Norwegian vs US capitalism
Discussion
Came across this video whilst looking for Norwegian stuff to practice with:
https://youtu.be/lgDLwgsDzzM
For those without half an hour to watch, presenter trying to answer the question as to why Norwegians today are so rich but also why people at the bottom (supermarket workers etc) get paid more than their equivalents in the US and many other rich countries.
I am not vouching for completeness or accuracy of the explanation given but it did raise some interesting questions. Also I’ve said Norwegian model of capitalism but probably true of the other Scandinavian countries as well.
Thrust of the argument is that pay and pay increases across different sectors in Norway are linked so that poorly paid manual work has increased more than elsewhere. The higher pay has a dual benefit, firstly it encourages Norwegian firms to automate wherever they can (which makes Norwegian companies more efficient and competitive internationally) but also provides a decent standard of living for those at the bottom.
The flip side is that Norwegians working in better paid jobs such as engineers or doctors are paid substantially less than those in the US (although probably hard to do a like for like comparison as I think healthcare and education and massively subsidised in Norway, reducing outgoings).
The US seems to have a winner takes all approach. Tough luck for the majority that aren’t in the top 10% but brilliant for the rich. Surprisingly the majority seem to support such a system even those their chances of getting to the top are slim. Norway’s model seems to give the majority a more secure life (and probably more social mobility owing to availability of education) at the expense of being able to become super rich.
Over my life the UK seems to have drifted further away from a Norwegian approach towards the US.
https://youtu.be/lgDLwgsDzzM
For those without half an hour to watch, presenter trying to answer the question as to why Norwegians today are so rich but also why people at the bottom (supermarket workers etc) get paid more than their equivalents in the US and many other rich countries.
I am not vouching for completeness or accuracy of the explanation given but it did raise some interesting questions. Also I’ve said Norwegian model of capitalism but probably true of the other Scandinavian countries as well.
Thrust of the argument is that pay and pay increases across different sectors in Norway are linked so that poorly paid manual work has increased more than elsewhere. The higher pay has a dual benefit, firstly it encourages Norwegian firms to automate wherever they can (which makes Norwegian companies more efficient and competitive internationally) but also provides a decent standard of living for those at the bottom.
The flip side is that Norwegians working in better paid jobs such as engineers or doctors are paid substantially less than those in the US (although probably hard to do a like for like comparison as I think healthcare and education and massively subsidised in Norway, reducing outgoings).
The US seems to have a winner takes all approach. Tough luck for the majority that aren’t in the top 10% but brilliant for the rich. Surprisingly the majority seem to support such a system even those their chances of getting to the top are slim. Norway’s model seems to give the majority a more secure life (and probably more social mobility owing to availability of education) at the expense of being able to become super rich.
Over my life the UK seems to have drifted further away from a Norwegian approach towards the US.
I lived in Norway for 6 years as a teenager only coming back to the UK at 18 for University.
The differences between Norway and the US couldn't be more stark. The UK has drifted far closer to the US system than I would like to believe. Norway has a lot of things in it's favour however. It's a small population, they have/had massive natural oil reserves and were smart enough to set up a sovereign wealth fund. This wealth fund allows for a lot of flexibility in what it can offer to its population.
After the two world wars Norway adopted a social democratic rule, with a high degree of economic planning, called the Nordic model. This has contributed to a large public sector and evenly distributed wealth and resources. The discovery of oil and gas on the Norwegian continental shelf marked a new era, when Norway experienced higher growth rates than most western economies. This has made it the country with the highest score in the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) during the two first decades of the 21st century.
Taxes are high but overall I found that education levels were high, crime was low, cities were clean and public transport and other services were efficient and well maintained. Standard of living and quality of life are high as well and a focus on family life over work is prevalent in most industries.
Personal wealth is published in the local papers if you can believe that, its also one of the few countries to collect a wealth tax as well.
Their wealth distribution is also a lot different to the USA:
Norway
Households in the highest 10 percent for net wealth own roughly 53 per cent of total net wealth, the richest 1 per cent control 21 per cent, while the top 0.1 per cent own 10 per cent of total net wealth.
