Unlike most millennials, Norway's are rich(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Unlike most millennials, Norway's are rich
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180709-unlike-most-millennials-norways-are-rich
290 comments
> If everyone can finish University, then having a university title becomes pointless!
Only if the value of a degree is having an edge over others, not if it's value is learning - primary school isn't pointless even though most people master it.
This feels like it links back to the same problem as everything else - as time goes on automation removes less skilled jobs, and more and more people will need to do more skilled jobs.
This means that at some point, university levels of education will probably become necessary for any employment - at that point (and arguably before), asking people to pay for education they need to be a functional member of society seems inherently broken.
Of course, the other option is just to accept that maybe in the future not everyone needs to work, or certainly not everyone needs to work a full time job. Unfortunately for America, the idea of anyone not working as a "freeloader" is so heavily ingrained into the public consciousness, it seems likely people will just be left to suffer (even if they are "freeloading" off the labour of machines).
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if when we reach that point, people who can't do that level of work are defined as disabled in some way to "justify" it. Or, worse, arbitrary jobs that aren't needed, but are created just to employ them.
Only if the value of a degree is having an edge over others, not if it's value is learning - primary school isn't pointless even though most people master it.
This feels like it links back to the same problem as everything else - as time goes on automation removes less skilled jobs, and more and more people will need to do more skilled jobs.
This means that at some point, university levels of education will probably become necessary for any employment - at that point (and arguably before), asking people to pay for education they need to be a functional member of society seems inherently broken.
Of course, the other option is just to accept that maybe in the future not everyone needs to work, or certainly not everyone needs to work a full time job. Unfortunately for America, the idea of anyone not working as a "freeloader" is so heavily ingrained into the public consciousness, it seems likely people will just be left to suffer (even if they are "freeloading" off the labour of machines).
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if when we reach that point, people who can't do that level of work are defined as disabled in some way to "justify" it. Or, worse, arbitrary jobs that aren't needed, but are created just to employ them.
> This means that at some point, university levels of education will probably become necessary for any employment
My father had been the safety laboratory lead at a Hungarian pharmeutical company from 1989 till his retirement about ten years ago (could be a little less). What he told me about has stuck with me: when he started, he could hire people from vocational high schools but by the end, everything they used became so complex he could only hire people with university degrees.
My father had been the safety laboratory lead at a Hungarian pharmeutical company from 1989 till his retirement about ten years ago (could be a little less). What he told me about has stuck with me: when he started, he could hire people from vocational high schools but by the end, everything they used became so complex he could only hire people with university degrees.
This rings so true, everything today is super specialized.
Previous generations sometimes had a chance to learn on the job as a company was specializing. But current generations needs a lengthy education because they are joining companies that are already highly specialized - am working to specialized even more...
Previous generations sometimes had a chance to learn on the job as a company was specializing. But current generations needs a lengthy education because they are joining companies that are already highly specialized - am working to specialized even more...
If that is the case, I think revamping the high school requirements would be a better investment.
The problem is that today's generations are joining companies that are heavily specialized. Unlike previous generations which could learn while the company learned.
There are some vocational coding schools, but these won't prepare you to do real computer science.
There are some vocational carpentry schools with increased focus on AutoCad and other analytical skills. But these won't equipt you to design bridges..
There are some vocational coding schools, but these won't prepare you to do real computer science.
There are some vocational carpentry schools with increased focus on AutoCad and other analytical skills. But these won't equipt you to design bridges..
That's true, but it feels like the HS curriculum has gotten easier, too, and that might be part of the reason that a high school diploma isn't valued by employers. My perception (anecdata!) is that helicopter parenting has badgered the faculty such that my niece and nephew have a lower bar than I did for any given letter grade (and that I had it easier than some of my much older cousins).
Another point is that HS graduation rates in the United States have been basically flat (after a long, steady increase) since the 1970's [1], despite constant calls to increase it.
When more than 9 of 10 people already have HS diplomas; when the economic condition of each student's family is highly predictive of graduation; and when and each school tends to have a fairly homogeneous characteristics, it's hard for me to see how you can raise graduation rates without lowering the bar. Unless you're open to adjusting the economic condition around under-performing schools, of course.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...
Another point is that HS graduation rates in the United States have been basically flat (after a long, steady increase) since the 1970's [1], despite constant calls to increase it.
When more than 9 of 10 people already have HS diplomas; when the economic condition of each student's family is highly predictive of graduation; and when and each school tends to have a fairly homogeneous characteristics, it's hard for me to see how you can raise graduation rates without lowering the bar. Unless you're open to adjusting the economic condition around under-performing schools, of course.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...
> That's true, but it feels like the HS curriculum has gotten easier, too, and that might be part of the reason that a high school diploma isn't valued by employers.
Since the early 1990s, what was then a fairly advanced college prep track for math seems to have become the baseline standard, and graduation requirements have increased in other ways. Compared to comparably-named classes, grading or presentation may have become less rigorous, but the baseline curriculum is more advanced, not less.
Since the early 1990s, what was then a fairly advanced college prep track for math seems to have become the baseline standard, and graduation requirements have increased in other ways. Compared to comparably-named classes, grading or presentation may have become less rigorous, but the baseline curriculum is more advanced, not less.
I'd have to disagree. My niece attends one of the top-rated high schools in the country. I recently perused her summer reading list and was astonished that the vast majority of them were books for children. Reading comprehension and writing proficiency are much, much lower than they were just a few decades ago, across all levels of schooling.
Memory can be tricky. You need some data, not anecdotes.
Lots of us remember reading e.g. Shakespeare and Faulkner in high school. If the most challenging material they're reading now is Rowling (or whatever GP means by "books for children"), that is data.
> Lots of us remember reading e.g. Shakespeare and Faulkner in high school.
Yes, and my mom just last month retired from teachig English in a nothing-special (in ratings terms) high school in a relatively poor area, and was teaching Shakespeare, Donne, and the rest of the traditional canon of classic literature, as well as a small number of more current bits of non-juvenile literature that isn't part of the Eurocentric canon, works from Amy Tan and others (many of which I also remember reading—in college.)
But in any case what makes it challenging or not isn't what books they read, but what the expectations are of what they'll be able to do having read them.
Yes, and my mom just last month retired from teachig English in a nothing-special (in ratings terms) high school in a relatively poor area, and was teaching Shakespeare, Donne, and the rest of the traditional canon of classic literature, as well as a small number of more current bits of non-juvenile literature that isn't part of the Eurocentric canon, works from Amy Tan and others (many of which I also remember reading—in college.)
But in any case what makes it challenging or not isn't what books they read, but what the expectations are of what they'll be able to do having read them.
Yeah, lots of people "remember" doing things when they were sixteen or seventeen, or maybe even 12 or 13, but the memory gets murkier.
In my experience, it's very easy for people to remember something they did at a given age fondly, and push it for their kids at a earlier age inadvertently.
Memory is a tricky thing. I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't comparing today's 13 year old to your 16 year old self inadvertently.
Memory is a tricky thing. I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't comparing today's 13 year old to your 16 year old self inadvertently.
I can't believe you're really quibbling over the possibility that some high schools assign Shakespeare...
Which books for children?
> it's hard for me to see how you can raise graduation rates without lowering the bar.
That's easy, we live in a world where each generation is smarter than the previous. For IQ tests measuring abstract thinking todays teenagers score an average of 3 points higher than teenagers did 10 years ago.
This is due to better schooling, better edutainment of kids, and many other things such as increased focus on not leaving behind kids with learning disabilities.
The trend is starting to ease of in the developed world. But only in the last 10 years or so...
Whether the bar have been lowered is hard to disprove. But we know for fact that newer generations are far more book-smart than older ones where in their time.
Note. Some forms of pure generalized intelligence don't have the same trends. But analytical and abstract thinking, also commonly known as book-smart or good in school is trending upwords over the generations.
YES: kids today are actually smarter :)
That's easy, we live in a world where each generation is smarter than the previous. For IQ tests measuring abstract thinking todays teenagers score an average of 3 points higher than teenagers did 10 years ago.
This is due to better schooling, better edutainment of kids, and many other things such as increased focus on not leaving behind kids with learning disabilities.
The trend is starting to ease of in the developed world. But only in the last 10 years or so...
Whether the bar have been lowered is hard to disprove. But we know for fact that newer generations are far more book-smart than older ones where in their time.
Note. Some forms of pure generalized intelligence don't have the same trends. But analytical and abstract thinking, also commonly known as book-smart or good in school is trending upwords over the generations.
YES: kids today are actually smarter :)
What you're talking about is called the Flynn effect. There're many studies indicating it's not just "starting to ease", it's getting reversed for today's teenagers (i.e. they're getting dumber). Here's a recent one for Norway: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674
Sure, but there's no such thing as a combined education in plant physiology, embedded firmware development, and machine learning, so maybe employers should just get off their high horse and train people.
(This is a reference to several jobs posted at MIT and in other Cambridge, MA workplaces on various occasions.)
(This is a reference to several jobs posted at MIT and in other Cambridge, MA workplaces on various occasions.)
Applied ML on IoT-controlled Psychedelic plant husbandry?
Nothing in the ad said it was psychedelic, but yeah, applied deep learning on IoT-controlled plant husbandry. I hope to God they were just going through the motions of a job posting with a candidate in mind, because normally even MIT-related people aren't that blindly entitled about hiring as to label three different specialized skillsets minimum requirements without offering a lot of money.
Don't suppose you can send me the job listing?
Sorry, I saw it last year. I found it via the MIT jobs website, so if there's anything similar at the moment, you should look there to find out.
IIRC, the employees at Fairchild Semiconductor hired to develop the first generation of integrated circuits were also all PhDs.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm not talking about zero-sum (which should be similar everywhere), I'm talking about Universities becoming easier in USA much faster than in Europe. Example:
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/same-p...
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/same-p...
How do European professors and universities avoid grade inflation? Are their incentives very different?
They don't get paid more for getting more students, or if more students pass. Normally people go to public universities, which are pretty good, and their teachers have more or less a fixed salary.
In general university costs money, both to the Government/State and the student, and thus incentives are somewhat aligned for both parties. Also, student loans are NOT a common thing here... When I was at uni, the cost of the studies was about 1000€/year (500€ for me as my parents have 3 children), now it's about 2 to 3k€/year, but it's still something somewhat feasible. That's Spain, in Germany for example it's free.
In general university costs money, both to the Government/State and the student, and thus incentives are somewhat aligned for both parties. Also, student loans are NOT a common thing here... When I was at uni, the cost of the studies was about 1000€/year (500€ for me as my parents have 3 children), now it's about 2 to 3k€/year, but it's still something somewhat feasible. That's Spain, in Germany for example it's free.
> They don't get paid more for getting more students, or if more students pass. Normally people go to public universities, which are pretty good, and their teachers have more or less a fixed salary.
There's no way you can generalise about incentive structures like that for an entire continent.
In my country, only public universities exist and the incentive structure is decided politically. Currently, universities get paid a certain amount for each student that graduates, but they are also deducted some set amount if the student doesn't graduate within a specific amount of time. In addition to that, the sum of money gained from a single STEM student is double that of another kind of student, so the universities have quite clear incentives to promote their STEM degrees.
Obviously, an incentive structure based solely on passing students must also inspire grade inflation. The current structure highly incentivises making STEM degrees easy to obtain. Whether that's actually the case, I can't say, but the structure certainly encourages it.
There's no way you can generalise about incentive structures like that for an entire continent.
In my country, only public universities exist and the incentive structure is decided politically. Currently, universities get paid a certain amount for each student that graduates, but they are also deducted some set amount if the student doesn't graduate within a specific amount of time. In addition to that, the sum of money gained from a single STEM student is double that of another kind of student, so the universities have quite clear incentives to promote their STEM degrees.
Obviously, an incentive structure based solely on passing students must also inspire grade inflation. The current structure highly incentivises making STEM degrees easy to obtain. Whether that's actually the case, I can't say, but the structure certainly encourages it.
Do the professors on that university get paid more for having more students? Because in Germany for example, this is not the case.
The university departments get different amount of money depending on the amount of students they have, but this money cannot be spent freely (e.g. on increasing professor's salaries), but must be spent for education-related things like hiring more TAs, which is something that departments that get more students need to do anyways.
The professor salary is pretty much standardized (per the TVL), which does allows for sur-pluses in case that the responsibilities justify them, but university "students" do not play a role here. Things that affect these are, for example, having larger management-related responsibilities. For example, a professor with 4 PhD students and 2 postdocs gets less money than a professor with 30 PhD students, large experimental facilities, 10 mechanics, 5 middle management personell, ... adding up to 60 people under supervision.
So while I agree that the universities do have an incentive to grow the number of students in STEM degrees, the professors do not really have a big incentive to make the degrees easier.
The professors that "get rich" in Germany have large consulting companies on the side to which they try to attract the top talent, so if anything, the incentive is to produce more top talent. This can incentive them both ways, making things easier to attract more students to get more students in their companies, or making things harder to filter out the bulk from the top talent. But that's just supply and demand.
The university departments get different amount of money depending on the amount of students they have, but this money cannot be spent freely (e.g. on increasing professor's salaries), but must be spent for education-related things like hiring more TAs, which is something that departments that get more students need to do anyways.
The professor salary is pretty much standardized (per the TVL), which does allows for sur-pluses in case that the responsibilities justify them, but university "students" do not play a role here. Things that affect these are, for example, having larger management-related responsibilities. For example, a professor with 4 PhD students and 2 postdocs gets less money than a professor with 30 PhD students, large experimental facilities, 10 mechanics, 5 middle management personell, ... adding up to 60 people under supervision.
So while I agree that the universities do have an incentive to grow the number of students in STEM degrees, the professors do not really have a big incentive to make the degrees easier.
The professors that "get rich" in Germany have large consulting companies on the side to which they try to attract the top talent, so if anything, the incentive is to produce more top talent. This can incentive them both ways, making things easier to attract more students to get more students in their companies, or making things harder to filter out the bulk from the top talent. But that's just supply and demand.
What you mean to say is that professors are heavily incentivized to shop out TAs to companies in trade for "consultancy fees", or even board positions ...
Entire departments are built on this principle.
Entire departments are built on this principle.
Some professors take as a badge of honour to pass only the bare minimum of students they can get away with each year, at least in Spain. If there aren't enough passing grades to reach that legal minimum, they just give everyone from a certain grade up a 5.0.
On top of that, there are no limits on how many times you can retake a class, it is not unusual to be stuck with the same class for three or four years until you manage to pass.
On top of that, there are no limits on how many times you can retake a class, it is not unusual to be stuck with the same class for three or four years until you manage to pass.
> student loans are NOT a common thing here
That's sadly not true in all of Europe. I attend university in the Netherlands, and since government allowances were replaced by loans a few years back, having a student loan has become the norm for students.
That's sadly not true in all of Europe. I attend university in the Netherlands, and since government allowances were replaced by loans a few years back, having a student loan has become the norm for students.
The schools aren’t incentivized to recruit more students. And, unlike American universities, you can start and stop studying as you please. France for example, you get a certification for every level you complete. So it’s common to see job descriptions with Bac+2 or Bac+3. Your baccalaureate and 2 years of university. Unlike the all or nothing BA/BS American degree.
American universities run on government and private finance. If they don’t graduate a certain percentage of students that financing gets withdrawn. So it’s easy to see where giving better grades leads to higher graduations connected to government financing.
American universities run on government and private finance. If they don’t graduate a certain percentage of students that financing gets withdrawn. So it’s easy to see where giving better grades leads to higher graduations connected to government financing.
I've never heard of Frances intermediate achievements in University. That's great! I think one of the best things that can happen is someone not finding usefulness and meaning in their studies, deciding to work for a few years and then see how learning more would help and go back to University with a internal motivation that's truly driven by curiosity and a desire to get better. Most systems seem to discourage that. In the US most of the additional salary from studying at University comes from actually getting the degree. It's clearly all about signaling and not learning. This seems like a great step in a better direction.
