4 ms·

Not mentioned is that Denmark has the OECD's lowest inequality. Having visited a couple of times, it does feel like they're doing something right.

alkonaut 10y ago
Inequality is a large driver of crime. So keeping a low inequality means you don't have to spend as much on incarceration, police, courts etc., as you would have otherwise. That in turn means you can spend money on things that tax payers care about (schools, etc.) which increases equality, and so on.
- egman_ekki 10y ago
  ...interestingly, Denmark has one of the highest number of burglaries per capita in Europe... violent crimes are probably quite rare, though
egman_ekki 10y ago
Lowest income inequality. Highest wealth inequality (Zimbabwe level)... not sure if that is the right way to go, though...
- simongray 10y ago
  That's a fair point. The wealth inequality is high because a lot of people rent rather than buy housing and because savings are less important with the Danish level of cradle-to-grave government services. A lot of things that you would need savings for in other countries come in the form of welfare services instead.
vixen99 10y ago
That's a metric that evidently appeals to you. So be it. It's a relative measure and my preference, possibly shared by others, is for an absolute one. Human nature and entrepreneurship being what it is, as general wealth increases thus does inequality increase. We have seen this happening on a grand scale across the world during the last 20 years or more. One other point: what suits the Danes wouldn't necessarily suit the Brits or others. National characteristics are certainly different even we try sometimes to ignore this probably because it's tacitly interpreted as some hint of mild racism.
- V-2 10y ago
  > One other point: what suits the Danes wouldn't necessarily suit the Brits or others. National characteristics are certainly different even we try sometimes to ignore this probably because it's tacitly interpreted as some hint of mild racism. Quite right... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
  - simongray 10y ago
    Or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
    - V-2 10y ago
      Just because something is called a syndrome doesn't mean it permeats a culture in which it was identified
- ximeng 10y ago
  Think there's room for more nuance around saying inequality increases as wealth increases. Eg a public transit system and a limousine service could both increase the wealth of a community but might have different effects on inequality. Services like Facebook or google naturally lead to extreme inequality due to the information availability differing between the company and consumers.
  - vixen99 10y ago
    I did not say that inequality increases as wealth increases. I said, it <has> increased and so has wealth. This is a fact. We have seen the largest decline in material poverty in human history along with a massive increase in inequality. As an example, the OECD says that over the last three decades the share of Chinese living in absolute poverty has declined from eight in ten to one in ten. At the same time, relative poverty (taking inequality into account) has more or less doubled. Which metric is more important if you're a poor Chinese person?

alkonaut 10y ago

Inequality is a large driver of crime. So keeping a low inequality means you don't have to spend as much on incarceration, police, courts etc., as you would have otherwise. That in turn means you can spend money on things that tax payers care about (schools, etc.) which increases equality, and so on.

egman_ekki 10y ago
...interestingly, Denmark has one of the highest number of burglaries per capita in Europe... violent crimes are probably quite rare, though

egman_ekki 10y ago

Lowest income inequality. Highest wealth inequality (Zimbabwe level)... not sure if that is the right way to go, though...

simongray 10y ago
That's a fair point. The wealth inequality is high because a lot of people rent rather than buy housing and because savings are less important with the Danish level of cradle-to-grave government services. A lot of things that you would need savings for in other countries come in the form of welfare services instead.

vixen99 10y ago

That's a metric that evidently appeals to you. So be it. It's a relative measure and my preference, possibly shared by others, is for an absolute one. Human nature and entrepreneurship being what it is, as general wealth increases thus does inequality increase. We have seen this happening on a grand scale across the world during the last 20 years or more. One other point: what suits the Danes wouldn't necessarily suit the Brits or others. National characteristics are certainly different even we try sometimes to ignore this probably because it's tacitly interpreted as some hint of mild racism.

V-2 10y ago
> One other point: what suits the Danes wouldn't necessarily suit the Brits or others. National characteristics are certainly different even we try sometimes to ignore this probably because it's tacitly interpreted as some hint of mild racism. Quite right... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
- simongray 10y ago
  Or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
  - V-2 10y ago
    Just because something is called a syndrome doesn't mean it permeats a culture in which it was identified
ximeng 10y ago
Think there's room for more nuance around saying inequality increases as wealth increases. Eg a public transit system and a limousine service could both increase the wealth of a community but might have different effects on inequality. Services like Facebook or google naturally lead to extreme inequality due to the information availability differing between the company and consumers.
- vixen99 10y ago
  I did not say that inequality increases as wealth increases. I said, it <has> increased and so has wealth. This is a fact. We have seen the largest decline in material poverty in human history along with a massive increase in inequality. As an example, the OECD says that over the last three decades the share of Chinese living in absolute poverty has declined from eight in ten to one in ten. At the same time, relative poverty (taking inequality into account) has more or less doubled. Which metric is more important if you're a poor Chinese person?