get more paid than them feels like double dipping.

Keep in mind Norway has a population of ~5 million with ~$350k savings per person. The country is in a way a giant trust fund commune.

Some do. Most don't.

Remember, the deal includes universal health care, tuition-free university, government-backed sick pay, five or six weeks of paid vacation, and more.

I'm from Sweden, which has a similar system. I could not have afforded to attend university in the US system. Here, I could -- with my (government low-interest) student loans being spent only on my living expenses, not tuition. As a result, Sweden has an extra engineer we otherwise wouldn't have, with a good salary contributing to the tax base.

That seems like the opposite of dystopian to me.

There is more to life than money, and even when speaking of money a lot of things are already paid this way.

As a Nordic person, that kind of income difference looks realistic (without having checked). But I could never had imagined the difference to be considered as dystopian. If we would dig deeper into this, I would expect our different views to have something to do with differences on what expectations we have, values in life and how we relate to inter-personal statuses.

Isn't it more dystopian that people doing jobs as essential as cleaning have to live in poverty? Just because everyone can clean doesn't mean the people doing it don't deserve a good life. Without people doing those "easy" jobs those talented people wouldn't have time to build and use their talents. The cleaners enable the talented people and so deserve a fair share of what they produce.

Yep - for people who believe they are better than other and entitled to more, it is dystopian.

But then again, it also ensures that pricing and governance in the broader system is in check.

So it is either this or an oligarchy where people feed their egos

Can't afford it.

That sounds like what the paper is saying. To paraphrase, the equality doesn't come from tax redistribution as much as a flatter wage curve. I don't think they are saying it is good or bad, just explaining how it happens.