USA
Wealth is distributed in a highly unequal fashion, with the wealthiest 1 percent of families in the United States holding about 40 percent of all wealth and the bottom 90 percent of families holding less than one-quarter of all wealth.2
It is very much an example of how focusing on education, health, standards of living, reducing wealth inequality and having efficient industry can overall increase the wealth and happiness of a nation.
But Americans have been brainwashed to believe the Social Democratic methods of Scandinavia is practically communism.
The differences between Norway and the US couldn't be more stark. The UK has drifted far closer to the US system than I would like to believe. Norway has a lot of things in it's favour however. It's a small population, they have/had massive natural oil reserves and were smart enough to set up a sovereign wealth fund. This wealth fund allows for a lot of flexibility in what it can offer to its population.
After the two world wars Norway adopted a social democratic rule, with a high degree of economic planning, called the Nordic model. This has contributed to a large public sector and evenly distributed wealth and resources. The discovery of oil and gas on the Norwegian continental shelf marked a new era, when Norway experienced higher growth rates than most western economies. This has made it the country with the highest score in the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) during the two first decades of the 21st century.
Taxes are high but overall I found that education levels were high, crime was low, cities were clean and public transport and other services were efficient and well maintained. Standard of living and quality of life are high as well and a focus on family life over work is prevalent in most industries.
Personal wealth is published in the local papers if you can believe that, its also one of the few countries to collect a wealth tax as well.
Their wealth distribution is also a lot different to the USA:
Norway
Households in the highest 10 percent for net wealth own roughly 53 per cent of total net wealth, the richest 1 per cent control 21 per cent, while the top 0.1 per cent own 10 per cent of total net wealth.
USA
Wealth is distributed in a highly unequal fashion, with the wealthiest 1 percent of families in the United States holding about 40 percent of all wealth and the bottom 90 percent of families holding less than one-quarter of all wealth.2
It is very much an example of how focusing on education, health, standards of living, reducing wealth inequality and having efficient industry can overall increase the wealth and happiness of a nation.
But Americans have been brainwashed to believe the Social Democratic methods of Scandinavia is practically communism.
The biggest difference with the Nordic countries is they have not has massive, and increasing, inequality.
The argument about Norway’s natural resources is a red herring, as is their population. They simply have a more progressive system. High tax, investment in infrastructure and working to minimise inequality.
The argument about Norway’s natural resources is a red herring, as is their population. They simply have a more progressive system. High tax, investment in infrastructure and working to minimise inequality.
Electro1980 said:
The biggest difference with the Nordic countries is they have not has massive, and increasing, inequality.
The argument about Norway’s natural resources is a red herring, as is their population. They simply have a more progressive system. High tax, investment in infrastructure and working to minimise inequality.
It’s cultural also. The locals buy into it and society is much more about the group and helping each other rather than making it or just getting rich like the “American dream” represents. The argument about Norway’s natural resources is a red herring, as is their population. They simply have a more progressive system. High tax, investment in infrastructure and working to minimise inequality.
Norway’s not all awesome though, there’s a lot of curtain twitching going on with being able to look up your neighbours’ wealth in government databases and local papers then publishing data on what everyone has in the village showing who’s the richest etc.
Electro1980 said:
The biggest difference with the Nordic countries is they have not has massive, and increasing, inequality.
The argument about Norway’s natural resources is a red herring, as is their population. They simply have a more progressive system. High tax, investment in infrastructure and working to minimise inequality.
Norway’s been through all kinds of wealth cycles but the society is still the same, where collectivism has always been an overriding societal system. The argument about Norway’s natural resources is a red herring, as is their population. They simply have a more progressive system. High tax, investment in infrastructure and working to minimise inequality.
You get your neighbour or someone local announcing they’re having a “dugnad”. to build a new pier or park or whatever and people are all expected to chip in and help with their skills and time. People all get into it and it creates strong bonds in the community.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180521-how-...
