Slashdot Mirror
Unlike Most Millennials, Norway's Are Rich (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Best known for its Viking history, snow sports and jaw-dropping fjords, Norway is making a new name for itself as the only major economy in Europe where young people are getting markedly richer. People in their early thirties in Norway have an average annual disposable household income of around 460,000 kroner (around $56,200). Young Norwegians have enjoyed a 13% rise in disposable household income in real terms compared to Generation X (those born between 1966 and 1980) when they were the same age. These startling figures come from the largest comparative wealth data set in the world, the Luxembourg Income Database, and were analyzed in a recent report on generational incomes for the UK Think Tank The Resolution Foundation.
Compare this with young people in other strong economies: U.S. millennials have experienced a 5% dip, in Germany it's a 9% drop. For those living in southern Europe (the southern Eurozone suffered the brunt of the global economic crisis in 2008), disposable incomes have plunged by as much as 30%. Norway's youth unemployment rate (among 15- to 29-year-olds) is also relatively low at 9.4% compared to an OECD average of 13.9%. According to the BBC, this can be attributed to the country's rapid economic growth, thanks largely to their huge oil and gas sectors. "After seeing the biggest increase in average earnings of any large high-income economy between 1980 and 2013, it now leads multiple global rankings for wealth and wellbeing."
Compare this with young people in other strong economies: U.S. millennials have experienced a 5% dip, in Germany it's a 9% drop. For those living in southern Europe (the southern Eurozone suffered the brunt of the global economic crisis in 2008), disposable incomes have plunged by as much as 30%. Norway's youth unemployment rate (among 15- to 29-year-olds) is also relatively low at 9.4% compared to an OECD average of 13.9%. According to the BBC, this can be attributed to the country's rapid economic growth, thanks largely to their huge oil and gas sectors. "After seeing the biggest increase in average earnings of any large high-income economy between 1980 and 2013, it now leads multiple global rankings for wealth and wellbeing."
As I've watched how Norway has been doing over the past 15+ years with their wise use and planning of oil revenues it has been clear that the Norwegian government has been planning for the future to ensure the prosperity of their citizens.
Now that technology is unlocking massive amounts of fossil fuels, it's unfortunate that other countries (I'm thinking of my country Canada) aren't following the example and planning for the future in the same way. I know that in Canada, there would be a major fight with Alberta to share tar sands revenue, but it would be nice if the Albertan government at least would follow Norway's approach and provide for their citizen's future.
Good on Norway, hopefully other countries will follow their lead.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Please, explain Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Germany, etc. Do they have oil? No.
No, we don't have any free stipend or socialized income here in Norway.
Actually, Norway has been quite good about avoiding the temptation of spending like drunken sailors from that fund. Also, social democracies aren't Marxist. They're capitalist systems with a high tax rate and a strong social safety net. If you look at economic freedom ratings Norway (and other Scandinavian countries) are comparable to the U.S. as opposed to the countries that follow some form of Marxist philosophy (Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea). Those Scandinavian countries even have lower corporate tax rates than the U.S. as well.
Haha better Demographics in Australia? You must be new here. Australia has an aging population problem, high immigration, and crazy house prices. 80% of the ~280,000 new immigrants to Australia each year are settling in Melbourne and Sydney which now have median house prices of over $1 million. Combine this with worse than pre-GFC debt to income ratios and Australia is set up for a massive financial crisis in the next few years which many predict is already beginning to occur (watch the September/Spring clearance rates in the Australian property market for some entertaining viewing).
Denmark absolutely deserves to be on that list. It is a social democracy in the Nordic model. Denmark has a wide range of welfare benefits that they offer their citizens, from universal health care to free education and family leave.. As a result, they also have the highest taxes in the world. Equality is considered the most important value in Denmark. Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less.
When Denmark was named the happiest country in the world, there was an effort by right-wing jackoffs to try to paint Denmark as not really a social democracy. They are trying to bullshit you. It is listed as one of the most successful socialist countries in the world.
You are welcome on my lawn.
All of the Nordic countries are more capitalist than socialist. They may have socialized health care, but most of them have privatized postal services, and some have partially privatized their schools.
