Why so many human development indices favor Scandinavian countries?

[Anonymous]

Their stats for safety (like highway safety) are the envy of the entire world.
In part it has to do with values. They decided to put humans before $$.

This is also why their parental benefits are so generous.

We talk a good game in the US, but people are willing to move to states with awful schools and other social services, in order to pay fewer taxes.

We care, for the most part, about our own kids. Not kids in general.

That is also why guns and the internet are not controlled. Clearly those policies were designed to serve adults, not children.

I am not proud of that asks t if our culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their socialist policies are only accepted by their populace because of their country’s homogeneous population, not in spite of it.

Is that because of racism?

Call it whatever you want, but the PP is exactly right. This has been studied extensively.

how does that explain counties in the US that are 95%+ that doesn't use their taxes to help their people? They still want no/low taxes and government to "not tread on them".

It's not a homogeneous issue. It's a cultural issue. The US is about "me me me" and individualism, while most developed countries are about the societal good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their socialist policies are only accepted by their populace because of their country’s homogeneous population, not in spite of it.

Is that because of racism?

Call it whatever you want, but the PP is exactly right. This has been studied extensively.

how does that explain counties in the US that are 95%+ that doesn't use their taxes to help their people? They still want no/low taxes and government to "not tread on them".

It's not a homogeneous issue. It's a cultural issue. The US is about "me me me" and individualism, while most developed countries are about the societal good.

OMG, that is what people have been saying, homogenous in culture and values. I know democrats can't stop thinking about race, but it is about the culture.
For example, here are two stories about two very homogenous societies but very, very different culture and values:
Both were are risk of losing the closest grocery store and being a food desert.
This is what one did:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/02/giant-food-grocery-store-theft/
This is what the other did:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/08/31/royal-super-mart-sheffield-illinois/

See the difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scandinavians have amazing social services. They don't worry about healthcare, retirement or college costs.

That is because of the homogenous society - shared values, shared culture, everyone pays into the system.
A country cannot have these nice things if there is unlimited illegal immigration, people that do not pay into the system and divergent cultures.
I know that vexes a lot of progressives, but there a lot to be said about homogeneity.

It’s not homogeneity, it’s egalitarianism. A society where everyone, regardless of race, has equal access to education, housing, healthcare, etc… is a happier society. It has nothing to do with race or immigrants. I know that’s hard for Americans to understand. We are so used to associating poverty with brown/black skin color. But it’s the systemic racism in this country that leads to inequality, poverty, crime, etc…

This sounds good on paper, but has no bearing in the real world. America elected a black man president, not Sweden, not Denmark, not Norway.

When Sweden had their homogeneous society threatened by a wave of black and brown immigrants they went far right:

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2022/10/14/sweden-s-right-wing-announces-new-government-with-far-right-backing_6000299_143.html

Their socialist policies are only accepted by their populace because of their country’s homogeneous population, not in spite of it.

20% of their population is foreign born and 26% is either foreign born or the child of two foreign born parents in Sweden.

They have long been other than homogeneous.

So 80% of the people are Swedish and a good portion of the rest are white people of some sort, correct?

You’re not making the point that you think you’re making.

People on this thread should take caution on any European country talking about what percentage of their country is “foreign born”

In Europe, an Italian living in Germany is considered foreign born. Which is tangential to a New Jersey Italian living in Wisconsin.

The info you want is specifically non-eu %

Euro countries loathe to release that info and most don’t do statiscal collection on race/ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

This whole debate over immigrants is very narrow. Maybe broaden the picture beyond the Scandinavian countries and you will get a different picture of whether high numbers of immigrants are important.

Every year, The Economist publishes a City Liveability Report which ranks cities on liveability based on: Stability, Healthcare, Culture & Environment, Education, and Infrastructure. Maybe you can debate whether those indices are the important ones but they seem pretty reasonable.

In 2023, cities ranked at nos 3, 4, 7 and 9 are all in Australia and Canada, countries with much higher levels of immigrants than the US: Melbourne ranks 3rd and 36% of its population was born overseas; Sydney ranks 4th and 49% of its population was born overseas; and immigrants account for 47% of the population of Toronto which ranks 9th. It's worth noting that 22% of Sydney's population speaks a second language at home.

Some people argue it's hard to compare as these countries are much smaller, population-wise, than the US. But, if you are comparing cities, this shouldn't make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole debate over immigrants is very narrow. Maybe broaden the picture beyond the Scandinavian countries and you will get a different picture of whether high numbers of immigrants are important.

Every year, The Economist publishes a City Liveability Report which ranks cities on liveability based on: Stability, Healthcare, Culture & Environment, Education, and Infrastructure. Maybe you can debate whether those indices are the important ones but they seem pretty reasonable.

In 2023, cities ranked at nos 3, 4, 7 and 9 are all in Australia and Canada, countries with much higher levels of immigrants than the US: Melbourne ranks 3rd and 36% of its population was born overseas; Sydney ranks 4th and 49% of its population was born overseas; and immigrants account for 47% of the population of Toronto which ranks 9th. It's worth noting that 22% of Sydney's population speaks a second language at home.

Some people argue it's hard to compare as these countries are much smaller, population-wise, than the US. But, if you are comparing cities, this shouldn't make a difference.

Great post. I think one question is going to be where those immigrants are coming from. If you're getting immigrants from places that are relatively wealthy, educated, and/or functional, there's a great chance that the immigrants are going to add a lot to your community. But it's so hard to divorce consideration of that kind of question from xenophobes and racists who will use it as a pretext for trying to exclude people who they regard as too alien or inferior. And, even as I type this, I'm thinking maybe it's not all that important at all. I'm thinking of the Latino people I see all over my community. I suspect plenty of them are unauthorized aliens. But, by and large, (as far as I can tell) they work hard and seem to be great family people and generally add to the vibrancy of my community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole debate over immigrants is very narrow. Maybe broaden the picture beyond the Scandinavian countries and you will get a different picture of whether high numbers of immigrants are important.

Every year, The Economist publishes a City Liveability Report which ranks cities on liveability based on: Stability, Healthcare, Culture & Environment, Education, and Infrastructure. Maybe you can debate whether those indices are the important ones but they seem pretty reasonable.

In 2023, cities ranked at nos 3, 4, 7 and 9 are all in Australia and Canada, countries with much higher levels of immigrants than the US: Melbourne ranks 3rd and 36% of its population was born overseas; Sydney ranks 4th and 49% of its population was born overseas; and immigrants account for 47% of the population of Toronto which ranks 9th. It's worth noting that 22% of Sydney's population speaks a second language at home.

Some people argue it's hard to compare as these countries are much smaller, population-wise, than the US. But, if you are comparing cities, this shouldn't make a difference.

Great post. I think one question is going to be where those immigrants are coming from. If you're getting immigrants from places that are relatively wealthy, educated, and/or functional, there's a great chance that the immigrants are going to add a lot to your community. But it's so hard to divorce consideration of that kind of question from xenophobes and racists who will use it as a pretext for trying to exclude people who they regard as too alien or inferior. And, even as I type this, I'm thinking maybe it's not all that important at all. I'm thinking of the Latino people I see all over my community. I suspect plenty of them are unauthorized aliens. But, by and large, (as far as I can tell) they work hard and seem to be great family people and generally add to the vibrancy of my community.

11.59 here. I agree it is really difficult to dissect the immigrant issue and maybe it isn't necessary. My father went to Australia as a 19yo refugee who didn't speak a speck of English. By the end of his life, his health was wrecked by hard manual labour in the outback and poor lifestyle choices, but he was able to live comfortably on a pension and was provided with excellent medical care. There were no overseas holidays or fancy outings, but he didn't want or need that. Clearly, his example is anecdotal, but I definitely think a key factor is whether key material needs are met.

[Anonymous]

This thread is extremely racist and should be deleted.

Scandinavian countries are the model this podunk nation must strive to become.

They are welcoming and inclusive while providing economic and social support for all immigrants while we deport kids and break up families seeking asylum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their socialist policies are only accepted by their populace because of their country’s homogeneous population, not in spite of it.

Is that because of racism?

Call it whatever you want, but the PP is exactly right. This has been studied extensively.

how does that explain counties in the US that are 95%+ that doesn't use their taxes to help their people? They still want no/low taxes and government to "not tread on them".

It's not a homogeneous issue. It's a cultural issue. The US is about "me me me" and individualism, while most developed countries are about the societal good.

OMG, that is what people have been saying, homogenous in culture and values. I know democrats can't stop thinking about race, but it is about the culture.
For example, here are two stories about two very homogenous societies but very, very different culture and values:
Both were are risk of losing the closest grocery store and being a food desert.
This is what one did:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/02/giant-food-grocery-store-theft/
This is what the other did:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/08/31/royal-super-mart-sheffield-illinois/

See the difference?

Yes, one community has enough trust that people will donate as much as 50K for the effort. The other is dealing with "shoplifting, organized crime and violence". The Sheffield model store wouldn't survive in that environment either.

[Anonymous]

You should look at their tax code. Their tax code is much flatter. Many more pay on a percentage basis than our progressive tax code. Keep that in mind.

[Anonymous]

I wonder what abortion policy looks like in the Scandinavian countries. Hmmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what abortion policy looks like in the Scandinavian countries. Hmmmm.

Free and readily available early, accessible— and free!— later in pregnancy for all the reasons American women seek abortion later in pregnancy. Ready to emulate it?

[Anonymous]

The short answer is they spend the money on their values. They don’t talk about their “values” and spend their money pampering billionaires.

[Anonymous]

High government spending requires high taxes (> 50%) in highest brackets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:High government spending requires high taxes (> 50%) in highest brackets.

And? I don’t think anybody thinks you get free healthcare and college education etc without higher government spending.

I guess the various indices show there is a high correlation between happiness, liveability, etc and higher tax rates? That would probably be counterintuitive to many people here. Clearly the conclusion isn’t that people like paying tax. More likely they appreciate the services those taxes fund or perhaps the removal of uncertainty, stress and inequities that would arise if they had to fund those services themselves.