Yes. When I moved there I had to convert my BS into the French equivalent. A 4-year BS == Bac+3. They also have various vocational and technical degrees that don’t have a US equivalent, like sommelier or vintner.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it better. I have friends who have taken 8+ years to get their Bac+3. The lower tier universities have capacity issues. The class you need may be full and can take years to enroll. Also, with no motivation to pass students you are truly in your own. Things like office hours, tutors, study labs, and the library not being open late like we have in the US. These are surprisingly uncommon in France.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it better. I have friends who have taken 8+ years to get their Bac+3. The lower tier universities have capacity issues. The class you need may be full and can take years to enroll. Also, with no motivation to pass students you are truly in your own. Things like office hours, tutors, study labs, and the library not being open late like we have in the US. These are surprisingly uncommon in France.
That is quite more internal so I can answer only for Spain and Industrial Engineering: yes. Professors' main incentive seem to be to make sure that those who pass are those who know what they are talking about. The main reason is that if a student screws up, people die.
A more political reason is because University prestige depends partly on the knowledge of the graduading students. So if someone said they studied in X and they had no idea what they were talking about it'd give quite a bad image for the university. It's not rare to see some students crying at the exam review but it mostly doesn't work.
A more political reason is because University prestige depends partly on the knowledge of the graduading students. So if someone said they studied in X and they had no idea what they were talking about it'd give quite a bad image for the university. It's not rare to see some students crying at the exam review but it mostly doesn't work.
Just to clarify, Industrial Engineering in Spain is a generalist engineering degree (mechanics/electricity and electronics/fluid mechanics/materials/etc). What the rest of the world calls "industrial engineering" is called "organization engineering" here.
The main difference between grades in Spanish engineering schools and the rest of Europe seems to be that the grade curve is heavily compressed between 4/10 and 6/10 (passing grade is 5/10). The amount of study needed to reach a passing grade would amount to an A elsewhere. As long as 25% (IIRC) of the students pass there are no consequences for the department. If less people pass, they just award a 5.0 to everyone from a certain grade up, they don't do curves. It is not unusual for people to retake a class for three or four years in a row.
There is not much guidance from professors either, no homework or extra assignments. There is just one or two midterms and a final exam, and if you're lucky there will be official course materials to study from but that is not a requirement. Most exchange students have a pretty bad time here, but on the other hand Spanish students abroad usually ace their exams with half of the work they are used to.
The main difference between grades in Spanish engineering schools and the rest of Europe seems to be that the grade curve is heavily compressed between 4/10 and 6/10 (passing grade is 5/10). The amount of study needed to reach a passing grade would amount to an A elsewhere. As long as 25% (IIRC) of the students pass there are no consequences for the department. If less people pass, they just award a 5.0 to everyone from a certain grade up, they don't do curves. It is not unusual for people to retake a class for three or four years in a row.
There is not much guidance from professors either, no homework or extra assignments. There is just one or two midterms and a final exam, and if you're lucky there will be official course materials to study from but that is not a requirement. Most exchange students have a pretty bad time here, but on the other hand Spanish students abroad usually ace their exams with half of the work they are used to.
I'm sure many degree programs in the US are inflated, but it wasn't my experience in the US where engineering professors brag about how many students they failed that semester. "You only had 1/3rd your class drop? You must be getting soft." I had AP Calculus in High School (took school seriously) and had to give 110% to pass engineering school. I never partied and basically lived in study hall. Not everyone has to put in that much effort, but I never ever felt grades were being inflated to pass us. When the highest grade on a test is a 42 from a classmate that could probably build a teleporter in their garage, you know things are tough. When we used to have to take required non-engineering courses like history and psyche, most of us felt like we were teleported back over a decade to junior high as the classes were such a joke. So the specialized classes and degrees can be astonishingly challenging, while the generic courses everyone has to take are almost remedial.
Grades really seemed arbitrary to me. People who got high grades didn’t mean they’d be more successful in life, it just they got good at gaming the final exams. Indian education has this huge obsession with grades, it’s nuts. Students commit suicides over grades, I believe it’s same with china.
I’m glad my university had more focus on labs and hands on work. I pretty much aced all my labs and did okay on paper exams. Paper exams always felt like an exercise for the professor to put students on an explicit bell curve.
I’m glad my university had more focus on labs and hands on work. I pretty much aced all my labs and did okay on paper exams. Paper exams always felt like an exercise for the professor to put students on an explicit bell curve.
I think this is due to overpopulation. Only so many seats available to pass?
This does not seem to be the case in private universities, where high graduation rate is a strongly desired statistic. Maybe one or two people total left my Chemical Engineering class over four years, and usually to switch to something like Chemistry. I'm not sure what kinds of grades were typically passed out, but there always seemed to be strong pressure not to fail students.
Gotcha. I graduated from a public university with a strong engineering college. Typically 50% switch majors sometime during freshman year across the board. They usually then go to computer science, chemistry, or biology. If those degree programs are too hard, they go to business or at least that is the trend many of my fellow students noticed.
There was a saying at my engineering school (and probably others like it):
EE->IE->IM->I'm Out.
Electrical Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Industrial Management, transfer.
EE->IE->IM->I'm Out.
Electrical Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Industrial Management, transfer.
I suspect it is also because grades matter less. In America, grades are bigger deal and affects who gets academic positions. That means that if school gives C where another gives A, former will have less successful students then latter despite having similar results.
There is also heightened student pressure for similar reasons. but it is not just students.
There is also heightened student pressure for similar reasons. but it is not just students.
Professional ethics? Pride? The teaching staff is removed from the commercial operations of a university.
I will say however that universities in my country are heavily recruiting foreign students to the point that everything is in English.
I will say however that universities in my country are heavily recruiting foreign students to the point that everything is in English.
One way this is done is to grade on a curve (a practice still carried out in many medical schools here in the US).
[deleted]
I don't think we're at the point where degrees are required for everything, but we are at the point where they are required for almost all decent jobs that lead to decent lifestyles, especially in the US. We've been at this point for decades. This is the major point of contention in the US and around the world. In the US specifically, Americans want a good life without working for the education it requires. Most other cultures readily see that this is impossible today. That's why you get so many immigrants focusing on education and so many Americans focusing, I kid you not, on anti intellectualism and hate for learning. These ideas then transform into hate for immigrants because "they're taking our jobs" when in reality, the Americans claiming that don't have the mental capacity to even reach such a conclusion because they have trouble even graduating from our high schools, high schools that are some of the most dumbed down on earth. Talk about entitlement. Yes, this was possible in America in the sixties and seventies, but the world has changed and Americans haven't kept up. I'm certain this situation is playing itself out in plenty of other places in the world, but it's especially egregious here because of our high tech economy. I see this disparity between the educated and non educated, between urban and rural people as the core of much domestic and international conflict in the world this past a hundred years or so, a conflict that seems to have no easy solutions or simple answers.
> Most other cultures readily see that this is impossible today.
Nope. All cultures I've seen so far have this. It's just that immigrants stuck between a rock and a hard place put in the effort to do better, and threaten their kids into doing the same. Or at least, they do so more often than other groups.
Needless to say, the natives try to sabotage this. This is also the same everywhere. In Europe, in Asia, in America. It's worse where there is more state control (ie. it's pretty bad in the Netherlands for example).
Nope. All cultures I've seen so far have this. It's just that immigrants stuck between a rock and a hard place put in the effort to do better, and threaten their kids into doing the same. Or at least, they do so more often than other groups.
Needless to say, the natives try to sabotage this. This is also the same everywhere. In Europe, in Asia, in America. It's worse where there is more state control (ie. it's pretty bad in the Netherlands for example).
> This means that at some point, university levels of education will probably become necessary for any employment
You're not too far from Spain's current situation.
We have some lower qualification titles that last two years and are almost free to get that teach a trade, there are courses to become an electrician, mechanic, plumber, hairdresser, cook, etc. There is even one to become a systems administrator and one to become a programmer.
You're not too far from Spain's current situation.
We have some lower qualification titles that last two years and are almost free to get that teach a trade, there are courses to become an electrician, mechanic, plumber, hairdresser, cook, etc. There is even one to become a systems administrator and one to become a programmer.
The biggest obstacles to UBI aren't economic, they're cultural. I'm currently working in manual labor as I brush up on front end, and it's devastating to me that my current job and almost all jobs available to me can and will be automated. What happens then, with the majority of people who aren't suited for STEM?
Why do you think STEM can't be automated?
Do you think AI will think by itself, invent new things, and write software in the next 50 years? I don't.
Writing software seems less intimidating than the millions of artists brute forcing for thousands of years the problem space of what humanity considers Art.
I'm just slightly worried that STEM's problems are too close to their base of physics and math to be that hard for a computer compared to the layers of abstraction that go into the rest of our works.
I'm just slightly worried that STEM's problems are too close to their base of physics and math to be that hard for a computer compared to the layers of abstraction that go into the rest of our works.
A computer currently doesn't think though as there is no existing general AI. The question becomes what is easier to automate using standard techniques? Groundbreaking discoveries probably won't be automated until you have a general AI. A neural network isn't going to come up with warp drive. Computers already can make really good art.
You don't need a degree to care for elders or run errands for them.
Only if the value of a degree is having an edge over others, not if it's value is learning
Yes and no. If it's a political goal that x% of the population must be awarded a degree, then the standards will need to be adjusted, and below a certain point, the value of the learning goes away as well.
Yes and no. If it's a political goal that x% of the population must be awarded a degree, then the standards will need to be adjusted, and below a certain point, the value of the learning goes away as well.
Bingo. The only way to have "equality" is by making the standards far below what even an average student is capable of.
Disability claims in the USA have soared over the last 10 years, so it’s already happening.
> primary school isn't pointless even though most people master it.
That's because the knowledge taught in primary school is way more essential to day-to-day life. If people don't know those skills then our society fails.
That's because the knowledge taught in primary school is way more essential to day-to-day life. If people don't know those skills then our society fails.
"Or, worse, arbitrary jobs that aren't needed, but are created just to employ them."
...
"You ask for a miracle ? I give you the (T S A) ..."[1]
[1] Die Hard
...
"You ask for a miracle ? I give you the (T S A) ..."[1]
[1] Die Hard
This means that at some point, university levels of education will probably become necessary for any employment
There will be plumbers and hairdressers long after the last lawyer or accountant has been replaced by AI. There is neither the demand for, nor do the prerequisites exist in the general population for, Tony Bliar's target of 50% of school leavers to go to university and achieve a degree comparable to those of even 20 years ago.
There will be plumbers and hairdressers long after the last lawyer or accountant has been replaced by AI. There is neither the demand for, nor do the prerequisites exist in the general population for, Tony Bliar's target of 50% of school leavers to go to university and achieve a degree comparable to those of even 20 years ago.
> [1] oddly enough I have never discussed this with british people
Over recent decades tuition fees have been rising, but they've been covered by a special loan. Paying back this loan is taken out of your pay cheque (via PAYE) based on how much you earn. If you don't pay it back within a certain number of years it gets wiped.
Before the last major increase it was viewed by most of my peers (I graduated in 2013) as reasonable. Graduates could expect to pay it off.
Now graduates finish with £40,000-$50,000 and the interest rate is so high many won't ever pay it off.
Being able to support yourself during university might be a problem but there are bursaries and grants you can get.
Let me know if you want more details.
Over recent decades tuition fees have been rising, but they've been covered by a special loan. Paying back this loan is taken out of your pay cheque (via PAYE) based on how much you earn. If you don't pay it back within a certain number of years it gets wiped.
Before the last major increase it was viewed by most of my peers (I graduated in 2013) as reasonable. Graduates could expect to pay it off.
Now graduates finish with £40,000-$50,000 and the interest rate is so high many won't ever pay it off.
Being able to support yourself during university might be a problem but there are bursaries and grants you can get.
Let me know if you want more details.
It's actually better to think of the UK loans as a graduate tax - and in that way it's pretty progressive.
You pay 9% extra from when you earn over 25k a year (IIRC). So those who need a degree to go into lower paying, yet skilled, professions (nursing, teaching) can do so easily safe in the knowledge that yes, there's this big sum of money that they "owe" but it'll only be taken once they are earning an OK salary, and they don't have to pay it all back if their earnings never rise.
You pay 9% extra from when you earn over 25k a year (IIRC). So those who need a degree to go into lower paying, yet skilled, professions (nursing, teaching) can do so easily safe in the knowledge that yes, there's this big sum of money that they "owe" but it'll only be taken once they are earning an OK salary, and they don't have to pay it all back if their earnings never rise.
If you make 50k, have a child, and have a student loan, your marginal tax rate becomes 62%, that's 40% (income) +2% (NI) +9% (Loan) + 11% (child benefit reduction). I don't think that's progressive, I think it's excessive taxation.
It goes up to 71% at £100,000+ (then drops again at £123,700), including NI and Student Loans - maybe even over 100%, depending on how much childcare you lose out on.
For example, going from £100,000 to £100,001/year immediately costs you 570 hours/year of free childcare (potentially a couple of thousand pounds per year), and all of your tax-free childcare (potentially over a thousand pounds per year).
Note that this does require _one_ person in a couple to be earning over £100,000, so it's hard to have a lot of sympathy in that case - that certainly doesn't count as struggling! On the other hand, it's also not at all progressive - it comes in all at once, potentially meaning you should refuse a pay rise. It's also _very_ different to the headline tax rate of 40% that you _think_ you're paying...
For example, going from £100,000 to £100,001/year immediately costs you 570 hours/year of free childcare (potentially a couple of thousand pounds per year), and all of your tax-free childcare (potentially over a thousand pounds per year).
Note that this does require _one_ person in a couple to be earning over £100,000, so it's hard to have a lot of sympathy in that case - that certainly doesn't count as struggling! On the other hand, it's also not at all progressive - it comes in all at once, potentially meaning you should refuse a pay rise. It's also _very_ different to the headline tax rate of 40% that you _think_ you're paying...
Just ask for a 10k pound rise then instead of a one pound rise. This is my strategy. Better get a 10k rise and pay 6k in taxes on it than not to get a one pound rise to avoid extra taxes altogether.
It's easy to prevent that happening by taking on salary sacrifice schemes, or even better, putting more into your pension.
Do you get taxed for having a child. I was under the impression that you got tax breaks.
Slight correction - if you earn between 50,001 an 60,000 you lose child benefit, if you're on 50k you keep it all.
Indeed, "graduate tax" has been shoved down our throats left right and centre in the media. Because who can disagree with paying a tax! It's your duty! And by changing the narrative away from debt, we can ignore any psychological affects of having large sums of debt at a young age. I was told my loan (this was before they went up to huge amounts) was affectively free because my salary would rise above inflation every year!
Let's not also forget that interest rates are on a sliding scale depend on income. People earning over £45k have an extra 3% interest slapped on top of RPI, i.e. 6.1% - amazingly similar to those in the US, no?
It's a noticeable sum off your take-home that isn't going towards saving for a mortgage. As another posted pointed out, look at your total take-home pay.
Also, the large sums of money have gone towards lavish new facilities and over-the-top student halls of residences. It seems like students have provided investment capital for universities.
Let's not also forget that interest rates are on a sliding scale depend on income. People earning over £45k have an extra 3% interest slapped on top of RPI, i.e. 6.1% - amazingly similar to those in the US, no?
It's a noticeable sum off your take-home that isn't going towards saving for a mortgage. As another posted pointed out, look at your total take-home pay.
Also, the large sums of money have gone towards lavish new facilities and over-the-top student halls of residences. It seems like students have provided investment capital for universities.
Thanks! Seems like a step between the US system and the Spanish system. What happens if you lose your job for example for a couple of months? Do you have to pay as a normal loan or is it more like taxes where you only pay relative to your earnings?
The payments are based on your earnings, so it is a kind of graduate tax - but only up until around retirement when any remaining amounts are cancelled.
In effect, more successful English graduates subsidise everybody else (because it is supposed to be revenue neutral). And specifically English, because only English students pay the full £9,250 per year. (Scottish students pay nothing, Welsh and Northern Irish a reduced amount).
The English subsidise the "United" Kingdom but are discriminated against when it comes to social provision paid out of general taxation. Unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland we do not have a Parliament for England looking after England's interests. Instead we are ruled by the Union Parliament which includes MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland whose remit and interest is their own respective nations, not England, but who get to vote on legislation that affects England without England having the equivalent ability to interfere in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments.
In effect, more successful English graduates subsidise everybody else (because it is supposed to be revenue neutral). And specifically English, because only English students pay the full £9,250 per year. (Scottish students pay nothing, Welsh and Northern Irish a reduced amount).
The English subsidise the "United" Kingdom but are discriminated against when it comes to social provision paid out of general taxation. Unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland we do not have a Parliament for England looking after England's interests. Instead we are ruled by the Union Parliament which includes MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland whose remit and interest is their own respective nations, not England, but who get to vote on legislation that affects England without England having the equivalent ability to interfere in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments.
You have a very narrow view of who's paying for whom, which is what happens when education becomes a commodity. My tuition was paid for by the Scottish government, so by the UK tax payer. Now as a higher rate tax payer I help pay for everyone else, including English students who don't earn enough to pay back their fees.
And as a resident of London, my tax will be counted as English by the books, reinforcing the idea that England subsidises Scotland. But really it was the Scottish government's progressive tuition fee policy which enabled me to go to university in the first place.
If you really want to break the UK down and pit us against eachother, then why not be honest and say that London is subsidising everyone, including the rest of England? The English aren't discriminated against, they just choose to vote for politicians who are against devolution for England, for tuition fees, and against social provision paid out of general taxation. Things would be worse without the MPs from Scotland and Wales.
And as a resident of London, my tax will be counted as English by the books, reinforcing the idea that England subsidises Scotland. But really it was the Scottish government's progressive tuition fee policy which enabled me to go to university in the first place.
If you really want to break the UK down and pit us against eachother, then why not be honest and say that London is subsidising everyone, including the rest of England? The English aren't discriminated against, they just choose to vote for politicians who are against devolution for England, for tuition fees, and against social provision paid out of general taxation. Things would be worse without the MPs from Scotland and Wales.
Having chosen to move to London you are now an English tax-payer with less political representation than you had previously. That is your choice. Why should those of us who are English and who wish to continue to live in England amongst our friends and families have less political representation than those living elsewhere in the "United" Kingdom?
As for London, it is the capital of England just like Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland. Both are richer than elsewhere in their respective countries. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
As for the Scottish Government's "progressive tuition fee policy", it was voted in by Scottish MSPs. The tuition fees paid by the English were forced on the English by MPs from Scotland who knew their own constituents would be unaffected - MPs from England (and Wales) voted against these fees but were overridden by Scottish MPs. That is not the fault of those MPs that the English voted for, but rather by a system of Devolution designed by effectively the Scottish Labour Party. And every time anybody who is English tries to address the issue there are howls of outrage from the rest of the UK, and Scotland in particular.
As for London, it is the capital of England just like Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland. Both are richer than elsewhere in their respective countries. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
As for the Scottish Government's "progressive tuition fee policy", it was voted in by Scottish MSPs. The tuition fees paid by the English were forced on the English by MPs from Scotland who knew their own constituents would be unaffected - MPs from England (and Wales) voted against these fees but were overridden by Scottish MPs. That is not the fault of those MPs that the English voted for, but rather by a system of Devolution designed by effectively the Scottish Labour Party. And every time anybody who is English tries to address the issue there are howls of outrage from the rest of the UK, and Scotland in particular.
[deleted]
> In effect, more successful English graduates subsidise everybody else (because it is supposed to be revenue neutral). And specifically English, because only English students pay the full £9,250 per year. (Scottish students pay nothing, Welsh and Northern Irish a reduced amount).
It's more complex than that; Scottish students are liable for the full tuition amount if they study in England, and the repayment terms are different (9% over £18330 currently, but it is changing), but Scottish students studying in Scotland have tuition paid for out of the Scottish government's general funds (and you can argue whether the majority of the government's income through Barnett Formula is fair or not to those elsewhere in the UK), though are still eligible to get bursaries/loans for living expenses.
It's more complex than that; Scottish students are liable for the full tuition amount if they study in England, and the repayment terms are different (9% over £18330 currently, but it is changing), but Scottish students studying in Scotland have tuition paid for out of the Scottish government's general funds (and you can argue whether the majority of the government's income through Barnett Formula is fair or not to those elsewhere in the UK), though are still eligible to get bursaries/loans for living expenses.
If you believe university rankings (a big if) then the UK’s universities are — on average — dramatically better than those in the rest of Europe.
I always felt funny about that topic. A couple of Spanish technology universities are always near the top rank in Europe lists.
But what lists? There are so many, Universities choose to showcase the convenient ones of course.
But what lists? There are so many, Universities choose to showcase the convenient ones of course.
And they were prior to student loans
The latter, you won't have to pay whilst you aren't earning.
Additionally you will only start paying when you are earning over £21,000 a year. After that, you'll pay back 9% of anything you earn over £21,000.
Currently its +9% to your tax bands; essentially a graduate tax.
Repayment starts at £21,000pa; so if you earn £30,000 you'd pay back £37 per month
Repayment starts at £21,000pa; so if you earn £30,000 you'd pay back £37 per month
> and the interest rate is so high many won't ever pay it off
If you think of it as a kind of extra income tax that only applies to those who benefited from a bigger chunk of the education system, then inability to ever pay it off doesn't seem so terrifying.
But once you look at it that way, it becomes very difficult to argue (in non-libertarian ways), why those who got the same benefits without the loan (rich parents) or somehow lucked into high earnings without the education (usually some form of exceptional talent) should be exempt from that tax. In the end, a more progressive income tax would be the same, just without those exceptions.
If you think of it as a kind of extra income tax that only applies to those who benefited from a bigger chunk of the education system, then inability to ever pay it off doesn't seem so terrifying.
But once you look at it that way, it becomes very difficult to argue (in non-libertarian ways), why those who got the same benefits without the loan (rich parents) or somehow lucked into high earnings without the education (usually some form of exceptional talent) should be exempt from that tax. In the end, a more progressive income tax would be the same, just without those exceptions.
> If everyone can finish University, then having a university title becomes pointless!
I mean ideally, degrees shouldn't just be a zero sum game. Ideally, it should mean everyone is better off.
I mean ideally, degrees shouldn't just be a zero sum game. Ideally, it should mean everyone is better off.
Yup. What I meant is that degrees now are becoming easier (thus, losing value) faster in the USA than in Europe. Example: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/same-p...
unless you actually learn something there
> If everyone can finish University, then having a university title becomes pointless!
If everyone has access to a shovel, or a computer, does having that thing become pointless?
If everyone has access to a shovel, or a computer, does having that thing become pointless?
If a number of companies are using it as a single or major metric for hiring, yes. These companies are looking for anyone with a shovel to fill a seat, because historically having a shovel is better than not.
> If everyone can finish University, then having a university title becomes pointless!
Certainly the competitive advantage has decreased over time. Having gone through the US university system myself I can confirm that there is... lets say "inflationary pressure", though I've also been at a european university and the same pressure existed there and for all the same reasons.
I agree that the university debt seems to be a uniquely american issue though.
Certainly the competitive advantage has decreased over time. Having gone through the US university system myself I can confirm that there is... lets say "inflationary pressure", though I've also been at a european university and the same pressure existed there and for all the same reasons.
I agree that the university debt seems to be a uniquely american issue though.
Exactly. My point is that US "score inflation" seems to be faster than in Europe. Maybe it has something to do with capitalism/socialism (pleasing the student/client), maybe with culture, maybe with language, etc. I don't know why, but it seems that way for me.
Also, I'm sure it is correlated with paying so much for a degree. When a single year can cost tens of thousands failing a subject might incentivize the student to drop out, resulting in loss of a high-paying and otherwise reliable customer.
When there is no obvious reason, the purpose is always monetary in nature.
When there is no obvious reason, the purpose is always monetary in nature.
In Ontario (and probably other provinces in Canada), there is a strong financial incentive by the province to universities (in the form of tuition matching) to maintain a high retention rate.
Now that's perverse... It seems like our short-sighted vision is screwing us in realms of both finance and education.
On Cuba the higher education is free but if you study medicine you have to work a few years on a government assignment before you can even choose where to work and you may not emigrate. Sounds pretty draconian but compared with the cabal of the student debt system and the effect it has on the prices of the medical care, maybe not so much?
Could be. I couldn't compare rates, but the general trends seemed similar to me.
As another Spaniard I agree with you. But degrees about tourism can get you a job here. As I am learning English, I would suggest: Use "at length",don't repeat finish so many times, finish (complete, get, achieve) a degree, become pointless (become less valuable, worthless),
which (that) is what I now best. About grade inflation in the US: http://www.gradeinflation.com/,
https://blog.prepscholar.com/average-college-gpa-by-major it seems that Grade inflation is more rampant in non-STEM fields because assignments are usually more open to interpretation,
https://blog.prepscholar.com/average-college-gpa-by-major it seems that Grade inflation is more rampant in non-STEM fields because assignments are usually more open to interpretation,
No problem, since I'm learning Japanese while living in Tokyo I've lost quite a bit of English. Repetition is your friend here as it's the only way to be able to speak with 90+% of the people and for them to understand. Thanks for the tips, improved it a bit :)
Thanks for being so open, I know I shouldn't give suggestions but watch out for karoshi culture, overwork and burnout, surely you should be able to cope with all that.
I typed that from the beach, that's why it was so badly worded; so don't worry about karoshi :)
I don't mind and take everything with a grain of salt, but you are right, it'd not be good for most people.
I don't mind and take everything with a grain of salt, but you are right, it'd not be good for most people.
As a non-native English speaker, these suggestions are very bad.
Every single one of them, if implemented, would make the original post worse and the phrasing more awkward.
I may be wrong in this (I'm not a native speaker after all), but at least take it into account as an counterpoint of the above...
Every single one of them, if implemented, would make the original post worse and the phrasing more awkward.
I may be wrong in this (I'm not a native speaker after all), but at least take it into account as an counterpoint of the above...
Generally you avoid repetition in english, particularly when writing. It’s more of a stylistic thing so no one will misunderstand you if you don’t.
It's still pretty difficult for many Americans to finish university.
Only 55% of students that start at a 4-year university program graduate within 6 years. Only 19.5% of students that start at a non-flagship, 4-year program finish on time.
Only 55% of students that start at a 4-year university program graduate within 6 years. Only 19.5% of students that start at a non-flagship, 4-year program finish on time.
> If everyone can finish University, then having a university title becomes pointless
I think it only becomes pointless if there are limited work opportunities for your studies, however, we're lacking computer science people and having a degree almost guarantees that you'll get a job. In our current context, people who study a 1-3 month course in a code bootcamp are getting jobs, a degree with inflated score still is a degree.
I'm not saying that having an engineering degree is a guarantee that you are competent, and that someone without a degree, or a completely unrelated degree cannot be competent.
I think it only becomes pointless if there are limited work opportunities for your studies, however, we're lacking computer science people and having a degree almost guarantees that you'll get a job. In our current context, people who study a 1-3 month course in a code bootcamp are getting jobs, a degree with inflated score still is a degree.
I'm not saying that having an engineering degree is a guarantee that you are competent, and that someone without a degree, or a completely unrelated degree cannot be competent.
Can you share more information about score inflation for STEM degrees in the United States? This is the first I've heard of this phenomenon.
And yet in Spain when we finish a CS degree at a top uni (UPM, UPC, etc) all we can aspire to is a 25,000€ / year salary with a ridiculous progression in most cases, whereas in the US it's not uncommon to climb to 150k fairly quickly.
I agree that salaries for college-educated people are shockingly low in Spain, I think it is a reflection of the lower general (not necessarily individual) productivity in Spain - as in bureaucracy, labor laws, etc.
Please keep in mind that MANY college-educated people in the US never get to even $100K (teachers, architects, there are more).
Also, it takes at least 10 years (perhaps more) to get to $150K for software engineers (with a B.S. degree), and you need to live in one of the bigger cities (where the cost of living is higher).
The numbers are a bit skewed here because a lot of the posters on HN live/work in the S.F./Silicon Valley area, which is a world onto itself.
Please keep in mind that MANY college-educated people in the US never get to even $100K (teachers, architects, there are more).
Also, it takes at least 10 years (perhaps more) to get to $150K for software engineers (with a B.S. degree), and you need to live in one of the bigger cities (where the cost of living is higher).
The numbers are a bit skewed here because a lot of the posters on HN live/work in the S.F./Silicon Valley area, which is a world onto itself.
I also forgot to mention that under-25 unemployment in Spain is around 35%-40%, with general unemployment rates at 16%.
Other than not being burdened by debt, Spanish STEM majors are comparatively worse off in pretty much any post-graduation dimension you can think of compared to Americans.
Other than not being burdened by debt, Spanish STEM majors are comparatively worse off in pretty much any post-graduation dimension you can think of compared to Americans.
But if the government isn't going to subsidize learning, in a way you have to give a degree to everyone who "buys" one. Having someone go 6 figures in debt and walk away with nothing is just too destructive.
There you go, the only logical conclusion is that going 6 figures in debt is crazy so the government should subsidize it.
I would recommend this book:
> The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money
The title is a bit much but it explains in great detail the problem with 'inflation' and what you lose by this process.
> The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money
The title is a bit much but it explains in great detail the problem with 'inflation' and what you lose by this process.
> In Spain, Germany, France, Italy, etc if you get a degree in STEM it means you put a lot of effort. [...] But the requirements to finish the degree have not changed so drastically as in the US so going to University is quite a good choice.
TLDR: As a Spaniard, I strongly disagree. Neither our universities as institutions nor our teachers as individuals have much incentive to (fairly) fail students, whereas they have many incentives to (unfairly) pass them. As a result, the level has dropped significantly in the latest decades.
The requirements in our degrees have plummeted since 20-30 years ago. Seriously, check exams from 20 years ago for ANY subject that was taught back then, and compare them to last year's. The difference is staggering.
There are several reasons for this:
First, because the level in high-school has been dropping similarly. Students get to the university with a lower base level, and hence they cannot be taught at the same level than before.
Second, because more and more people go to uni as time passes. This also drags down the average level of the average class (with respect to when the uni population was composed mainly of good and MOTIVATED students).
Third, because -contrary to what's been said here- our universities gain significantly from passing students. For one, each degree taught by a school is evaluated regarding the percentage of students that finish the degree in a set time, percentage of students that quit, and percentage of course passes [1]. This is the main evaluation of "quality" of a degree, and not hitting the set goals will lead to the degree being dropped.
Also, teachers gain nothing from failing students. Most will just accept it (because most know they really don't deserve to pass). However, some will complain. Very loudly. And handling such complaints is a huge time-sink not just for the involved teacher, but also for the department and the School itself. The easy way out is to just pass people. Many teachers openly admit that they pass lots of students who they don't think have achieved the goals of their subjects. And many students themselves admit it too.
[1] https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2007/BOE-A-2007-18770-consolid... , Article 8
TLDR: As a Spaniard, I strongly disagree. Neither our universities as institutions nor our teachers as individuals have much incentive to (fairly) fail students, whereas they have many incentives to (unfairly) pass them. As a result, the level has dropped significantly in the latest decades.
The requirements in our degrees have plummeted since 20-30 years ago. Seriously, check exams from 20 years ago for ANY subject that was taught back then, and compare them to last year's. The difference is staggering.
There are several reasons for this:
First, because the level in high-school has been dropping similarly. Students get to the university with a lower base level, and hence they cannot be taught at the same level than before.
Second, because more and more people go to uni as time passes. This also drags down the average level of the average class (with respect to when the uni population was composed mainly of good and MOTIVATED students).
Third, because -contrary to what's been said here- our universities gain significantly from passing students. For one, each degree taught by a school is evaluated regarding the percentage of students that finish the degree in a set time, percentage of students that quit, and percentage of course passes [1]. This is the main evaluation of "quality" of a degree, and not hitting the set goals will lead to the degree being dropped.
Also, teachers gain nothing from failing students. Most will just accept it (because most know they really don't deserve to pass). However, some will complain. Very loudly. And handling such complaints is a huge time-sink not just for the involved teacher, but also for the department and the School itself. The easy way out is to just pass people. Many teachers openly admit that they pass lots of students who they don't think have achieved the goals of their subjects. And many students themselves admit it too.
[1] https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2007/BOE-A-2007-18770-consolid... , Article 8
Europe is able to keep its colleges and Universities free or mostly free because the European collegiate experience is a much simpler and stripped down version of what you find at US Universities.
In the US, living on campus is the norm, a vast array of amenities and services are offered to students, and University bureaucracies are huge and growing by the year.
Contrast this with Europe, where many Universities are simpler affairs with students living at home, commuting to classes (which have higher student to professor ratios) at Universities without student centers, gyms, etc.
It's not that the US through sheer stupidity is missing out on some easy fix for college costs, the issue is simply that in the US Universities offer more than in Europe. This is in keeping with our overall culture.
In the US, living on campus is the norm, a vast array of amenities and services are offered to students, and University bureaucracies are huge and growing by the year.
Contrast this with Europe, where many Universities are simpler affairs with students living at home, commuting to classes (which have higher student to professor ratios) at Universities without student centers, gyms, etc.
It's not that the US through sheer stupidity is missing out on some easy fix for college costs, the issue is simply that in the US Universities offer more than in Europe. This is in keeping with our overall culture.
Having studied in both US and Germany, US universities seem to have a much lighter focus on studying itself. The negative view would be that the are a lot more distractions like fraternities, sorts teams etc. Another view would be that there is a strong focus on network building. Fraternities and the whole school loyalty thing are practically made for this. It's a clear advantage to have those connections for the individual. I do wonder what this does to society as a whole. Maybe it makes matching people to jobs easier, maybe it makes it easier to find people to even start a company with. I could easily see how this caused silicon valley to be adding UC Berkeley and Stanford rather than TU Munich or the Sorbonne. Maybe it's mostly a zero sun game that's very expensive?
To be honest I don't like the US model. All the extra fluff isn't helpful in any substantive non-zero-sum way.
You have the freedom to be entirely focused on academics in the US, participating in research etc. But you also have the freedom to live off your loans without any serious focus on academics, treating college like a vacation more than anything else. For the "students" who are tempted by the latter option, college is a waste.
You have the freedom to be entirely focused on academics in the US, participating in research etc. But you also have the freedom to live off your loans without any serious focus on academics, treating college like a vacation more than anything else. For the "students" who are tempted by the latter option, college is a waste.
The US model is in force (with variations) in the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark, Northern Ireland, Latvia, Iceland, Hungary, and for that matter, Australia. The conditions vary greatly, and I'm sure I've missed some.
The European commission already tried to swap all systems for a loan based one twice.
Which "European model" are you talking about ? If there is any of the models worthy of being called "European model", surely it'd be the commission's model, which would be the US model (with the state going after students who fail to pay, not sure about bankruptcy cases).
The European commission already tried to swap all systems for a loan based one twice.
Which "European model" are you talking about ? If there is any of the models worthy of being called "European model", surely it'd be the commission's model, which would be the US model (with the state going after students who fail to pay, not sure about bankruptcy cases).
I think the model torviking and I were contrasting with US is not how you pay for education but around facilities and culture at universities. Do the countries you listed have universities with lots of facilities that aren't directly related to learning, strong emphasize on university loyalty with fraternities, sports teams everyone celebrates etc?
Yes in part, but the mechanism is important, and what is being solved more so.
The USA is like the EU, where the various states vary as much if not more than the countries in the EU. The USA is far more racially varied than individual EU countries. The USA has used two big main policy tools to right wrongs of the past: home ownership and education. This has led to terrible policies, like the crazy mortgage crisis and student loan act, that means you can never get out of the debt through bankruptcy, which is morally extremely questionable.
When you have debt that can never liquidate, things get a little crazy, and a lot of the US college craziness is as a result of too much guaranteed money.
The USA is like the EU, where the various states vary as much if not more than the countries in the EU. The USA is far more racially varied than individual EU countries. The USA has used two big main policy tools to right wrongs of the past: home ownership and education. This has led to terrible policies, like the crazy mortgage crisis and student loan act, that means you can never get out of the debt through bankruptcy, which is morally extremely questionable.
When you have debt that can never liquidate, things get a little crazy, and a lot of the US college craziness is as a result of too much guaranteed money.
I'm not convinced. I've seen both and the difference in amenities does not add up to dozens of $ of tuition per student or more
You need to look at the bureaucracies. They are huge and growing. I've worked in University administration, I've seen the cost breakdowns. Personnel and administrative costs represent the bulk of University spending.
As the article points out, the economic miracle of Norway is fueled by oil and gas, just like Spain economic miracle was fueled by cheap industrial labour and construction decades ago.
Unlike Spain, they have been wise enough to use their money to diversify their economy, aware that this won't last forever.
Sadly there are few lessons we can learn and apply here to other countries, as not everyone has a tiny population and literally sits on mountains of money. Still I'm looking forward to see if their efforts pay off, and we don't find that the next generation of norwegians have a drop of 30% in their disposable income with respect to their parents.
Unlike Spain, they have been wise enough to use their money to diversify their economy, aware that this won't last forever.
Sadly there are few lessons we can learn and apply here to other countries, as not everyone has a tiny population and literally sits on mountains of money. Still I'm looking forward to see if their efforts pay off, and we don't find that the next generation of norwegians have a drop of 30% in their disposable income with respect to their parents.
"the economic miracle of Norway is fueled by oil and gas"
It can't be that simple. Plenty of other countries have lots of oil and gas (Russia, Venezuela, the US) and they aren't necessarily having economic miracles.
It can't be that simple. Plenty of other countries have lots of oil and gas (Russia, Venezuela, the US) and they aren't necessarily having economic miracles.
The lesson of Norway is how to manage a valuable natural resource. I.e. Don't sell it off in a one time auction to the highest bidder who then reaps all the gains. Norway tightly controls access to its oil and the profits have been very well managed.
I agree that other nations like Venezuela and the US have squandered their natural wealth when compared with Norway's careful management.
That being said, I agree with the parent that the aforementioned lesson isn't particularly universal, as a perquisite is having a plentiful and valuable natural resource to manage.
So what lesson can a country like the UK or Germany take from Norway, given their natural resources are, for the most part, already exploited?
I agree that other nations like Venezuela and the US have squandered their natural wealth when compared with Norway's careful management.
That being said, I agree with the parent that the aforementioned lesson isn't particularly universal, as a perquisite is having a plentiful and valuable natural resource to manage.
So what lesson can a country like the UK or Germany take from Norway, given their natural resources are, for the most part, already exploited?
Norway has 9-10x the oil output per capita of the US and over 5x that of Russia. Norway is a well run petro state. For the US to match Norway on that, it'd have to produce more than the equivalent of all the annual oil output on earth.
Total oil production per day per capita in 2017.
Norway: 1.9m bbl/day, 0.365 barrels per day per capita.
US: 13m bbl/day, 0.04 barrels per day per capita.
Russia: 11.2m bbl/day, 0.07 barrels per day per capita.
Total oil production per day per capita in 2017.
Norway: 1.9m bbl/day, 0.365 barrels per day per capita.
US: 13m bbl/day, 0.04 barrels per day per capita.
Russia: 11.2m bbl/day, 0.07 barrels per day per capita.
Interestingly, an Iraqi immigrant was responsible for setting up Norway's wealth management system: https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...
I always think about this when I read comments on HN declaring that immigration implies a breakdown/dilution in the value of the host nation's "superior culture".
I always think about this when I read comments on HN declaring that immigration implies a breakdown/dilution in the value of the host nation's "superior culture".
Furthermore, Sweden and Denmark have similar outcomes, without the oil and gas
Venezuela has almost totally collapsed under Chavez-Maduro's "socialism".
Russia is a kleptocracy of Putin and his inner circles of billionaires.
The US economy has seen a fairly significant boost from shale gas and fracking.
Better counter-examples than those 3 would be Saudi Arabia and (to a lesser extent) Nigeria. And yes, as those 2 demonstrate it's not that simple, it's easy to fall prey to "the resource curse" aka "Dutch disease": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
Norway has been wiser in its approach.
Russia is a kleptocracy of Putin and his inner circles of billionaires.
The US economy has seen a fairly significant boost from shale gas and fracking.
Better counter-examples than those 3 would be Saudi Arabia and (to a lesser extent) Nigeria. And yes, as those 2 demonstrate it's not that simple, it's easy to fall prey to "the resource curse" aka "Dutch disease": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
Norway has been wiser in its approach.
The difference is in the political system. Read The Dictator's Handbook for more on that (but also, just read that book, it's an awesome book).
Russia and Venezuella never diversified their economy which made them highly reliable on oil industry, promoted corruption/populism politics and backfired badly when oil prices dropped.
Looks like Spaniards were really keen to build them houses and all EU structural help went into residential construction. OK, young families now own cheep places, but where should they work?
Affordable education is probably a big part of how they do this.
In northern Europe it is a clear political decision to invest in education. You'll politicians argue that we can't afford not to educate our teenagers, as it would make the welfare state unsustainable.
Also, huge credit to Norway for how it handled it's olie money :)
In northern Europe it is a clear political decision to invest in education. You'll politicians argue that we can't afford not to educate our teenagers, as it would make the welfare state unsustainable.
Also, huge credit to Norway for how it handled it's olie money :)
In my not so humble opinion, it all comes down to a short- vs. farsighted culture and the resulting fundamental attitude towards kids.
In the US, kids are seen at worst a nuisance and at best a personal luxury.
In most of the northern/western EU, kids are seen as the future workers, decision makers and keepers of the whole economy 30 years into the future.
All of the symptoms you are seeing, be it maternal / paternal leave, financial support for parents, universal health care at least for kids, (mostly) free education — from child care up to college level — how teachers are selected and paid and much more are resulting from this attitude.
There's downsides, such as a high tax level, but observations like this one show that America is slowly coming into the age where you see the longterm effects of neglecting its treasure and letting inequality explode rampantly.
In the US, kids are seen at worst a nuisance and at best a personal luxury.
In most of the northern/western EU, kids are seen as the future workers, decision makers and keepers of the whole economy 30 years into the future.
All of the symptoms you are seeing, be it maternal / paternal leave, financial support for parents, universal health care at least for kids, (mostly) free education — from child care up to college level — how teachers are selected and paid and much more are resulting from this attitude.
There's downsides, such as a high tax level, but observations like this one show that America is slowly coming into the age where you see the longterm effects of neglecting its treasure and letting inequality explode rampantly.
"In the US, kids are seen at worst a nuisance and at best a personal luxury."
That's nonsense. The US is all about children. That doesn't result in long term thinking about their education or maternal/parental leave but children are not seen as a nuisance.
That's nonsense. The US is all about children. That doesn't result in long term thinking about their education or maternal/parental leave but children are not seen as a nuisance.
I see both perspectives. As a culture that supports kids the US is way behind on maternity/paternity leave, childcare, leisure time overall, healthcare, higher level education. I see the increase in recent generations leaving religion has created a gap in social support, too (not sure how this maps to places other than the US). The US has a huge consumer culture for kids; suburbs are one way for kids to grow up, cheap toys and entertainment. Movies and entertainment have notoriously targeted PG-13 in recent decades because they're the largest audience (most free time and disposable income).
I feel like in the US a century ago there were incentives to have more kids; need for labor, childhood mortality. These incentives have gone away and disincentives have taken their place; women entering the workforce, educating children until their mid-20s before entering the workforce as a career, and little things like the costs needed to raise a child[1]. We haven't really changed anything to improve those disincentives and the results speak for themselves. People are having fewer kids later in life.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)
I feel like in the US a century ago there were incentives to have more kids; need for labor, childhood mortality. These incentives have gone away and disincentives have taken their place; women entering the workforce, educating children until their mid-20s before entering the workforce as a career, and little things like the costs needed to raise a child[1]. We haven't really changed anything to improve those disincentives and the results speak for themselves. People are having fewer kids later in life.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)
I disagree, anecdotally, many of my peers with children recommend not have children and also regret not eloping.
Just try to tell it folks in bay area paying $2000-$3000 for childcare monthly.
The US cult of the personal interest above all else must have some effect, even on politics. It's a cultural problem, when corruption or self-enrichment is tolerated in public offices where the holders are supposed to act as good stewards of the common project.
I think cynicism and acceptance are two sides of the same coin, unfortunately.
One cannot cite high tax levels as a downside without looking at what you get for the bargain. High price is not a downside when you get better value for money.
I think cynicism and acceptance are two sides of the same coin, unfortunately.
One cannot cite high tax levels as a downside without looking at what you get for the bargain. High price is not a downside when you get better value for money.
I sometimes jokingly view the welfare state with high taxes as an index fund whose underlying assests is people.
I like it because there aren't many legal means by which I can invest in humans :)
And if you're trying to diversify your portfolio, why wouldn't you want to bet on humans?
I like it because there aren't many legal means by which I can invest in humans :)
And if you're trying to diversify your portfolio, why wouldn't you want to bet on humans?
Great way to put it! This is literally the argument for the index funds, right? You are profiting from the economic activity of all businesses in the field by paying an index share price = tax.
Diversifying is a good notion too, since it on average has benefits even though detractors want to hold up individual counterexamples.
> In the US, kids are seen at worst a nuisance and at best a personal luxury.
Please, if you may, explain why you think this is so.
Please, if you may, explain why you think this is so.
I think so mainly because of the near total lack of societal support of bringing them up to be educated, responsible adults with opportunities. If you want to have them, fine. But then, you better be prepared to be able to pay for health care, child care and college. Without maternal / paternal leave, having kids also puts their parents at a financial and career disadvantage to non-parents, so they are indeed a luxury.
There’s a lot of fear here that giving people something for free means that the people receiving it will abuse it. People who want free education are viewed as “entitled.”
The US is really weird about children, they’re the most important thing in most peoples minds but as soon as they turn 18 they’re dangerous and entitled.
The US is really weird about children, they’re the most important thing in most peoples minds but as soon as they turn 18 they’re dangerous and entitled.
The underlying reason is racism. White people dislike the idea of a social system that benefits everybody, because that would include the blacks. This is even true of desperately poor white people, who are very numerous, but would rather deny a social program to black people even if that means they also cannot benefit from it.
Many of the countries we think of as quite successful and wealthy and educated and having many social programs are also shockingly homogeneous, so it’s hard to know if, say, Finland would be exactly as nice if they had more different races there. But we can say for certain that racism is holding America back.
Many of the countries we think of as quite successful and wealthy and educated and having many social programs are also shockingly homogeneous, so it’s hard to know if, say, Finland would be exactly as nice if they had more different races there. But we can say for certain that racism is holding America back.
Just for the record, Norway is just about on par with the US if you count foreign born population, and Germany is even slightly above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm
US might be doing it wrong, but it does spend a lot of money on children
There's all sorts of subsidies and programs that only apply to kids. Maybe they aren't as big as they ought to be, but other poster has a weird conclusion going there.
For instance, 35 million children get health insurance from the government:
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica...
That's close to ½ of the kids in the country.
For instance, 35 million children get health insurance from the government:
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica...
That's close to ½ of the kids in the country.
> That's close to ½ of the kids in the country.
Um, that's a good thing?
Um, that's a good thing?
My intention was to contrast against "near total lack of societal support", not to state an opinion about Medicaid and CHIP.
I think that the point was that "½ of the kids in the country" sounds very low. Admittedly that's not "near total lack of societal support" but still, half of the kids are not provided with something as basic as health insurance from the gov
More than half if that is what you want to say.
In a private insurance model, ½ is a lot. I suppose it can be fun to act all astonished that the US has a private insurance model.
In a private insurance model, ½ is a lot. I suppose it can be fun to act all astonished that the US has a private insurance model.
I am in the EU, I find kids a nuisance personally. I couldn't possibly see how they could be regarded as a luxury however.
Often it's framed as: if you want the welfare state to exist when you retire we must invest in education to stay competitive in a world where masses of the 3rd world are increasingly able to do our jobs cheaper.
The welfare system is in many ways the ultimate index fund, as it earns back it's investment via. taxes :)
The welfare system is in many ways the ultimate index fund, as it earns back it's investment via. taxes :)
Probably true for wealthy decision makers elite, who get to exploit the labor immigration and incumbent workers too by denying them of child benefits and vacation.
Many countries have such socialist systems and are very poor.
To cherry pick literally the most successful of such systems is not representative. (Though you could still be essentially correct)
Also, Americans, on average, a much richer in the end.
The American problem could have to do with 'longer lifespan' meaning 'longer in school' meaning 'longer in debt with higher salaries afterwards' , i.e. the 'higher highs' and 'lower lows' exposing a social problem that was not apparent before.
I agree it's an issue though.
To cherry pick literally the most successful of such systems is not representative. (Though you could still be essentially correct)
Also, Americans, on average, a much richer in the end.
The American problem could have to do with 'longer lifespan' meaning 'longer in school' meaning 'longer in debt with higher salaries afterwards' , i.e. the 'higher highs' and 'lower lows' exposing a social problem that was not apparent before.
I agree it's an issue though.
"Affordable education is probably a big part of how they do this."
Either the community/state pays for it, or the student.
Someone has to.
In the case of Norway, it's you and I, i.e. Oil.
Do you know Kuwaitis go to school for free as well eh?
Norway's sovereign wealth fund is about 8% the size of the US economy, and also the size of the entire Canadian economy.
So it's hard to make comparisons with Norway on anything.
Either the community/state pays for it, or the student.
Someone has to.
In the case of Norway, it's you and I, i.e. Oil.
Do you know Kuwaitis go to school for free as well eh?
Norway's sovereign wealth fund is about 8% the size of the US economy, and also the size of the entire Canadian economy.
So it's hard to make comparisons with Norway on anything.
While not as bad off as the US, we are still seeing similar trends. They still can't afford to buy apartments until their 30s if they have good jobs, while their parents bought houses at the age of 20 working as factory drones.
There are a ton of reasons.
- Adolescence lasts longer (until mid-20s) which means that people don't grow up so fast anymore. Why? Because of the wealth of the societies they live in.
- More people study. Many are around 25-27 when they finally start to work.
- Real wages didn't increase although inflation did.
- The workforce is divided: Too many marketing experts, but a shortage of craftsmen. Too many people want jobs where they just sit in an office.
- Some millennials have seen that their parents work insanely hard; they don't want to repeat their mistakes and miss important aspects of life. They value their time more and accept compromises in their salaries.
- Many young people lack money management skills. Delayed gratification is very hard to learn if you're used to a certain type of living.
- Real estate gets used as an investment opportunity which drives housing prices up. This wasn't so drastic when other more profitable investment opportunities existed.
- The job market is professionalized and more efficient, degrees get valued highly but lack their former signal effect because everyone has a degree. Therefore it's harder to find good opportunities. You need more skills and more luck to succeed in this system.
We can't just say "The previous generation had more", we have to analyze thoroughly why they could pay for a mortgage in their early 20s and how their lifestyles differed.
I'm around 20y/o in Europe and I think $60k is a low salary for someone in their 30s (with work experience of 10-15 years). I can make $10k in a good month without any degree. Maybe millennials should learn to negotiate better and demonstrate real business value to their employers. I know many people who make €7-15k (which is a top-10%/top-5% salary in Germany) who are in their 20s or early 30s.
I think many don't understand how money works and that money is just a number. So few people think strategically about their salaries and just accept their circumstances.
- Adolescence lasts longer (until mid-20s) which means that people don't grow up so fast anymore. Why? Because of the wealth of the societies they live in.
- More people study. Many are around 25-27 when they finally start to work.
- Real wages didn't increase although inflation did.
- The workforce is divided: Too many marketing experts, but a shortage of craftsmen. Too many people want jobs where they just sit in an office.
- Some millennials have seen that their parents work insanely hard; they don't want to repeat their mistakes and miss important aspects of life. They value their time more and accept compromises in their salaries.
- Many young people lack money management skills. Delayed gratification is very hard to learn if you're used to a certain type of living.
- Real estate gets used as an investment opportunity which drives housing prices up. This wasn't so drastic when other more profitable investment opportunities existed.
- The job market is professionalized and more efficient, degrees get valued highly but lack their former signal effect because everyone has a degree. Therefore it's harder to find good opportunities. You need more skills and more luck to succeed in this system.
We can't just say "The previous generation had more", we have to analyze thoroughly why they could pay for a mortgage in their early 20s and how their lifestyles differed.
I'm around 20y/o in Europe and I think $60k is a low salary for someone in their 30s (with work experience of 10-15 years). I can make $10k in a good month without any degree. Maybe millennials should learn to negotiate better and demonstrate real business value to their employers. I know many people who make €7-15k (which is a top-10%/top-5% salary in Germany) who are in their 20s or early 30s.
I think many don't understand how money works and that money is just a number. So few people think strategically about their salaries and just accept their circumstances.
> I think many don't understand how money works and that money is just a number. So few people think strategically about their salaries and just accept their circumstances.
You should be more humble. You are on an "hacker" website. Did someone say we can't hack money? If you earn 10k a month, that's great, what about sharing it among the people who didn't have the same luck than you?
People aren't born with the same information environment and legacy. Some people can afford to take risks and earn even more while some simply cannot.
You should be more humble. You are on an "hacker" website. Did someone say we can't hack money? If you earn 10k a month, that's great, what about sharing it among the people who didn't have the same luck than you?
People aren't born with the same information environment and legacy. Some people can afford to take risks and earn even more while some simply cannot.
> what about sharing it among the people who didn't have the same luck than you?
That's one big thing what taxes are for: To redistribute wealth. And I have employees which earn good money. I don't know what you expect from me.
> Some people can afford to take risks and earn even more while some simply cannot.
That's why a solid social system is so important. It gives us the room to take risks because we can be sure that we can get food, shelter and healthcare. See [1].
[1]: https://youtu.be/A9UmdY0E8hU
That's one big thing what taxes are for: To redistribute wealth. And I have employees which earn good money. I don't know what you expect from me.
> Some people can afford to take risks and earn even more while some simply cannot.
That's why a solid social system is so important. It gives us the room to take risks because we can be sure that we can get food, shelter and healthcare. See [1].
[1]: https://youtu.be/A9UmdY0E8hU
> Some people can afford to take risks and earn even more while some simply cannot.
I would like to know what you mean specifically. When you are jobless, the German system gives you enough to rent an apartment and eat something. It's not luxurious, but it's better than those anti-social systems like those in the US. You don't have to worry about getting enough food.
When these basic needs are met, you are free to open your mind. Most people don't - even those that have jobs - and I think that's pretty sad. Many people accept the pointless work and shitty environments because the fear of social decline is so big in their heads. I think most of those points you talk about can be changed on the psychological level. Money doesn't necessarily change this, it's a mindset.
I would like to know what you mean specifically. When you are jobless, the German system gives you enough to rent an apartment and eat something. It's not luxurious, but it's better than those anti-social systems like those in the US. You don't have to worry about getting enough food.
When these basic needs are met, you are free to open your mind. Most people don't - even those that have jobs - and I think that's pretty sad. Many people accept the pointless work and shitty environments because the fear of social decline is so big in their heads. I think most of those points you talk about can be changed on the psychological level. Money doesn't necessarily change this, it's a mindset.
When I talk about environment and legacy, I talk about your parents, your grand-parents and your grand-grand-parents.
If you are born Germans and your parents are Germans since generations, there are higher chances they teached you how the system works since the first day. It's probable they accumulated a social network of friendly lawyers, politicians, or any other persons the system already rewarded, and told you what to do to make sure you keep your privileges and protect the system.
Trusting the system when you are a foreigner is way more difficult, especially when you know no one.
You can't compare the lifestyle of someone who lives with $10k/month with someone who is clueless and, because of lack of information and ressources, cannot defend his/her own human rights.
We are not born equal, if your parents are richer than mines, you are probably privileged before we even proved our skills.
If you are born Germans and your parents are Germans since generations, there are higher chances they teached you how the system works since the first day. It's probable they accumulated a social network of friendly lawyers, politicians, or any other persons the system already rewarded, and told you what to do to make sure you keep your privileges and protect the system.
Trusting the system when you are a foreigner is way more difficult, especially when you know no one.
You can't compare the lifestyle of someone who lives with $10k/month with someone who is clueless and, because of lack of information and ressources, cannot defend his/her own human rights.
We are not born equal, if your parents are richer than mines, you are probably privileged before we even proved our skills.
There are many assumptions in your comment - maybe I can provide some anecdata: My mother is from india (so I know what you mean with the problems for foreigners) and my parents were not wealthy for a long time. They still aren't extremely wealthy and I can make more money than my parents combined (but without that job security).
All they've told me was how important education is. But I've dropped out of college anyways. I wasn't very good in school. I didn't care.
I agree with you in general, but not everyone who's able to achieve something got it naturally. My father works 50-70 hours a week and he was the best in school because he had no other chance to study otherwise (he wasn't allowed to get a degree and needed the best grades to get an exception; GDR was a hostile place for intelligent people). My grandfather worked since he was 13 (this was shortly after the war; his father died).
I'm not the type of person who thinks that the world owes anyone anything.
I've learned about how the system works in economics classes in school (we had a very good teacher who showed us the BS in the world) and through psychology books.
There are many money-poor people who give their children the opportunity to grow. As I've said: Many times, it isn't about money and privilege. It's about attitude and mindset - a specific mindset can lead to privileges. Not taking anything for granted, for example. Not immerse oneself in self-pity.
- - -
I still agree with you in general, because the numbers are very clear about it: Social mobility is very low in Germany.
Most poor people have other problems holding them back e.g. some parents were abused in their childhood, so they're unable to give proper emotional support. Many are jealous of the opportunities their kids have (not because they're bad people, but because they never felt loved). Escaping those vicious cycles is extremely hard and we're currently not doing enough to change it. But I still think that our current system enables people who value education and have a certain mental health to move upwards - much better than the system in the US. You don't need to be rich to get good education here or accumulate big debt.
All they've told me was how important education is. But I've dropped out of college anyways. I wasn't very good in school. I didn't care.
I agree with you in general, but not everyone who's able to achieve something got it naturally. My father works 50-70 hours a week and he was the best in school because he had no other chance to study otherwise (he wasn't allowed to get a degree and needed the best grades to get an exception; GDR was a hostile place for intelligent people). My grandfather worked since he was 13 (this was shortly after the war; his father died).
I'm not the type of person who thinks that the world owes anyone anything.
I've learned about how the system works in economics classes in school (we had a very good teacher who showed us the BS in the world) and through psychology books.
There are many money-poor people who give their children the opportunity to grow. As I've said: Many times, it isn't about money and privilege. It's about attitude and mindset - a specific mindset can lead to privileges. Not taking anything for granted, for example. Not immerse oneself in self-pity.
- - -
I still agree with you in general, because the numbers are very clear about it: Social mobility is very low in Germany.
Most poor people have other problems holding them back e.g. some parents were abused in their childhood, so they're unable to give proper emotional support. Many are jealous of the opportunities their kids have (not because they're bad people, but because they never felt loved). Escaping those vicious cycles is extremely hard and we're currently not doing enough to change it. But I still think that our current system enables people who value education and have a certain mental health to move upwards - much better than the system in the US. You don't need to be rich to get good education here or accumulate big debt.
These are some good points, but people still compare themselves to the prior generation and notice, that while they have a whole bunch of luxuries their parents never had [1], that they also can't afford other luxuries. Like housing. My parents had a huge house and property by the time they turned 30. While some people still buy houses in their 20s, they're usually small shit houses with tiny properties.
[1] The whole computer thing, generally much better healthcare, much better daycare offerings if you're the sort of person that wants or has to give her children away, etc.; or even things like being able to buy a used car for 5k with excellent interior, crash safety and gimmicks. (But you of course can't afford to fuel it, so maybe that's a moot point).
[1] The whole computer thing, generally much better healthcare, much better daycare offerings if you're the sort of person that wants or has to give her children away, etc.; or even things like being able to buy a used car for 5k with excellent interior, crash safety and gimmicks. (But you of course can't afford to fuel it, so maybe that's a moot point).
> My parents had a huge house and property by the time they turned 30.
How much was it? You can make 3500€ pre-tax with a bachelors degree in many fields. That's around 2200€ after taxes. Two people can live comfortably with ~2500€ and lay away 1900€ a month. You will not be able to buy a property in a big city, but after 10 years you'll be able to pay for a small house. And you even get a tax break for it.
Today it's uncommon to be a couple that takes a mortgage together - young people don't really trust relationships in the same way anymore. This halves their net worth to buy a house.
I think stable relationships are extremely important for the wealth of our parents. Many older people are now broke because they've split up with their partners. So if you want to have the same wealth, you also have to find a partner who's up for this challenge.
How much was it? You can make 3500€ pre-tax with a bachelors degree in many fields. That's around 2200€ after taxes. Two people can live comfortably with ~2500€ and lay away 1900€ a month. You will not be able to buy a property in a big city, but after 10 years you'll be able to pay for a small house. And you even get a tax break for it.
Today it's uncommon to be a couple that takes a mortgage together - young people don't really trust relationships in the same way anymore. This halves their net worth to buy a house.
I think stable relationships are extremely important for the wealth of our parents. Many older people are now broke because they've split up with their partners. So if you want to have the same wealth, you also have to find a partner who's up for this challenge.
In what country ? 2200 euros is less than £20k. For what its worth a couple of weeks ago I got a pitch to work in Portugal @100K euros or almost £90k.
What a lot of people don't realise that some eu countries where before they joined the eu - developing countries
What a lot of people don't realise that some eu countries where before they joined the eu - developing countries
> Two people can
Like many, they did this on a single income.
Like many, they did this on a single income.
Society can't expect the value of labor to remain the same if you double the supply by adding women to it. Plus automation and globalization means no way Americans could continue consuming so much per capita more than the rest of the world. Unless via the use of force, usually military, which the US does but it's not as effective as before.
> Society can't expect the value of labor to remain the same if you double the supply by adding women to it.
This sounds funny if you think about it.
Women fought a long time for emancipation which also means they have the same obligations w.r.t work and other activities.
Now they work and the market corrected itself to account for the new labor supply. In the end: No one won except companies. Sounds like a bad deal in general.
- - -
I don't think that emancipation is bad. I think it's a good thing and necessary for social progress. But I think it's hilarious that good intentions can have these unwanted consequences. I don't want to offend anyone, but I'm too cynical to not laugh about it.
This sounds funny if you think about it.
Women fought a long time for emancipation which also means they have the same obligations w.r.t work and other activities.
Now they work and the market corrected itself to account for the new labor supply. In the end: No one won except companies. Sounds like a bad deal in general.
- - -
I don't think that emancipation is bad. I think it's a good thing and necessary for social progress. But I think it's hilarious that good intentions can have these unwanted consequences. I don't want to offend anyone, but I'm too cynical to not laugh about it.
Women who now finally have freedom due to the financial security afforded to them by being able to work certainly "won".
This certainly wasn't my cleverest moment, but I still find it very interesting that we had to pay a certain price to get this privilege. It seems like there's no free lunch in many types of social progress.
While I don't think the supply was doubled (at least not here), yeah, that seems about right. What this meant is the middle class got nuked. You can't have a middle class family any more with only one parent working; as a mother you're pretty much coerced to work to make ends meet (or take a drastic standard of living and social cut). As an added bonus, people will tell you that you have a bad character and you are morally wrong if you want to look after your own kids yourself.
And I think this is one of the most impressive feats here (besides turning, or rather directing, feminism into mainly being about reducing labour costs); a lot like spin doctoring.
Instead of gaining actual, actionable choice and freedoms, merely one social ideal (man works, woman cares for the children) was exchanged for another social ideal (both have to work, state handles the children), and the demographic pressuring women into compliance changed perhaps slightly.
Instead of gaining actual, actionable choice and freedoms, merely one social ideal (man works, woman cares for the children) was exchanged for another social ideal (both have to work, state handles the children), and the demographic pressuring women into compliance changed perhaps slightly.
Interesting.
The inflation-adjusted incomes (median for a more accurate analysis) stayed pretty much the same in the US [1], but the purchasing power dropped.
> For example, the Census Bureau reports that the average price of a new home in July 1994 was $144,400. According to the inflation calculator, that price today should be $232,141. The same report places the average sale price for July 2014 at $339,100, however, more than 46% higher than the price when accounting for inflation alone.
The housing and living costs are higher today. It seems that capitalists are chasing inelastic demands (people can't really defend themselves there). I can understand why they do this, but politics should use proper regulations to enable normal people to buy their houses. The system seems to be corrupted at those places.
[1]: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/09/1...
[2]: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/what-does-cu...
The inflation-adjusted incomes (median for a more accurate analysis) stayed pretty much the same in the US [1], but the purchasing power dropped.
> For example, the Census Bureau reports that the average price of a new home in July 1994 was $144,400. According to the inflation calculator, that price today should be $232,141. The same report places the average sale price for July 2014 at $339,100, however, more than 46% higher than the price when accounting for inflation alone.
The housing and living costs are higher today. It seems that capitalists are chasing inelastic demands (people can't really defend themselves there). I can understand why they do this, but politics should use proper regulations to enable normal people to buy their houses. The system seems to be corrupted at those places.
[1]: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/09/1...
[2]: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/what-does-cu...
well said.
I have a ton of friends who have bought apartments in Oslo who are under 30. And I mean Oslo too, not out at Lillestrøm or anywhere on the outskirts.
how many of them did it entirely with their own salaries, rather than using their parents' money for the cash deposit?
their parents bought houses at the age of 20 working as factory drones
Drones, really? The skill of even a basic assembly line worker dwarfs that of the glorified typing that passes for most middle-class employment. But machine tool operating is often highly skilled work.
Drones, really? The skill of even a basic assembly line worker dwarfs that of the glorified typing that passes for most middle-class employment. But machine tool operating is often highly skilled work.
Skill is the pont, there are skilled and unskilled jobs in both white and blue collar jobs. Difference is that white collar jobs require some level of cultural sophistication.
But you are right with very skilled machinists, one of my relative makes as much as senior developers or even some CEOs by tendind lathes and similar machines. As with software development you just want to be in shops that are doing stuff with high margins.
But you are right with very skilled machinists, one of my relative makes as much as senior developers or even some CEOs by tendind lathes and similar machines. As with software development you just want to be in shops that are doing stuff with high margins.
I think they meant a line worker not a time served tool setter.
I don't know, did you ever see the quality of cars coming off the British Leyland factory line? ;)
I think their parents got mortgages which they were paying off all their factory drone lives, not bought these houses.
In most cities in western / northern Europe, it's completely impossible by now to get a mortgage for a home remotely large enough for a family, even with two factory drone salaries and even if you pay all of your life.
Not really, the problem is that the average standard in a home is quite high and makes the average housing very expensive.
Noticed how you added "large enough" restriction? Standards are changing, today it is not enough to buy just a house, it should be "large enough".
Everyone who has ever bought a house or flat has an expectation that it will be large enough for their needs - whether that is a single person, a couple or a family with two kids. This is not a new development.
2 adults and 2 children on 16m2 with 2 working salaries. It’s not about changing standards, it’s about families with children needing enough room to have beds for everyone and hopefully still fitting a small sofa.
Back in the day, that same family would be able to have twice as big a home with one one working parent, but that was before the whole market started playing chicken to see who could put themselves most in debt to carve out a little place to live.
I somewhat envy that time before the 70s where a family could live on one salary and have a house and car.
Today you can’t even buy a house with 2 salaries. If you are living on one salary you will be struggling and will not be credit worthy. The banks assumes a life-standard to uphold which not everyone can cope with. Even if you can live with less the bank follow it's idea of life-standard.
Today you can’t even buy a house with 2 salaries. If you are living on one salary you will be struggling and will not be credit worthy. The banks assumes a life-standard to uphold which not everyone can cope with. Even if you can live with less the bank follow it's idea of life-standard.
If you omit the second part of the phrase obviously the meaning changes. The commenter clearly said "large enough for a family".
I think it's a response to house builders building new property with really low floor area - many people don't consider that are sufficient anymore. It's a huge problem in the UK where property is advertised by number of bedrooms and floor area is hard to find - so we get houses with lots of bedrooms, but the bedrooms are tiny, and so the whole downstairs area is also small. Standards aren't changing, houses are.
And the kids get mortgages in their 30s too presumably
Only those who either expect to stay employed in the same geographic area for the remainder of their working life (this has dropped from "almost everybody" to "hardly anybody" where I live) or who simply do not care (I presume that this has stayed constant over generations)
Here in the UK you can port mortgages from one house to another...
(Or at current interest rates let out the old place)
(Or at current interest rates let out the old place)
Counterpoint, to take a loan you have to trust the system to both do right by you, and not collapse from under you. It might be difficult now to trust those two things.
What's the downside of having a loan when the system collapses?
Just walk away from the property and there you go. The worse the collapse the easier that is.
Just walk away from the property and there you go. The worse the collapse the easier that is.
People have been calling a property market crash here in the UK for many many years, with others making £100ks out of property over the same period. Anyone that is sage enough to call the housing market should start a private equity company and make billions.
I'm from the generation mentioned in this article and IMHO, in the developed countries, people like me are poorer than their parents because the rich are getting richer and the "poor", including the middle class, are getting poorer as a direct consequence.
I live in central Europe, have a STEM masters degree, my wife a bachelors degree (but is a stay at home mom) and, if we were to buy a house now, I'd be happy if I paid it off by the time I retire. I'm not living in a big city or an upscale neighborhood. That's just how it is.
I live in central Europe, have a STEM masters degree, my wife a bachelors degree (but is a stay at home mom) and, if we were to buy a house now, I'd be happy if I paid it off by the time I retire. I'm not living in a big city or an upscale neighborhood. That's just how it is.
> the rich are getting richer and the "poor", including the middle class, are getting poorer as a direct consequence.
This is correct. That's the reason we have to close the loop holes that make it possible that high-net-worth individuals evade taxes.
Unfortunately, kids are very expensive, some say you have to budget €250k for each kid in total (until they start earning their own money). Most people make approx. €1.25 million in their lifetime, so this is a pretty big part of their lifetime spending (retirement needs another €200-300k). I agree that it's not easy.
I hope that we will be able to solve this problem. Good luck!
edit: removed financial advice.
This is correct. That's the reason we have to close the loop holes that make it possible that high-net-worth individuals evade taxes.
Unfortunately, kids are very expensive, some say you have to budget €250k for each kid in total (until they start earning their own money). Most people make approx. €1.25 million in their lifetime, so this is a pretty big part of their lifetime spending (retirement needs another €200-300k). I agree that it's not easy.
I hope that we will be able to solve this problem. Good luck!
edit: removed financial advice.
Would love to know why this gets downvotes. I'm merely reiterating studies on lifetime income and children expenses. Would love to know if I'm relying on wrong data (although the studies are pretty clear about lifetime income).
Norway is a very special case. A small country with lots of oil, fish, and a small population (just 5.2 million).
They would have to go really wrong to be poor.
They would have to go really wrong to be poor.
This is true, on paper. In actual life, in most resource rich countries very little of it benefits the average person. It's even assumed to be a net loss, euphamised as the "oil curse."
Norway's model has worked very well, and they also had lucky timing Vis a Vis capital markets. But, it's a rare success.
Norway's model has worked very well, and they also had lucky timing Vis a Vis capital markets. But, it's a rare success.
Colorado has a population of about 5.6mil and a GDP of ~300bil. Norway is 370bil.
Although better than most other U.S. states, I don't have access to the services that Norwegians do. But my taxes are also very low here. We could have the same kind of services as Norway if we want to pay for it, but taxes would have to go up.
Until Americans stop thinking of the word "tax" as evil, we'll always value it wrong.
Although better than most other U.S. states, I don't have access to the services that Norwegians do. But my taxes are also very low here. We could have the same kind of services as Norway if we want to pay for it, but taxes would have to go up.
Until Americans stop thinking of the word "tax" as evil, we'll always value it wrong.
"Although better than most other U.S. states, I don't have access to the services that Norwegians do. But my taxes are also very low here."
CO State taxes are (roughly) 5% which puts it right in the middle of US states (between 0% in places like Florida and 10-ish percent at the (non CA/NY) high end).
Then factor in (roughly) 35% federal + local taxes ... let's call it 40%, give or take. Let's just forget property taxes for the sake of this discussion.
Why should I think of 40% as a "low" taxation rate ?
Why shouldn't I expect a high level of government services in return for 40% taxation ?
(FWIW, I live in CA so you can add 5-8 more percentage points for my own tax burden ... same questions apply ...)
CO State taxes are (roughly) 5% which puts it right in the middle of US states (between 0% in places like Florida and 10-ish percent at the (non CA/NY) high end).
Then factor in (roughly) 35% federal + local taxes ... let's call it 40%, give or take. Let's just forget property taxes for the sake of this discussion.
Why should I think of 40% as a "low" taxation rate ?
Why shouldn't I expect a high level of government services in return for 40% taxation ?
(FWIW, I live in CA so you can add 5-8 more percentage points for my own tax burden ... same questions apply ...)
Unless you're $300k+, your tax burden is under 40%.
Even at $100k, you're around 31% total. That's for CA.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-paycheck-calculator#...
Even at $100k, you're around 31% total. That's for CA.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-paycheck-calculator#...
I speak of the highest tax brackets because my parent was implying that tax rates were not high enough - which is in reference to the people whose taxes should be raised.
I don't think the suggestion was that lower income brackets should bear that burden.
Therefore it only makes sense to discuss the highest brackets.
I don't think the suggestion was that lower income brackets should bear that burden.
Therefore it only makes sense to discuss the highest brackets.
Or you can just look two states over at California which has the highest taxes in the country but is still largely dysfunctional. I think there's more to it than just perception.
IMO it's the other way around. There are other other small oil rich countries; for instance in the Gulf. None of them seem to be going anywhere near as well as Norway. So, empirically, Norway's prosperity as a society is an indication that it's doing some things really well.
Another key factor is a very high level of trust in the country. As citizens put it: “I have to pay a lot of taxes, but I don’t really care, because I know that [the state] gives you so many things at the same time.”
I don't know how Norway scores so low in corruption, and how such a high level of trust among strangers, people and the government has evolved though.
I worked in Norway for a couple of months (They payed me really well as a junior). One of my first impressions was their emphasis on being honest. The first thing the manager told me is that he once hired a person who admitted being "weak" because he appreciated his honesty.
I don't know how Norway scores so low in corruption, and how such a high level of trust among strangers, people and the government has evolved though.
I worked in Norway for a couple of months (They payed me really well as a junior). One of my first impressions was their emphasis on being honest. The first thing the manager told me is that he once hired a person who admitted being "weak" because he appreciated his honesty.
There are many small countries that have experienced similar abundance and not done well. Size has absolutely nothing to do with it at all.
And fishoil. But seriously, I'm on this cruise around Scandinavia right now. All these countries are incredible. And not all of them are so blessed with resources. Then you get African and South American countries with similar resource:population and they're f-u-c-k-*-d. I think it is very much about the culture and that is at the household and governmental level.
Not culture, that's being xenophobic. There's a much easier explanation which is the history of colonialism.
Norway was rich on a global scale before oil.
I think their oil is the one factor that makes them special in Europe. And the fact that they used the oil to benefit the country and not just a few small groups.
Norway's oil boom began in the mid 1980s. In 1973 they essentially had zero oil production.
In the span of seven or eight years from the moment oil production began, their economy tripled in size (from 1973 to 1981). Oil caused that economic miracle.
Norway GDP per capita in 1973, pre oil, was $5,600 or so. Sweden was $7,200. Denmark was $6,100. Finland was $4,200.
Norway's GDP per capita in 1984 as the oil boom was underway was $15,000. Sweden was $13,000. Denmark was $11,500. Finland was near $11,000. Keep in mind these other three are among the best run couple dozen nations on earth.
Today: Norway $75,000; Denmark $56,000; Sweden $53,000; Finland $46,000.
Now show me the extraordinary products that Norway is creating and selling to the world, to generate that stunning $75,000 figure, as opposed to Sweden's remarkable economy that has boomed for a long time and is still lagging far behind Norway.
Norway's GDP per capita went from $38,000 in 2001 with cheap oil prices, to $97,000 by the end of 2008, due to the oil boom. It's very obvious that Norway owes its particular outlier performance to oil.
In the span of seven or eight years from the moment oil production began, their economy tripled in size (from 1973 to 1981). Oil caused that economic miracle.
Norway GDP per capita in 1973, pre oil, was $5,600 or so. Sweden was $7,200. Denmark was $6,100. Finland was $4,200.
Norway's GDP per capita in 1984 as the oil boom was underway was $15,000. Sweden was $13,000. Denmark was $11,500. Finland was near $11,000. Keep in mind these other three are among the best run couple dozen nations on earth.
Today: Norway $75,000; Denmark $56,000; Sweden $53,000; Finland $46,000.
Now show me the extraordinary products that Norway is creating and selling to the world, to generate that stunning $75,000 figure, as opposed to Sweden's remarkable economy that has boomed for a long time and is still lagging far behind Norway.
Norway's GDP per capita went from $38,000 in 2001 with cheap oil prices, to $97,000 by the end of 2008, due to the oil boom. It's very obvious that Norway owes its particular outlier performance to oil.
But they are even better off than Denmark and Sweden which have very similar populations/political models. Their oil wealth has certainly helped them (but they've done a good job of spreading the benefits of their oil wealth across society, unlike many other countries).
Not by European standards
Careful with that statement, you forgot Europe also has Eastern Europe :)
"Norway’s huge oil and gas sector is the clear driving factor behind the nation’s economic boom over the last three decades"
And there it is - a nation sitting on black gold is wealthy.
And there it is - a nation sitting on black gold is wealthy.
The correlation isn’t all that clear. Norway is rich but very frugal with the earnings. And living standard isn’t differing so much between Norway and Denmark, Finland, Sweden (neither of which has oil). The difference that stands out is the National debts of these countries.
Like Venezuela, for instance?
You can't deny that Norway adopted a peculiar way of managing its good fortune, IMHO far better that what you can find in Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. It's the only “oil” state I know to be so good at it.
You can't deny that Norway adopted a peculiar way of managing its good fortune, IMHO far better that what you can find in Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. It's the only “oil” state I know to be so good at it.
This perspective completely misses the politics and history of these countries.
Colonialism, interference from external powers, exploitative capitalism, being caught in the middle of the 'great game' can all derail any natural resource wealth like in Venezuela.
Saudi Arabia is a very unique history and continues to exist as a feudal regressive regime with global support and approval while Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad who would be Mother Teresa in comparison to the Saudis in terms of women's rights and religious freedom get the full 'human rights demonization treatment' with their countries and people in tatters.
50 years later people may well wonder why these countries are so 'backward' with no context of what happened to them. Russia is nearly an entire continent with a dramatic history and is unique in nearly every way.
Colonialism, interference from external powers, exploitative capitalism, being caught in the middle of the 'great game' can all derail any natural resource wealth like in Venezuela.
Saudi Arabia is a very unique history and continues to exist as a feudal regressive regime with global support and approval while Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad who would be Mother Teresa in comparison to the Saudis in terms of women's rights and religious freedom get the full 'human rights demonization treatment' with their countries and people in tatters.
50 years later people may well wonder why these countries are so 'backward' with no context of what happened to them. Russia is nearly an entire continent with a dramatic history and is unique in nearly every way.
One might have expected Russia, at least, to have the sort of history of sophisticated socialism that would prepare a nation to wisely distribute the spoils of petroleum exploitation...
It's still the black gold that makes Norway's peculiar style of socialism work.
Perhaps I read / skimmed too fast but I felt there wasn't enough mentioned about buying power. Income without context is meaningless.
Making $100k in NYC or London is not the same as $100k in Costa Rica, etc. It's not what you make that matters. It's the ratio between income and living / life costs.
Making $100k in NYC or London is not the same as $100k in Costa Rica, etc. It's not what you make that matters. It's the ratio between income and living / life costs.
Post tax spendable income gives an indication on real income:
* http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Cost-of-livin...
* https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/disposable-income-map...
General cost of living data for Norway:
* http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Norway/Cos...
As well as the Big Mac index as ball park cost indicator:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index
* http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Cost-of-livin...
* https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/disposable-income-map...
General cost of living data for Norway:
* http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Norway/Cos...
As well as the Big Mac index as ball park cost indicator:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Shame the article lacked this context.
Shame the article lacked this context.
I'd include quality of life in that too.
Have earnt decent money in unpleasant places where the cost of living is cheap, it's not worth it at all.
Have earnt decent money in unpleasant places where the cost of living is cheap, it's not worth it at all.
Agreed. "Rich" is not only shallow, it's not accurate either.
as a side note, this made me remember an article i read a couple of years ago: https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...
"The Iraqi who saved Norway from oil", the story about the young iraqi oil engineer farouk al-kasim, who helped shape norways oil industry into what it is today.
"The Iraqi who saved Norway from oil", the story about the young iraqi oil engineer farouk al-kasim, who helped shape norways oil industry into what it is today.
Thank you very much for sharing! That was very interesting.
The world is more complex then ever before, is it possible that current generations are behind financially because they needed a longer education?
Is it possible that this will pay off in the long run?
Just wondering, if maybe we're focusing on a phenomenon that haven't played itself out yet. Unless, of course we haven't educated enough of the current generation.
Is it possible that this will pay off in the long run?
Just wondering, if maybe we're focusing on a phenomenon that haven't played itself out yet. Unless, of course we haven't educated enough of the current generation.
> Aarnes’ hourly pay starts at 164 Norwegian kroner (around $20), increasing for weekend and evening shifts. After taxes (which are comparatively high in Scandinavia) he’s left with around 14,000 kroner ($1700) a month, of which he sets aside half for rent, travel and bills and uses the rest for “whatever else” he likes.
The likely reason why he can earn this much with a supermarket job is because everyone else has more disposable income, which means it's easier to make products more expensive and to afford to pay higher salaries for such jobs.
I think there have been at least a few studies in the past few years that show just how important it is for an economy for everyone to have decent amounts of disposable income. It means there are more consumers who can afford more types of products = a healthier economy.
A healthier economy with more spread-out rather than consolidated companies, means the companies are also more willing to pay higher/more competitive salaries, as opposed to if only a handful of companies dominated the economy.
In the U.S., the middle-class has been drained out of disposable income. Recent reports have shown that something like 60% of the country can't afford a "$500 emergency".
That is likely due to several reasons:
1) the crazy situation with student debt that the U.S. has gotten itself into (I believe it's because the government guaranteed the loans, which made it easier for universities to keep increasing the prices, but what's important is that the situation exists and must be fixed/ended)
2) the crazy healthcare system that leaves almost everyone financially bankrupt if they have a more significant health issue, or they just can't afford to pay for full coverage. Again, U.S. is just about the only country that has this problem.
3) the rising (negotiation) power of mega-corporations, who are allowed to become ever larger, and the fact that they can outsource workers from abroad almost at will.
They have just about obliterated any negotiation power workers have in the U.S., which also means most workers get little pay and they can't hope for too many salary increases over the years (even to cover for the real inflation, not the "low" inflation the government keeps talking about but doesn't jive with how fast product prices are rising in the economy).
There are also studies showing that basically since the 70's the real salary has stayed the same and hasn't increased with productivity at all. The salaries of CEOs and the payout to shareholders on the other hand have skyrocketed.
The likely reason why he can earn this much with a supermarket job is because everyone else has more disposable income, which means it's easier to make products more expensive and to afford to pay higher salaries for such jobs.
I think there have been at least a few studies in the past few years that show just how important it is for an economy for everyone to have decent amounts of disposable income. It means there are more consumers who can afford more types of products = a healthier economy.
A healthier economy with more spread-out rather than consolidated companies, means the companies are also more willing to pay higher/more competitive salaries, as opposed to if only a handful of companies dominated the economy.
In the U.S., the middle-class has been drained out of disposable income. Recent reports have shown that something like 60% of the country can't afford a "$500 emergency".
That is likely due to several reasons:
1) the crazy situation with student debt that the U.S. has gotten itself into (I believe it's because the government guaranteed the loans, which made it easier for universities to keep increasing the prices, but what's important is that the situation exists and must be fixed/ended)
2) the crazy healthcare system that leaves almost everyone financially bankrupt if they have a more significant health issue, or they just can't afford to pay for full coverage. Again, U.S. is just about the only country that has this problem.
3) the rising (negotiation) power of mega-corporations, who are allowed to become ever larger, and the fact that they can outsource workers from abroad almost at will.
They have just about obliterated any negotiation power workers have in the U.S., which also means most workers get little pay and they can't hope for too many salary increases over the years (even to cover for the real inflation, not the "low" inflation the government keeps talking about but doesn't jive with how fast product prices are rising in the economy).
There are also studies showing that basically since the 70's the real salary has stayed the same and hasn't increased with productivity at all. The salaries of CEOs and the payout to shareholders on the other hand have skyrocketed.
> The likely reason why he can earn this much with a supermarket job is because everyone else has more disposable income, which means it's easier to make products more expensive and to afford to pay higher salaries for such jobs.
Prices also show this. If you want to go get a couple of beers in Oslo you’ll find $10-15 to be normal in central parts of town ($10 average for the city). Nominal wages don’t say much. Purchase power does.
Prices also show this. If you want to go get a couple of beers in Oslo you’ll find $10-15 to be normal in central parts of town ($10 average for the city). Nominal wages don’t say much. Purchase power does.
Beer might be a bad example, isn't alcohol generally very expensive in Scandinavian countries? (Though indeed cost of living is probably on the higher side)
A cup of coffee will be around 35,- (4-5 USD). I think the main thing people often miss is that the price floor is high, but the ceiling isn't too far either. I always recommend tourists to go for the second-most expensive option in Norway - as a general rule. The cheap option is going to be expensive anyway, but the expensive option is likely to be very high quality - and relatively cheap (even including the high VAT).
And yes, taxes on sugar and alcohol adds to high prices for alcohol.
And yes, taxes on sugar and alcohol adds to high prices for alcohol.
Yes half of or more of the unreasonable $15 beer is likely taxes. But that pizza slice you take with it is another $15...
$15 is more like a portion sized pizza, not a slice.
Norwegians even travel to Sweden just to stock up on alcohol, and booze isn't exactly cheap in Sweden.
The median disposable income, after all normal life expenses (i.e. the "beer money" leftover) in the US is about $1000/month. The American middle class has quite a bit of money for discretionary spending and can easily afford a $500 emergency.
The oft-repeated "$500 in savings" thing was based on the savings accounts, which most Americans don't use or don't have because they aren't useful. I don't have $500 in a savings account either, but I have much more than $500 in cash available in the case of emergency. That study is frequently misinterpreted; it measured something irrelevant to how Americans manage money.
The oft-repeated "$500 in savings" thing was based on the savings accounts, which most Americans don't use or don't have because they aren't useful. I don't have $500 in a savings account either, but I have much more than $500 in cash available in the case of emergency. That study is frequently misinterpreted; it measured something irrelevant to how Americans manage money.
Bureaucracy and administrators are the main reason why healthcare costs have risen so much higher than inflation.
Perhaps if we return to a system of minimal government-run healthcare with less regulation (which requires paper pushers) we can reduce healthcare expenses to something that most people can afford out of pocket.
Perhaps if we return to a system of minimal government-run healthcare with less regulation (which requires paper pushers) we can reduce healthcare expenses to something that most people can afford out of pocket.
I’d bet more than half of the households who can’t afford a $500 emergency have spent at least that and likely twice that on cable TV service in the past year.
If true, that’s a question of priorities, not resources.
If true, that’s a question of priorities, not resources.
Norway FTW
Free public parking to Electric vehicles
Govt distributes 1000 copies of every book published to libraries
Police officers are trained in Higher Education for 3 years
Tuition free education to everybody in the World> Tuition free education to everybody in the World
Wait what? If this is true, why is not everyone studying in Norway?
> At this point in time, the University of Oslo only offers bachelor studies where Norwegian language proficiency is a prerequisite to be qualified for admission. Applicants who can document that they are already proficient in the Norwegian language, may apply for bachelor programmes at the University of Oslo via NUCAS (Samordna opptak).
> — https://www.uio.no/english/studies/admission/bachelor-progra...
Ah! That's why. You need to know Norwegian before applying (at least at UiO).
I wish I knew about these international study programs when I was younger.
Wait what? If this is true, why is not everyone studying in Norway?
> At this point in time, the University of Oslo only offers bachelor studies where Norwegian language proficiency is a prerequisite to be qualified for admission. Applicants who can document that they are already proficient in the Norwegian language, may apply for bachelor programmes at the University of Oslo via NUCAS (Samordna opptak).
> — https://www.uio.no/english/studies/admission/bachelor-progra...
Ah! That's why. You need to know Norwegian before applying (at least at UiO).
I wish I knew about these international study programs when I was younger.
Time to move to Norway to finish my degree I can’t afford here? :p
Ontario just cancelled our electric vehicle subsidies. We’re probably in for even further cuts of all kinds... at least my shares in $big_corp will climb.
Seriously. I wonder what a student visa and residence/board would look like for a few years
Ontario just cancelled our electric vehicle subsidies. We’re probably in for even further cuts of all kinds... at least my shares in $big_corp will climb.
Seriously. I wonder what a student visa and residence/board would look like for a few years
I think we're doing a lot of stuff right in Scandinavia/Norway, if optimizing for the average quality of life rather than personal freedoms is what you consider right. (I do, but not without critical analysis -- if it happens to appear otherwise from this post, I am actually very happy living here, but the lack of a critical eye in national media feels a bit oppressive sometimes).
What has become clear to me reading HN and other US-centric news sources, is that this is in fact a deliberate tradeoff. Certainly it's a multi-dimensional continuum that can be better or worse in certain areas, but it's not just a question of other countries not discovering the path to such a society. It's also a deliberate choice that has consequences many voters in other cultures would not accept.
The flip-side of the equality question is that the ability to excel diminishes. Everyone gets good (although rarely best-in-the-world) free healthcare and a strong social safety net, but taxes are very high. If you have the means, there are many things you might want to do that are not allowed to. E.g. building/expanding your property the way you want, or living off investment income (requires >50% more capital than elsewhere due to taxes, and that's assuming a low middle-class consumption).
Society is not without its issues, and there are certainly some power struggles going on in various areas - e.g. regarding the employment terms for public-sector employees, the ability of large worker groups to get good employment terms etc. There is some degree of hidden institutional corruption, and I suspect that there is a degree of wage collusion that would not be accepted in the US. The tax system strongly favors real-estate investments, which means that property is very expensive and average household-debt-to income ratio is >220%.
The oil, energy and fish industries are certainly strong enablers the social safety net, e.g. with oil companies paying 78% tax on profits, and with similar scheme for the hydropower companies.
I've written about some details of the Norwegian economic system and welfare net on HN before, if you happen to be interested.
Consulting vs. being securely employed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17001133
Summary of taxes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828357
Begging and homelessness: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15169167
Taxation of real estate vs. company ownership: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828227
The law of Jante, or the skepticism towards people who try to excel: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13914084
Balancing capital gains tax and taxes on company earnings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17277429
Free health care and the social safety net, in the context of whether "making the free choice" to "rent out your body" should be legal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17475051
What has become clear to me reading HN and other US-centric news sources, is that this is in fact a deliberate tradeoff. Certainly it's a multi-dimensional continuum that can be better or worse in certain areas, but it's not just a question of other countries not discovering the path to such a society. It's also a deliberate choice that has consequences many voters in other cultures would not accept.
The flip-side of the equality question is that the ability to excel diminishes. Everyone gets good (although rarely best-in-the-world) free healthcare and a strong social safety net, but taxes are very high. If you have the means, there are many things you might want to do that are not allowed to. E.g. building/expanding your property the way you want, or living off investment income (requires >50% more capital than elsewhere due to taxes, and that's assuming a low middle-class consumption).
Society is not without its issues, and there are certainly some power struggles going on in various areas - e.g. regarding the employment terms for public-sector employees, the ability of large worker groups to get good employment terms etc. There is some degree of hidden institutional corruption, and I suspect that there is a degree of wage collusion that would not be accepted in the US. The tax system strongly favors real-estate investments, which means that property is very expensive and average household-debt-to income ratio is >220%.
The oil, energy and fish industries are certainly strong enablers the social safety net, e.g. with oil companies paying 78% tax on profits, and with similar scheme for the hydropower companies.
I've written about some details of the Norwegian economic system and welfare net on HN before, if you happen to be interested.
Consulting vs. being securely employed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17001133
Summary of taxes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828357
Begging and homelessness: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15169167
Taxation of real estate vs. company ownership: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828227
The law of Jante, or the skepticism towards people who try to excel: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13914084
Balancing capital gains tax and taxes on company earnings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17277429
Free health care and the social safety net, in the context of whether "making the free choice" to "rent out your body" should be legal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17475051
>>Employers will also have to be more open to attracting international talent to fill the jobs created outside its oil and gas sector, she suggests. On the other hand, young Norwegians “used to being able to work wherever they like” may need to become increasingly “focused on where the skills are needed”...
So she means that while the population is well educated, many do not choose the "right" education?
So she means that while the population is well educated, many do not choose the "right" education?
There is a lot of students in Norway who studies what they want with no plan at all when it comes to work.
Eg. a lot of students are studying finance and management or maybe history, but there is basically no demand compared to the supply.
Eg. a lot of students are studying finance and management or maybe history, but there is basically no demand compared to the supply.
I'm seriously impressed:
See the national debt of Norway (34.33% of GDP) - this is insanely low for developed countries.
For comparison: US - 107.40%, Germany - 61.51%
https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/norway
https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates
https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/germany
- - -
Another important measurement is the Gini coefficient [1] which shows us if the wealth is distributed equally (G = 0% means everyone gets the same; G = 100% means one person has everything).
Norway: G = 27.5%
US: G = 48% (this means 1% owns half the wealth)
Germany: G = 28.9% after taxes (G = 49% before taxes). This shows how big the impact of taxes is for a fair distribution of wealth. Unfortunately, it's known that high-net-worth individuals have options to extract wealth without paying taxes. But I think they don't necessarily do themselves a favor because they simultaneously destroy the society they enjoy and depend on.
https://tradingeconomics.com/norway/gini-index-wb-data.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/219643/gini-coefficient-...
http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm
https://www.gut-leben-in-deutschland.de/static/LB/indicators...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
See the national debt of Norway (34.33% of GDP) - this is insanely low for developed countries.
For comparison: US - 107.40%, Germany - 61.51%
https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/norway
https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates
https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/germany
- - -
Another important measurement is the Gini coefficient [1] which shows us if the wealth is distributed equally (G = 0% means everyone gets the same; G = 100% means one person has everything).
Norway: G = 27.5%
US: G = 48% (this means 1% owns half the wealth)
Germany: G = 28.9% after taxes (G = 49% before taxes). This shows how big the impact of taxes is for a fair distribution of wealth. Unfortunately, it's known that high-net-worth individuals have options to extract wealth without paying taxes. But I think they don't necessarily do themselves a favor because they simultaneously destroy the society they enjoy and depend on.
https://tradingeconomics.com/norway/gini-index-wb-data.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/219643/gini-coefficient-...
http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm
https://www.gut-leben-in-deutschland.de/static/LB/indicators...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Did your sources distinguish Norway's Gini coefficient before and after taxes?
My impression is that marginal taxation here is massive, since we have a sales tax of 25% (consumption tax, effectively), high taxes on luxury goods (cars especially), wealth tax of 0.85% of net worth every year and capital gains tax of 30% with no exemption for long-term holdings. The marginal tax rate on income is 46% IIRC, but your employer has already paid 14% of your salary in employment tax before you're paid. On top of this is property taxes, fees to local government, annual car tax etc.
If you make a complete assessment of the taxes a high-earning, high-spending person pays, it can easily surpass 70% of all income.
My impression is that marginal taxation here is massive, since we have a sales tax of 25% (consumption tax, effectively), high taxes on luxury goods (cars especially), wealth tax of 0.85% of net worth every year and capital gains tax of 30% with no exemption for long-term holdings. The marginal tax rate on income is 46% IIRC, but your employer has already paid 14% of your salary in employment tax before you're paid. On top of this is property taxes, fees to local government, annual car tax etc.
If you make a complete assessment of the taxes a high-earning, high-spending person pays, it can easily surpass 70% of all income.
"wealth tax of 0.85% of net worth every year"
Interesting. That's very much in line with what my experiments showed: just on a computer model of incredibly primitive 'economics', you can use an incredibly tiny wealth tax to redistributive effect. I think you can even ditch a lot of sales, income tax etc. if you're prepared to do a wealth tax. It seems to be very effective but this is the first I've heard of it actually being done anywhere.
Interesting. That's very much in line with what my experiments showed: just on a computer model of incredibly primitive 'economics', you can use an incredibly tiny wealth tax to redistributive effect. I think you can even ditch a lot of sales, income tax etc. if you're prepared to do a wealth tax. It seems to be very effective but this is the first I've heard of it actually being done anywhere.
The Netherlands also have it, sort of.
It started of as a 30% capital gains tax, but at some point the government was like: "Math is hard, let's pretend 4% return on capital." and we effectively ended up with a 1.2% wealth tax.
In the last few years they realized that wealthier people have a higher return on capital and the effective wealth tax is more progressive with an effective wealth tax of ~1.6% at the highest bracket.
It started of as a 30% capital gains tax, but at some point the government was like: "Math is hard, let's pretend 4% return on capital." and we effectively ended up with a 1.2% wealth tax.
In the last few years they realized that wealthier people have a higher return on capital and the effective wealth tax is more progressive with an effective wealth tax of ~1.6% at the highest bracket.
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828357 for a summary of the most important Norwegian taxes, which I posted elsewhere. Summarized as of last year.
It's not that uncommon. Many Swiss cantons have a progressive wealth tax. France used to have one but it's now limited to real estate holdings.
See [1]. Norway has a Gini index of G = 41% before taxes and G = 25% after taxes (another source said G = 27.5% after taxes).
In Germany we also get heavily taxed although I don't think it's that drastic: 19% consumption tax, 25% + 5.5% on capital gains, a marginal tax rate that linearly increases up to 42% for high-earners [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany
In Germany we also get heavily taxed although I don't think it's that drastic: 19% consumption tax, 25% + 5.5% on capital gains, a marginal tax rate that linearly increases up to 42% for high-earners [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany
It's because Norway is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world with a total tax burden of roughly 45% of GDP– almost 4x Hong Kong and nearly twice the US.
VAT here is a whopping 25%. Personal income tax rates border 55%. Corporate profits tax ranges from 28% to as high as 78%
Moreover revenues from Equinor also help.
VAT here is a whopping 25%. Personal income tax rates border 55%. Corporate profits tax ranges from 28% to as high as 78%
Moreover revenues from Equinor also help.
Interesting to see the measure of total tax burden vs. GDP. Never heard that variant before, during discussions where it becomes obvious it's difficult to compare the tax systems of different countries. Apparently, perhaps not surprisingly, the Nordic countries top this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven...
Norway is the only oil economy that has managed to avoid the resource curse.
The U.S. might be another, no?
US was until recently a net importer of oil, so it's sort of a lite oil economy.
Norway is exporting $50+B/year worth of oil industry products with a population of 5 million people and this has been going on for a long time.
Norway is exporting $50+B/year worth of oil industry products with a population of 5 million people and this has been going on for a long time.
The US has extracted more oil than any other country on Earth, full stop.
It was a net exporter from the 1860s through 1950.
It had surplus extraction capacity until 1972.
And yet, no resource curse?
It was a net exporter from the 1860s through 1950.
It had surplus extraction capacity until 1972.
And yet, no resource curse?
Ots the $$ per capita in (un/underrefined) exports that does it. Oil was cheap pre-50s and us has a big population. I can't be bothered to look up the figure but i bet it was much smaller than Norway's $$/capita figure.
Possibly.
I don't have an answer, but the question's an interesting one.
Accounts of early US oil history and sudden and capricious wealth, particularly in Pennsylvania, Texas, California, etc., are fascinating.
I don't have an answer, but the question's an interesting one.
Accounts of early US oil history and sudden and capricious wealth, particularly in Pennsylvania, Texas, California, etc., are fascinating.
The success of Norway lies with the intelligence of of it's population. People attribute it to this or that, some institution or policy. But in reality policies and institutions are concievee of, built, and maintained by the sentiment of the people. They are smart people and they will always be well off considering their circumstances as long as that is true. Furthermore, the intelligence and well-being of the population of every country is the sole source of their outcomes. Endless ruminations on other, higher level things are a complete waste of time.
This is a really bizarre statement. Could you deign to back it up in any way?
The product of a group of people is a function of the characteristics of the people. This is just a simple fact.
Some people confuse themselves by pointing to education as a contradiction to this. They say that the presence of education changes the product of society, so it's not just the inherant intelligence of people that matters. This is incorrect because as I stated, it is the characteristics of people that matter and education has the effect of improving characteristics. It is the end result of both nature and nurture that then determines how well a society fares. People who have good "nature" are required though, because they end up doing well regardless of education level whereas naturally dumb people need to be force fed an education which leads to a fragile system where any lapse in educational infrastructure leads to prolonged slump in society overall.
There are complicating factors that make my initial observation difficult to find. Power and influence over the product of society is not evenly distributed over the population. This just means you need to take an integral over the influence levels -- if all of the power is in the hands of very intelligent people then everything will be ok even if there are mobs of stupid people. There are many examples of this.
...
Look at gun rights. If we abstract away the gun we can see that it is really responsibility that is being talked about. Is the population up to the task of owning guns without killing other people? This is not very different from the responsibility to own a car or powerful cleaning chemicals or knives or a million other things, or even the vote. Guns happen to be perhaps one of the most damaging rights in the short term. But I no longer ask whether or not people are ready for guns because if they are not ready for guns they are not ready for the vote or the car or raising children. The result I have come to is that everyone in society needs to be up to the task of having responsibility because if they aren't, the country will collapse. Taking away the guns will stop deaths but it won't solve the root of them problem and it won't stop the slow death of the country.
I think that is probably the biggest theme of my idea. Slow, subtle changes that are difficult to attribute to anything are actually influenced by a very simple thing. Lack of good characteristics will result in a slow and nebulous death manifesting itself as failures of institutions and other things. Injecting good characteristics via education, culture or immigration results in fantastic progress in prosperity and quality of life -- all looking like good luck or a magical combination of law and infrastructure.
Edit
And I have to add that there are countless examples everywhere you look. News for example: people blame news companies for publishing misleading, fake, distasteful, etc stories but really it's the people consuming the news who are at fault. If nobody bought or watched that kind and of news then it wouldn't be published. And there are endless examples like that. Most things that are a national embarrassment like that are a result of the people in general supporting it or being apathetic to it.
Some people confuse themselves by pointing to education as a contradiction to this. They say that the presence of education changes the product of society, so it's not just the inherant intelligence of people that matters. This is incorrect because as I stated, it is the characteristics of people that matter and education has the effect of improving characteristics. It is the end result of both nature and nurture that then determines how well a society fares. People who have good "nature" are required though, because they end up doing well regardless of education level whereas naturally dumb people need to be force fed an education which leads to a fragile system where any lapse in educational infrastructure leads to prolonged slump in society overall.
There are complicating factors that make my initial observation difficult to find. Power and influence over the product of society is not evenly distributed over the population. This just means you need to take an integral over the influence levels -- if all of the power is in the hands of very intelligent people then everything will be ok even if there are mobs of stupid people. There are many examples of this.
...
Look at gun rights. If we abstract away the gun we can see that it is really responsibility that is being talked about. Is the population up to the task of owning guns without killing other people? This is not very different from the responsibility to own a car or powerful cleaning chemicals or knives or a million other things, or even the vote. Guns happen to be perhaps one of the most damaging rights in the short term. But I no longer ask whether or not people are ready for guns because if they are not ready for guns they are not ready for the vote or the car or raising children. The result I have come to is that everyone in society needs to be up to the task of having responsibility because if they aren't, the country will collapse. Taking away the guns will stop deaths but it won't solve the root of them problem and it won't stop the slow death of the country.
I think that is probably the biggest theme of my idea. Slow, subtle changes that are difficult to attribute to anything are actually influenced by a very simple thing. Lack of good characteristics will result in a slow and nebulous death manifesting itself as failures of institutions and other things. Injecting good characteristics via education, culture or immigration results in fantastic progress in prosperity and quality of life -- all looking like good luck or a magical combination of law and infrastructure.
Edit
And I have to add that there are countless examples everywhere you look. News for example: people blame news companies for publishing misleading, fake, distasteful, etc stories but really it's the people consuming the news who are at fault. If nobody bought or watched that kind and of news then it wouldn't be published. And there are endless examples like that. Most things that are a national embarrassment like that are a result of the people in general supporting it or being apathetic to it.
This is not even indirectly a refutation of what I said. It has nothing to do with what I said. See my comment below.
> "Norway’s huge oil and gas sector is the clear driving factor behind the nation’s economic boom over the last three decades..."
Norway gets short term rich.
Mother Nature continues to live in poverty.
The masses and the media continue to ignore the aggregate cost of the latter.
#BeamMeUpScotty
Norway gets short term rich.
Mother Nature continues to live in poverty.
The masses and the media continue to ignore the aggregate cost of the latter.
#BeamMeUpScotty
Shouldn't Norway's be Norwegian [millennials] in the title?
I have never heard of a Norwegian referred to as a 'Norway'.
To me, the title reads as: "Unlike most millennials, the Norway countries are rich" which doesn't make any sense because millennials are people not countries.
I have never heard of a Norwegian referred to as a 'Norway'.
To me, the title reads as: "Unlike most millennials, the Norway countries are rich" which doesn't make any sense because millennials are people not countries.
It's referring to them as 'the millennials of Norway', short: 'Norway's millennials'. You are correct that those millennials would be Norwegians.
Not all of them. About 17% of the population aren't citizens, and probably more so within the millennials.
I read it as "Norway's [millenials]", which seems fine grammatically.
"Norway's" is the possessive referring by implication to millennials which is the preceding subject in the sentence.
>Unlike most millenials, Norway's (millenials) are rich.
You seem to be making the common conflation of the possessive with the plural of Norway (and of course there's only one Norway).
>Unlike most millenials, Norway's (millenials) are rich.
You seem to be making the common conflation of the possessive with the plural of Norway (and of course there's only one Norway).
Apostrophe and s means possesive.
no apostrophe and s means plural.
If you're confusing them you must be a native speaker of English ;)
If you're confusing them you must be a native speaker of English ;)
I believe the submitter was going for "Norway's Millennials" which I believe still sounds okay.
Norwegians, in this case, feels more right, as it is referring to the people.
[deleted]
UBI improves lives, enhances freedom and is a matter of social justice;
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/04/why-the-wor...
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/04/why-the-wor...
[deleted]
Wait a second Morty
> 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%.
But for the USA
> Youth unemployment stood at 8.4 percent in April 2018.
Also
> People in their early thirties in Norway have an average annual disposable household income of around 460,000 kroner (around $56,200).
But remember that Norway is a small petrol country. That would not be fair and square to compare it to behemoths like the USA.
Compare Norway to the Bay Area? I can't find stats but I'm pretty sure the "average" person is getting more than $56k in SF.
So what am I trying to say:
- Don't compare small countries (smaller than big cities in population terms) to big countries.
- Don't compare oil rich countries to non-oil rich countries.
- Don't pick your stats (he compared unemployment to the OECD and not to the US). Everyone know that some European countries are going through hell now (Spain, Greece, Portugal, etc...)
- Maybe we have reached peek capacity and the younger can't do better. In these terms, Norway can still grow faster if it didn't (but I don't think that is the reason).
Anyway, it is an article for article sake. Means pretty much nothing to why we are here.
> 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%.
But for the USA
> Youth unemployment stood at 8.4 percent in April 2018.
Also
> People in their early thirties in Norway have an average annual disposable household income of around 460,000 kroner (around $56,200).
But remember that Norway is a small petrol country. That would not be fair and square to compare it to behemoths like the USA.
Compare Norway to the Bay Area? I can't find stats but I'm pretty sure the "average" person is getting more than $56k in SF.
So what am I trying to say:
- Don't compare small countries (smaller than big cities in population terms) to big countries.
- Don't compare oil rich countries to non-oil rich countries.
- Don't pick your stats (he compared unemployment to the OECD and not to the US). Everyone know that some European countries are going through hell now (Spain, Greece, Portugal, etc...)
- Maybe we have reached peek capacity and the younger can't do better. In these terms, Norway can still grow faster if it didn't (but I don't think that is the reason).
Anyway, it is an article for article sake. Means pretty much nothing to why we are here.
Norway is a bit of an outlier because of natural resources. Most importantly, the trust I put in the Swedish pension system (I.e I save next to nothing and trust I will get a good pension) is a bit less safe than a young Norwegians trust in their state being able to do good on their pension promises. This in turn means as mentioned in the article, a young person can earn $1700 and put half towards bills and rent, and the rest is for entertainment. The trust in the public safety nets is big (again you could argue we trust it too much but it is what it is). A young person isn’t saving for unemployment, illness, college, retirement. I think few low-30somethings in the Bay Area that has no student debt, and has half their income as beer money after all savings, insurance, rent, bills ...
The hard part is comparing what money is and what it means in terms of quality of life. It’s extremy difficult to do this (as recurring discussions on HN prove). What does $56k mean? Depends on what you need it for. What things cost.
Comparing a European state to a US state isn’t so far fetched either. Compare Norway to Oregon - not to the US. Population of small European states match many US ones.
Comparing a European state to a US state isn’t so far fetched either. Compare Norway to Oregon - not to the US. Population of small European states match many US ones.
In Spain, Germany, France, Italy, etc if you get a degree in STEM it means you put a lot of effort. It is easier to study than for our parents, so there's a more competition. But the requirements to finish the degree have not changed so drastically as in the US so going to University is quite a good choice.
[1] oddly enough I have never discussed this with british people
[2] Edit: I'm not talking about a zero-sum game; I'm talking about degrees becoming easier. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Relevant: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/same-p...
Note: I'm talking about STEM, which is what I know best. Other degrees/no degrees is catastrophic in Spain as you can see on the news.