The success (if you want to call it that) of the Nordic model is due more to be Nordic than being "socialist". Greece used a similar model, but with a very different culture, and the result was a disaster. Detroit is another example.
As someone who lives in one of those communist utopias in Europe it always amuses me when American shitlibs call us socialist.
Yeah, we have high taxes and a safety net, but we are also very much capitalist.
The difference is that we use the government to ensure that we maintain healthy capitalism rather than just a single large company dominating the market.
And therein lies the problem.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Not at all. It's even more enlightening when you include the entire quote and not just the part that supports your assertion.
See, the mistake you are making is thinking that socialism and market economies are mutually exclusive. In fact, they work best in combination with each other.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, you idiot I kinda want to add, here in Sweden and in Finland and in Denmark too we also have not free but publicly funded education, generous parental leave and a blend of companies and also a mixture of government control and private companies if you want to add that as well.
Also neither Sweden or Norway have any minimum wage.
Even though we in Sweden, Finland and Denmark have all those other things you mention it's unlikely we have the same outcome as the Norwegians, at-least not here in Sweden thanks to massive shit-immigration instead ruining things.
But thanks for playing. But that isn't the reason and Norway just as Sweden likely already had all those things before too. Except minimum wage which we haven't had and don't have.
The difference between Norway and the rest of the Nordic nations is their oil and gas wealth which is stored into a fund which secure pensions and I think also other welfare things onward. In the 80s they found their oil and they have become richer because of the oil and gas not because of the stuff you likely are politically interested and make up is the reason they have become richer.
The oil and gas wealth is the difference.
Lots of European nations including the southern ones do have the other stuff you mention but clearly not the same development as Norway.
The thing to learn if anything is that if you sit on massive natural wealth resources don't let a private company and a few rich people get it all and the profits basically for free but rather invest it wisely into stock and only take some of the profits so that it can benefit everyone and last ~forever.
The one thing Norway have done differently is to wisely invest their money from natural resources and use it to fund their welfare / redistribute the profits to the population (in this case also by being able to have lower taxes than what we do in Sweden, Denmark and Finland, because here people have to WORK to generate all that money going into parliament spending and welfare.)
Find a valuable resource, give the gains to your people = they get richer. Amazing how that one worked? ...
If you read that wiki entry, you will learn that there's nothing in there that is incompatible with a market economy.
In fact, to quote the Prime Minister of Denmark himself (from the same article): "The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."
Market economies and socialism are a perfectly compatible. In fact, you could say that one does not work without the other.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yeah, this, rather than the socialist and welfare approach which kinda all of Europe share but it's clearly not making people richer in the rest of Europe.
The only "great" insight story here is that if you invest the profits from your very rich natural resources into stocks and redistribute a small enough part of it to your people (in this case by being able to keep your generous welfare while still having lower taxes than others which offer the same) they get richer!!
If you spend it straight away you get less from it than if you invest it and don't use up too much of it.
And if you let private global companies take the gains from it and only charge a small tax on them they the people get less of the benefits and just a few people get huge benefits from it.
Yay. Surprising!
Mean-while here in Sweden the taxes for ore or minerals or whatever for a mining company is 0.1%.
Most of Norway's non-transportation energy use comes from renewable sources. And by “most”, I mean 99% (97% hydroelectric, 2% wind and other renewable sources).
Norway carefully used their assets whilst the UK pissed their oil wealth away. Africa is currently flogging all their mineral assets to China on the cheap to benefit a few bent politicians and supercar salesmen. Like the modern day Ant and Grasshopper!
I'd really need to hear what your definition of socialism actually is to square it with the notion being compatible with (or as you later suggest required for) a market (I'm assuming you mean a free one, or one that is reasonably so) economy. Otherwise I suspect you're guilty of choosing your definition of socialism post priori so that you can find one that doesn't look like a miserable failure.
Private exchange doesn't make sense if you have communal ownership. Maybe you're envisioning something like all private companies being employee owned (i.e., you can't hold stock if you don't work there and if you work there you must hold stock) but I don't think that's ever been tried. It's almost like a guild system, only with multiple competing guilds. This system also says nothing about personal income tax or social safety nets either as you could just as easily use this system regardless of how that's handled.