The wealth inequality etc isn’t just about natural resources, it’s about how their society is organised.
El stovey said:
Electro1980 said:
The biggest difference with the Nordic countries is they have not has massive, and increasing, inequality.
The argument about Norway’s natural resources is a red herring, as is their population. They simply have a more progressive system. High tax, investment in infrastructure and working to minimise inequality.
Norway’s been through all kinds of wealth cycles but the society is still the same, where collectivism has always been an overriding societal system. The argument about Norway’s natural resources is a red herring, as is their population. They simply have a more progressive system. High tax, investment in infrastructure and working to minimise inequality.
You get your neighbour or someone local announcing they’re having a “dugnad”. to build a new pier or park or whatever and people are all expected to chip in and help with their skills and time. People all get into it and it creates strong bonds in the community.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180521-how-...
The wealth inequality etc isn’t just about natural resources, it’s about how their society is organised.
JeffreyD said:
Why would the size of our population stop us creating a wealth fund model like Norway's?
Our massive debt would probably be a bit of a hinderance to start. The UK had all the chances to do the same thing, they taxed oil companies at double the corporation tax (40%) and just pished it all away.
Norway built a state run oil company and used the profits to benefit their population.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
It wouldn't, and we probably should have, but it wouldn't have been anything like Norways for the simple reason that they have and produce vastly more oil per capita than we do.
Surely the only reason is policital ideology?Maybe we'd have spent more due to a larger population, but we'd have had more to spend.
Perhaps we should do something similar for the fracking gas.
Agree with the reasons for the differences already posted.
In order of impact on the outcome in my mind:
What I really, really wouldn't want to see is that curtain twitching. I've seen it in Switzerland, where people will be proud and take public delight in grassing up their neighbour for washing their car on the wrong day. Similar in Norway, but even further reaching. Tad too Hot Fuzz for me...
In order of impact on the outcome in my mind:
- Culture - the collectivism noted. Common across all/most artic nations as until very recently in a historical sense you banded together to survive winter or all died.
- Natural Resources - as mentioned, we could have done the same, but it'd have been spread significantly thinner. Their's also is a lovely balance of fossils and renewable.
- Poppy cutting - as mentioned, all the info on wealth/etc., is public. Stand out, get shunned. That's quite insidious.
- Nordic Model economic planning - I've put this last, primarily as in my view it "lucked out" with the discovery of oil and gas...
What I really, really wouldn't want to see is that curtain twitching. I've seen it in Switzerland, where people will be proud and take public delight in grassing up their neighbour for washing their car on the wrong day. Similar in Norway, but even further reaching. Tad too Hot Fuzz for me...
Electro1980 said:
The argument about Norway’s natural resources is a red herring, as is their population. They simply have a more progressive system. High tax, investment in infrastructure and working to minimise inequality.
I disagree, its the fact they have such a small population, and those natural resources, that allows that system to work the way it does.The population of Norway, is half that of London's, and the demographic of that population is over 90% the same.
No way would Norway's system work in UK or USA, with such a massive and diverse differences in population make-up, values, its laughable to think otherwise.
Esceptico said:
98elise said:
trickywoo said:
Per capita Norway is awash with valuable natural resources.
It’s not even an apples and pears comparison.
Agreed.It’s not even an apples and pears comparison.
Sweden went highly industrialised much earlier than the other Scandinavian countries.
Electro1980 said:
The biggest difference with the Nordic countries is they have not has massive, and increasing, inequality.
The argument about Norway’s natural resources is a red herring, as is their population. They simply have a more progressive system. High tax, investment in infrastructure and working to minimise inequality.
I agree and disagree. The argument about Norway’s natural resources is a red herring, as is their population. They simply have a more progressive system. High tax, investment in infrastructure and working to minimise inequality.
Having a large oil reserve is a huge advantage, but lots of countries have similar advantages. What separates Norway is how they use that advantage. Instead of squandering it, they used it to improve their society.
Coming from Australia... I've seen huge natural resources get sold off for pennies by politicians who refuse to look past the next election.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff