6 ms·

>The Swedes themselves promote an atmosphere of great personal ambition — unlike some European neighbors that emphasize the collective — and that’s a boon to in

by OskarS 10y ago

>The Swedes themselves promote an atmosphere of great personal ambition — unlike some European neighbors that emphasize the collective — and that’s a boon to innovation, he said. >“In the culture, people are super individualistic — this means that people have ideas and are very interested in pursuing them in this way in order to become wealthy,” said Henrekson. This is very true, and a thing which is often misunderstood about the Swedish mindset. The sterotype of Swedes is frequently that we're a bunch of socialists who all believe that everyone should work for the collective good. That's totally wrong. Sweden is perhaps one of the most individualistic countries in the world: we value the individual over the family or community, and we believe that everyone should have the same opportunities regardless of the circumstances of their birth. This is the reason we have the social safety net we have: it is a substitute for family and community and other more traditional support systems.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Yes! If the government can provide effective healthcare that should at least in theory be a great boon to social mobility and entrepreneurship as that means people can much more easily move to a new job. Tying healthcare to employers is antithetical to that. I suspect the real issue doing that in the US is simply because it's so varied. You've got several individual demographics within America that are bigger than Sweden's entire population - all with different cultures and even histories. Having a more homogeneous culture is advantageous in that respect. Maybe it's not surprising that SK has seen similar results.
- OskarS 10y ago
  Today, Sweden is much more diverse that most people from other countries imagine (the percentage of the population that is born in foreign countries is higher in Sweden than the US, for instance). A walk down any street in Stockholm would disabuse you of the notion that there is no diversity here. However, it is fair to say that when the system was "designed", (largely in the early and mid 20th century), Sweden was much more ethnically homogeneous than it is today. There might be something to the notion that people are much more willing to accept a generous welfare state if they know the beneficiaries are from the same ethnic group. It's shameful, but that's humanity for you.
- sidek 10y ago
  Diversity is no excuse for America's failures. Your nation is not as much an outlier in diversity as you would like to believe, and in the domain of health care you need only look north to Canada to see that this argument is nonsense.
  - webnrrd2k 10y ago
    In all honesty, when I hear people say that some social program can't work in America because it's "too diverse," I can't help but hear "it can't work because of all the blacks and Mexicans". It's disappointing and quite upsetting to me... It's clear that they are using a (slightly) more socially acceptable form of racism. After all, are they saying, for eg, education can't work because of all the Irish or German or Asians? Is it because of all the Canadians living off the US government? Who exactly are these diverse types that are ensuring that particular failure?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
kzrdude 10y ago
> Sweden is perhaps one of the most individualistic country in the world: we value the individual over the family or community, and we believe that everyone should have the same opportunities regardless of the circumstances of their birth. This is the reason we have the social safety net we have: it is a substitute for family and community and other more traditional support systems. I think this has its costs; humans are social and they need the social context. The state certainly can't deliver a social context on a limited budget care & support machine. (Example: Your grandmother will meet 100 different caregivers for home care in a year, if she has that. That's 100 strangers instead of having a personal relation. That can be solved either with a more expensive consistent employment regime in elderly care, or care from family.)
- OskarS 10y ago
  Oh, yes, I totally agree! There's a very steep cost to this model of "Swedish-style individualism", and it's exactly the one you describe. Swedes have much weaker bonds to their extended family, their community, their religious institutions (etc.) and it's clearly not a good thing. Humans are social animals. I'm not necessarily arguing that Sweden is a model society and all other countries should adopt our ways. What I'm arguing against is the idea (fairly common, at least in the US) that higher taxes and a more generous welfare state is always antithetical to individualism and the entrepreneurial spirit. It can be, certainly, but it is not necessarily so.
  - PastaMonster 10y ago
    Read somewhere that the chance of having higher intelligence is reflected in how self-sufficient you are. People with higher intelligence tend to manage just fine with a small social group with weak connections. The more social you are the more likely that you have lower intelligence. Sort of suggests that following the collective, being an ant in a colony may have negative effects on intelligence over a few generations. Natures law: "What you don't use you lose." You don't need higher intelligence because so many are chipping in to compensate. Then again, balance is a fickle thing.
    - 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sebcat 10y ago
I think you are applying your own values to the population as a whole. Depending on ones ethnicity, social class, and other variables, one may, as a Swede, value family or community over the individual.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  There is certainly variation, but a lot of the broad social policies betray a bias toward individualism. For instance one of the goals of the "million programme" to build enough homes so that you didn't have man generations living under the same roof. I live in Japan now, and while it's seen as a collective society, it's clear so much more of left to families to deal with themselves rather than society as a whole. Sweden has broader social programs and is more individualistic, and Japan has weaker social programs and is more communal. It shows how the US one dimensional view of left/right isnt all there is to it.
- JohnStrange 10y ago
  What you say is a truism, of course. But more specifically, the overt stance towards values across different cultures is one of the best researched topics in the social sciences. For example, you can download data from http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ and http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/ http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/, and http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org and these are just the top links from Google when you look for value surveys. This kind of data is based on surveys with all the caveats these come with. (People do not necessarily report what they really think in surveys.) I believe Ronald Inglehart was one of the first to start with extensive empirical surveys of this sort. Nowadays they are conducted world-wide by vast number of organizations and there are also yearly summary publications in book format. I was admittedly too lazy to check the values in Sweden vs elsewhere, just wanted to add to your comment that what values people endorse (or at least overtly report to endorse) in various countries and regions of the world is not unknown at all and it is not hard to look up data from reputable sources. How people act upon the values they report (if at all), is a different matter, of course.
- OskarS 10y ago
  I'm speaking in aggregates, certainly, different people will have different values. But the idea is generally true, and it is backed by studies measuring values. In addition, this was an explicitly stated goal in the creation of the Swedish welfare state. The Social Democratic "philosophy" underlying it goes by the name of "Folkhemmet"[1], "the people's home". The idea is that in order to progress to a more modern economy, the state should take over the more traditional support systems previously provided by family/community/religion/etc. when it comes to things like healthcare, education and taking care of the poor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet
fornever 10y ago
While I agree with your overall point I unfortunately don't think your characterization of Sweden is true anymore. Your education prospects now depend on which school you go to, especially with blatant grade inflation. My friends are putting their kids in queue for elite elementary school the day after they are born. Even if you can make it to college the traditional route you'll have trouble finding an apartment and keeping your student benefits. Healthcare is a complicated system of public funded private institutions that regularly and willingly violate the law on things like time before you get to see a specialist. I always used to like the Swedish healthcare system until I realized I've always visited the same doctors that I knew. Unemployment benefits doesn't apply (or atleast appeal) to former students or short contract workers these days. You have to go the welfare office and even they have no problem denying you means. You'll probably won't have much job security anyways since you'll be hired as a contractor. Housing, especially in Stockholm, is a mess that won't be solved anytime soon. It makes the effects of everything worse. Commute time, work-life balance, even the weather. I honestly think Sweden is one of the best countries in the world, but it's not a good deal anymore. If you got established ten years ago and could go to school before rampant youth unemployment, got an apartment before housing prices skyrocketed, know which doctors to go to, get a stable job where it makes sense to join the union etc. then it's great. You can study at university for seven years, some of them abroad, work for a few years, go on paternity leave for the better part of a year, move abroad for some time, then come back to your stable job again, leave your employer and get hired back as a consultant and if you don't find work go on unemployment. All this while you make a workers salary in housing appreciation, take vacations three times a year and get to use your parent country house in the summers. Bottom line is that increasingly only the rich can afford to take advantage of the social safety net these days and I think it's starting to show even with things like startups. It was apparent very early that companies like Spotify, Klarna, Mojang etc. would be successful. I don't see many of these types of early successes anymore (but that might be my own ignorance of course). There's increasingly nothing special about Sweden.
- cylinder 10y ago
  As always rapidly increasing population decreases quality of life for all except those already established at the top of the pyramid.
kxyvr 10y ago
As an American who lived in Scandinavia for a few years and spent a fair amount of time in Sweden, I will say that Jantelagen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante takes some getting used to and has an affect on the business environment. At this point, I do believe that someone can be just as effective in business in Scandinavia as other places like the U.S., but my first two years were difficult until I understood how to navigate these social norms. Mostly, this is to say that, even beyond immigration and paperwork, I don't think it's exactly simple for someone outside to move to Sweden to take advantage of these opportunities. I think opportunity is there, but it takes some adapting to things like Jante's Law.
- cesarbs 10y ago
  Can you elaborate on the getting used to Jantelagen?
  - kxyvr 10y ago
    There's a lot that goes into it and I can't claim that everything I believe can be strictly related to Jantelagen. That said, I believe that it takes longer to introduce and have accepted new ideas in a Scandinavian workplace. Further, I believe that how new ideas are introduced tends to be more indirect than in an American workplace. This runs ostensibly contrary to the idea that Sweden is innovative. From my American point of view, if they're so innovative, then why won't they listen to a good idea? Now, the reality is much more subtle. It's absolutely possible to introduce new ideas in these workplaces and have them valued, but I do find the process takes longer. Certain activities like eating together for lunch, having afternoon coffee together, or small talk before a meeting tend to go a long way in helping this, much farther than in an American workplace. I also find that there's a difference in directness that's hard to explain. When I say that the process for introducing ideas is more indirect, I don't mean that everyone there wants flowery language. However, I do end up speaking differently with my Scandinavian clients. Anyway, these are just my opinions, so I don't want to make this appear as absolute. For me, it took about two years of living there before I felt comfortable navigating the environment and, certainly, I'm still not perfect.
cesarbs 10y ago
I'm confused. I thought Jantelagen (mentioned in a sibling comment) was all about not promoting oneself above the collective. Maybe someone explained it completely wrong to me? Also, I though the idea of Lagom was that one should not pursue material wealth and success above what is "good enough".

by OskarS 10y ago

aaron-lebo 10y ago

Yes! If the government can provide effective healthcare that should at least in theory be a great boon to social mobility and entrepreneurship as that means people can much more easily move to a new job. Tying healthcare to employers is antithetical to that. I suspect the real issue doing that in the US is simply because it's so varied. You've got several individual demographics within America that are bigger than Sweden's entire population - all with different cultures and even histories. Having a more homogeneous culture is advantageous in that respect. Maybe it's not surprising that SK has seen similar results.

OskarS 10y ago
Today, Sweden is much more diverse that most people from other countries imagine (the percentage of the population that is born in foreign countries is higher in Sweden than the US, for instance). A walk down any street in Stockholm would disabuse you of the notion that there is no diversity here. However, it is fair to say that when the system was "designed", (largely in the early and mid 20th century), Sweden was much more ethnically homogeneous than it is today. There might be something to the notion that people are much more willing to accept a generous welfare state if they know the beneficiaries are from the same ethnic group. It's shameful, but that's humanity for you.
sidek 10y ago
Diversity is no excuse for America's failures. Your nation is not as much an outlier in diversity as you would like to believe, and in the domain of health care you need only look north to Canada to see that this argument is nonsense.
- webnrrd2k 10y ago
  In all honesty, when I hear people say that some social program can't work in America because it's "too diverse," I can't help but hear "it can't work because of all the blacks and Mexicans". It's disappointing and quite upsetting to me... It's clear that they are using a (slightly) more socially acceptable form of racism. After all, are they saying, for eg, education can't work because of all the Irish or German or Asians? Is it because of all the Canadians living off the US government? Who exactly are these diverse types that are ensuring that particular failure?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

kzrdude 10y ago

> Sweden is perhaps one of the most individualistic country in the world: we value the individual over the family or community, and we believe that everyone should have the same opportunities regardless of the circumstances of their birth. This is the reason we have the social safety net we have: it is a substitute for family and community and other more traditional support systems. I think this has its costs; humans are social and they need the social context. The state certainly can't deliver a social context on a limited budget care & support machine. (Example: Your grandmother will meet 100 different caregivers for home care in a year, if she has that. That's 100 strangers instead of having a personal relation. That can be solved either with a more expensive consistent employment regime in elderly care, or care from family.)

OskarS 10y ago
Oh, yes, I totally agree! There's a very steep cost to this model of "Swedish-style individualism", and it's exactly the one you describe. Swedes have much weaker bonds to their extended family, their community, their religious institutions (etc.) and it's clearly not a good thing. Humans are social animals. I'm not necessarily arguing that Sweden is a model society and all other countries should adopt our ways. What I'm arguing against is the idea (fairly common, at least in the US) that higher taxes and a more generous welfare state is always antithetical to individualism and the entrepreneurial spirit. It can be, certainly, but it is not necessarily so.
- PastaMonster 10y ago
  Read somewhere that the chance of having higher intelligence is reflected in how self-sufficient you are. People with higher intelligence tend to manage just fine with a small social group with weak connections. The more social you are the more likely that you have lower intelligence. Sort of suggests that following the collective, being an ant in a colony may have negative effects on intelligence over a few generations. Natures law: "What you don't use you lose." You don't need higher intelligence because so many are chipping in to compensate. Then again, balance is a fickle thing.
  - 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

sebcat 10y ago

I think you are applying your own values to the population as a whole. Depending on ones ethnicity, social class, and other variables, one may, as a Swede, value family or community over the individual.

kalleboo 10y ago
There is certainly variation, but a lot of the broad social policies betray a bias toward individualism. For instance one of the goals of the "million programme" to build enough homes so that you didn't have man generations living under the same roof. I live in Japan now, and while it's seen as a collective society, it's clear so much more of left to families to deal with themselves rather than society as a whole. Sweden has broader social programs and is more individualistic, and Japan has weaker social programs and is more communal. It shows how the US one dimensional view of left/right isnt all there is to it.
JohnStrange 10y ago
What you say is a truism, of course. But more specifically, the overt stance towards values across different cultures is one of the best researched topics in the social sciences. For example, you can download data from http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ and http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/ http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/, and http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org and these are just the top links from Google when you look for value surveys. This kind of data is based on surveys with all the caveats these come with. (People do not necessarily report what they really think in surveys.) I believe Ronald Inglehart was one of the first to start with extensive empirical surveys of this sort. Nowadays they are conducted world-wide by vast number of organizations and there are also yearly summary publications in book format. I was admittedly too lazy to check the values in Sweden vs elsewhere, just wanted to add to your comment that what values people endorse (or at least overtly report to endorse) in various countries and regions of the world is not unknown at all and it is not hard to look up data from reputable sources. How people act upon the values they report (if at all), is a different matter, of course.
OskarS 10y ago
I'm speaking in aggregates, certainly, different people will have different values. But the idea is generally true, and it is backed by studies measuring values. In addition, this was an explicitly stated goal in the creation of the Swedish welfare state. The Social Democratic "philosophy" underlying it goes by the name of "Folkhemmet"[1], "the people's home". The idea is that in order to progress to a more modern economy, the state should take over the more traditional support systems previously provided by family/community/religion/etc. when it comes to things like healthcare, education and taking care of the poor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet

fornever 10y ago

While I agree with your overall point I unfortunately don't think your characterization of Sweden is true anymore. Your education prospects now depend on which school you go to, especially with blatant grade inflation. My friends are putting their kids in queue for elite elementary school the day after they are born. Even if you can make it to college the traditional route you'll have trouble finding an apartment and keeping your student benefits. Healthcare is a complicated system of public funded private institutions that regularly and willingly violate the law on things like time before you get to see a specialist. I always used to like the Swedish healthcare system until I realized I've always visited the same doctors that I knew. Unemployment benefits doesn't apply (or atleast appeal) to former students or short contract workers these days. You have to go the welfare office and even they have no problem denying you means. You'll probably won't have much job security anyways since you'll be hired as a contractor. Housing, especially in Stockholm, is a mess that won't be solved anytime soon. It makes the effects of everything worse. Commute time, work-life balance, even the weather. I honestly think Sweden is one of the best countries in the world, but it's not a good deal anymore. If you got established ten years ago and could go to school before rampant youth unemployment, got an apartment before housing prices skyrocketed, know which doctors to go to, get a stable job where it makes sense to join the union etc. then it's great. You can study at university for seven years, some of them abroad, work for a few years, go on paternity leave for the better part of a year, move abroad for some time, then come back to your stable job again, leave your employer and get hired back as a consultant and if you don't find work go on unemployment. All this while you make a workers salary in housing appreciation, take vacations three times a year and get to use your parent country house in the summers. Bottom line is that increasingly only the rich can afford to take advantage of the social safety net these days and I think it's starting to show even with things like startups. It was apparent very early that companies like Spotify, Klarna, Mojang etc. would be successful. I don't see many of these types of early successes anymore (but that might be my own ignorance of course). There's increasingly nothing special about Sweden.

cylinder 10y ago
As always rapidly increasing population decreases quality of life for all except those already established at the top of the pyramid.

kxyvr 10y ago

As an American who lived in Scandinavia for a few years and spent a fair amount of time in Sweden, I will say that Jantelagen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante takes some getting used to and has an affect on the business environment. At this point, I do believe that someone can be just as effective in business in Scandinavia as other places like the U.S., but my first two years were difficult until I understood how to navigate these social norms. Mostly, this is to say that, even beyond immigration and paperwork, I don't think it's exactly simple for someone outside to move to Sweden to take advantage of these opportunities. I think opportunity is there, but it takes some adapting to things like Jante's Law.

cesarbs 10y ago
Can you elaborate on the getting used to Jantelagen?
- kxyvr 10y ago
  There's a lot that goes into it and I can't claim that everything I believe can be strictly related to Jantelagen. That said, I believe that it takes longer to introduce and have accepted new ideas in a Scandinavian workplace. Further, I believe that how new ideas are introduced tends to be more indirect than in an American workplace. This runs ostensibly contrary to the idea that Sweden is innovative. From my American point of view, if they're so innovative, then why won't they listen to a good idea? Now, the reality is much more subtle. It's absolutely possible to introduce new ideas in these workplaces and have them valued, but I do find the process takes longer. Certain activities like eating together for lunch, having afternoon coffee together, or small talk before a meeting tend to go a long way in helping this, much farther than in an American workplace. I also find that there's a difference in directness that's hard to explain. When I say that the process for introducing ideas is more indirect, I don't mean that everyone there wants flowery language. However, I do end up speaking differently with my Scandinavian clients. Anyway, these are just my opinions, so I don't want to make this appear as absolute. For me, it took about two years of living there before I felt comfortable navigating the environment and, certainly, I'm still not perfect.

cesarbs 10y ago

I'm confused. I thought Jantelagen (mentioned in a sibling comment) was all about not promoting oneself above the collective. Maybe someone explained it completely wrong to me? Also, I though the idea of Lagom was that one should not pursue material wealth and success above what is "good enough".