The only other thing you could possibly mean is that everyone acts as a capitalist agent, but the government takes most or all of their earnings. Essentially you seem to have private exchange in name only up since as soon as you make an exchange whatever benefit you gained from it becomes communally controlled. I suppose that works if you have a group of people that like playing free market just for the sake of playing free market. It would be a bit like playing Monopoly endlessly, only with real money that you never get to keep since just goes back in the tray. I don't know if there's a group of people on the planet weird enough to play by those rules. Maybe if the group were entirely self-selecting, but to suspect it on a population level for any ethnic group is suspect at best.
In the 1970's the UK was promised a golden age resulting from North Sea oil and gas. It seems never to have arrived, at least for most of the citizens, though we would certainly be deeper in the doo-doo without them.
The UK sold off the oilfields (and many, many other public assets) to the private sector and takes a slice in tax whereas the Norwegians kept theirs state-owned for the benefit of all their citizens.
Long-term perspective in the management of the government's petroleum revenues ensures that they benefit Norwegian society as a whole, and that future generations will benefit from Norwayâ(TM)s petroleum wealth. This has been a key principle in developing the financial and legal framework for the sector.
https://www.norskpetroleum.no/...
Socialism is by definition incompatible with Nordic Social Democracy model. We categorically reject all main cornerstones of socialism, and instead go for market economy with high taxation that funds the baseline income level and services.
We do have socialist in every Nordic state by the way. They're the marginal far left parties, rejected by overwhelming majority of the populace. Here in Finland for example, far left openly socialist Vasemmistoliitto holds between 5 and 8% of the vote, and is a minor party. They also have some communists in their party, but their leadership generally denounces communism and sticks to socialism. I can provide citations for that as well.
It would be very helpful if wannabe far leftists from across the pond would stop insulting our countries, our politicians and our ways of life by maliciously branding them as "socialist" for their own political purposes. Have your class war if you want, but leave us well out of it.
United States: 14.3 suicides per 100,000 pop
Norway: 10.9 suicides per 100,000 pop
http://worldpopulationreview.c...
I may post more in-depth later. For now I can't stop giggling at all the right wingers here who after years of screeching "that's socialism' every time anyone breathed a hint of a word in favor of a social safety net who ar now trying to walk that back and claim "That's not socialism at all!"
*GIGGLE*
In your judgement, is Tim Cook is worth the same as 400 Apple Genius in terms of contribution to the company and wealth creation?
Yes. That "Genius" can be replaced by literally tens of thousands of IT people here at /. alone, let alone across the US. Tim Cook has shown an extraordinary talent for supply chain management and operations and his decisions directly affect 100,000 people. Paying him 400 times what the "hipster Geek Squad" member makes is quite understandable.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We're talking about the American definition of socialism though which boils down to "not shitting on the poor". As the poor are only there because they didn't work hard enough, any state support is equivalent to the actions of murderous dictatorships past and present and carrying military grade weaponry about day to day is the only way to prevent those slackers from trying to take that well earned money away from you by force.
That ignoring the AGW alarmists is a good thing for our kids? But, no, that's pretty much impossible, right?
So, why is it okay when Norway does it, but the height of evil when we do it?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The Gen Xers did alright and the boomers made out like bandits, but the Millennials are screwed. They're not getting pensions, their 401ks get eaten up by fees and the periodic stock market crashes brought on by weak regulation and risk free bail outs and their student loan debt means they can't start life until their 30s. Meanwhile outsourcing + H1-Bs means they're in intense competition for decent jobs so they worked much, much harder than their parents and grandparents for much, much less.
.com and house bubbles masked the ill effects of supply side economics until 2008 when it all came crashing down). With control of the government came control of media (Sinclair media's been allowed to buy up all local stations).
The right wing in America (who's defining feature is a pro-corporate bent that wants low wages, lax environmental regulations and lax worker protections) knows this. They're currently in control of all branches of Government (the Democratic party moved the Overton window to the left so Clinton could sail into the Whitehouse and got away with it when the
The question is, Americans may be ready for Democratic Socialism but will they get it? The ruling class has so much wealth and power now they can bury the will of the people. It's been shown a 2-3 week ad blitz is enough to change the public's opinion on anything. Hell, we can't get more than 60% of the population to agree that healthcare is a right and thanks to our political system that gives extra voting power to rural states (a Montana voter has something like 42 times more voting power than a California thanks to our Senate) and the effect of "swing states" I'm not sure any of this matters.
It literally doesn't matter how much evidence you have that Democratic Socialism works. The people opposed to it have unlimited money (we gave it to them) and the last two generations are very much in the "I got mine, fuck you" school of thought. Maybe when those people start dying. Hell, we (mostly) got gay rights. Then again the new SCOTUS might shoot all that down...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
alvinrod challenged:
I'd really need to hear what your definition of socialism actually is to square it with the notion being compatible with (or as you later suggest required for) a market (I'm assuming you mean a free one, or one that is reasonably so) economy. Otherwise I suspect you're guilty of choosing your definition of socialism post priori so that you can find one that doesn't look like a miserable failure.
Private exchange doesn't make sense if you have communal ownership.
Social democracy isn't socialism. Hell, even socialism isn't socialism.
Theory be damned, socialism in practice is a philosophy that holds societies ought to provide the essentials for life (food, clean water, shelter, education, health care) for all their members, regardless of their income level, as fundamental rights. The definition of "pure" socialism-as-economics isn't really even worth discussing, because there is no such functioning economic system in existence. And there won't be, ever, as long as human beings are fallible creatures.
Communal ownership of some basic resources (infrastructure, for instance) is baked into western democratic practice. That's the case because it makes sense that those resources be held in common. Worker-owned companies can and do thrive in hyper-capitalist America, as long as their underlying business models are realistic and responsive to their markets.
Yes, you can build a wall of rhetorical purity around the term - or you can simply acknowledge that social democracy is the modern face of socialism, and it is not failing (at least, in the Scandanavian and Benelux countries) by any objective measure.
Life is complicated. Much too complicated, in fact, to be adequately modeled by rigid, ideological absolutes ...
Check out my novel.
Liberals would be more inclined to serve in the military of a social-democratic state like Norway.
There was no left-right difference in attitudes toward military service in the US until Vietnam. Vietnam draft deferments for the wealthy is what soured the left on the US military; the Establishment was for the war, but it had no skin in the game.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The entire EU is like that and Denmark by no means has the highest taxes. The Norse have it good because of natural resources despite their social policies. A bit like Saudi Arabia and other such places. With good investments and diversifying their future (like the Emirates and Norway are doing) their population can enjoy socialized (in one way or another) governments. Places that waste that potential (eg Venezuela and the USA) are worse off.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I use the dictionary definition:
Well, the income tax rate in Denmark is just over 60%, so it fits that definition, too.
Denmark. Denmark plays by those rules. More than 60% of income in Denmark goes to taxes. Last time I checked the definition of "most", 60 percent meets the definition.
Face it: The happiest countries in the world are the countries that have struck a balance between socialism and market economies.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Norway is probably the only oil-producing country on earth that managed to share oil revenues among citizen. Most of the time oil is a curse for the people, resulting in corruption, kleptocracy and dictatorship.
What? Why didn't the oil/gas CEOs get all of it?
People in the US are conditioned to think in black and white. Americans even use the same word -- "socialism" -- to refer to Maoist China and the contemporary Scandinavian countries. In fact, that confusion is the whole point of the campaign to get people to use the word "socialism" so broadly. It's supposed to make you feel the same about Norway and the Khmer Rouge.
This kind of thing is the contemporary American version of "Doublespeak" -- an attempt to control what people think by making it impossible for them to express certain forbidden ideas.
Although it does make it hard to discuss things without triggering irrational emotional responses, in the end doublespeak is futile. We have a generation of young people who think they are "socialists" because they look at the Nordic system and it seems reasonable to them. By in large they don't embrace "production for use" or the labor theory of value, although the rehabilitation of the word "socialism" may set the stage for a comeback for those ideas too. What most them are, are socially progressive capitalists.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That's not what socialism means. Not at all.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not by law ...
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/n...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
This whole Denmark is the happiest country is a myth because the survey ignores cultural norms. Simple example, it is frowned upon in Denmark to say your unhappy while saying your happy in Japan is frowned upon.
Additionally, what works in Denmark won't work in the US. Why? Because the population of Denmark is 95%+ homogeneous and is about equal to the population of Brooklyn and Queens.
Oh, and those Scandinavian countries are not socialist countries but democracies with a social-welfare state (free enterprise, high tax, high social services).
The US has socialized medicine (Medicare, Medicaid, and ~45% of all healthcare spending is by the Federal Government), socialized education (free K-12 throughout the US, and highly subsidized/free universities/colleges in many places), socialized welfare (SNAP, Welfare, etc) socialized retirement (Social Security) and highly regulated corporations (SEC, FDA, EPA, IRS, etc). I guess we're socialist, too, comrade!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It is socialism, and many Americans would love to see it happen here. And it will.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And that my friend, is why California is most desirable state to live in, and we have a bigger population than any other state in the US. Because it's nice here.
You are welcome on my lawn.
50x the cost in taxes? Are you high? My university degree costed nothing and is highly sought after worldwide. How about yours? If your country is too corrupt to run a school system, change your government to something that doesn't suck but don't blame mine for your shortcomings.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"The moment you conscript (yes) a doctor or teacher, and Require society to pay them a set wage, you'll find that they become in short supply, especially when considering the rest of the market is more or less open and free."
Except, of course, that's EXACTLY what happens in basically the whole of first world with the exception of USA without the ominous results you predict. By the way, even in USA, that's what happens to military personnel, which your country doesn't seem to be in short supply, either.
But, of course, don't let reality get in the way of your very well built rationalizations.
"Do they get to pick what you're having for supper or what products can be sold at the grocery store?"
Yes, at least, up to a point. In most countries there are in place one regulation or another regarding, i.e. the ability to sell (or not) tobacco, alcohol and/or prescription drugs.
"I suspect that if you tried to join the Socialist party in just about any country, the idea "capitalist economy with extensive social programs" would not be the platform of the party or one that they're likely to accept."
Where are you from? I say this because that's exactly what any Socialist party in any European country would support: "capitalist economy with extensive social programs". Maybe it is "communist party" what you are looking for, not Socialist. And even Communist parties, starting on the late 70's early 80's, had strong factions embracing what was called "eurocommunism" which is, basically, that: "capitalist economy with extensive social programs".
I think you should review your sources.
It's not that hard, the explanation was already given: a country with relatively high taxes that are used to provide (for free or a small fee) services that benefit the population at large. Mainly safety, education and healthcare. You get to keep the money you make in transactions, just not all of it. Everyone is OK with this because they value an equal society where no one is "left behind" more than a society where its acceptable if some people don't make it and others make it many lifetimes over
What in the world are you on about?
There are private practices in all these countries. There isnâ€(TM)t even anything that says you have to be a government employed doctor after the country pays for your education. You donâ€(TM)t even have to stay in the country.
As for salary, some countries like Lithuania have very poor pay for doctors and dentists as part of their socialistic system. But the Nordic countries still have doctors and surgeons being paid very well for their time. And even better, you donâ€(TM)t have an army of idiot doctors checking each room just to add an hour to their billing because theyâ€(TM)re buried under student debt.
There is no indentured servitude or slavery. No serfs. Itâ€(TM)s a competitive market and doctors can job hop freely to increase their income just like anywhere else.
There are even things like serving as a doctor in backwoods places like Longyearbyen which pays very well and entirely tax free to make it so that you can be damn near rich within a few years of graduation and move back to civilization.
But Iâ€(TM)m guessing you have some picture in your mind which makes you think that socialism is some sort of forced work or labor. Soviet Socialism was not socialism. It was simply sold that way.
I was raised American and I am now in Norway. I am on a 5 week long vacation traveling first class by train with my wife, kids and a niece. We have been to Hamburg, Brussels, Paris and London and weâ€(TM)re continuing on tomorrow... and itâ€(TM)s thanks to socialism that I can market myself in a free market socialist economy and do this.
Oh and I happily pay 50% income tax on a BIG FAT salary and bonuses.
Though... you probably know better. You heard about it on Fox News.
You are, and have been for a long time. Which makes it very strange that you fight so hard against more universal socialization (45% -> ~100%) in areas like health care that have proven so successful in other places.
In the US social democracy seems to have been successfully conflated with Soviet-style totalitarian communism.