7 ms·

I disagree. Here in Sweden, we actively discourage jobs that pay borderline-poverty wages. Taxi rides should not be cheap. You are buying someone else's time. T

I disagree. Here in Sweden, we actively discourage jobs that pay borderline-poverty wages. Taxi rides should not be cheap. You are buying someone else's time. That should be expensive for the middle-class.

fennecfoxen 10y ago
I'm going to go full-on link-to-Libertarian screed on this, so I apologise in advance, but... when regulations like this are realized, and unions protect a privileged set of existing members, the marginalized are in fact hardest hit. http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/11/think-the-sharing-economy-needs-more-reg http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/11/think-the-sharing-economy-...
- jamesblonde 10y ago
  The facts are that the bottom 5/10/20% in Sweden are better off than in the U.S. (from measures such as life expectancy, literacy, etc). Yet, our society is structured around collective bargaining. So it disproves your claim that the marginalized are hardest hit. Society provides a net to catch those that fall off the edge. Personally, I believe a society should be judged by how it looks after their worst off. That's not libertarian, I don't know what to call it. My mother would call it being 'nice' or 'responsible'.
  - jamesblonde 10y ago
    Just to add an anecdote that reflects on Swedish society values from this weekend. The number one cultural event here is the Eurovision Song Contest within Sweden (to select the representative for the Europe-wide contest). The winner of the popular vote this year was an ex-convict who was considered 'rehabiltated' and always talked about his family. People love the way society helped him when he was down and how he rebuilt himself. It isn't a rugged individualistic notion of how he saved himself, more about how support structures enabled him to change himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano_Omar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano_Omar
    - strictfp 10y ago
      Please don't sell our embarrassing fascination of Eurovision as something good by calling it our "number one cultural event". Makes me sad :(
      - jamesblonde 10y ago
        By any objective measure, it's the most talked about/watched event in the annual calendar. Embarrassing - maybe, but it's all the kids talk about at school. Btw, I bet on Robin at 14/1 - my outsider perspective helps finding that kind of arbitrage opportunity.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    While true, this is likely driven primarily by demographic factors. The US averages are dragged down by demographic groups which are common in the US, but rare in Sweden. When you correct for demographics by comparing Swedish Americans to Swedes, it turns out that all income percentiles besides the bottom 10% are better off in the US. Even the bottom 10% are not very different. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nA4POTBiYKYJ:economicreview2011.blogspot.com/2010/03/super-economy-in-one-picture.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nA4POT... Note that countries populated by those other demographic groups also perform fairly badly. For example, Italy also tries to be "nice" or "responsible" (as you describe it), but Sicily is a very scenic (and tasty!) basket case. (I think it's not un-PC for me to talk about Sicily, since my ancestry is more Sicilian than anything else?)
    - jamesblonde 10y ago
      I don't want to go here, because it's the thin edge of a tbh racist wedge. In Sweden there is practically zero unemployment for 'ethnic swedes'. So the debate here is now on integrating new arrivals in the workplace. The notion that somebody would say 'hey, but we have full employment for ethnic swedes, screw the others' is inconceivable. For the reason that we live in the same society. We share the same public transport and public spaces. If they are worse off, i will eventually be worse off (through them destroying our shared space). Having buy-in from everyone in society is crucial. That is why benefits are not means tested here. Yes, socialists want benefits for everyone, not just the poor. Because, when the rich stop receiving child benefit or university grants, they actively undermine the system. Naturally, our right wing parties want to means-test benefits. It's the opposite of anglo-saxon economies (disclosure- i'm from one, hence i notice these differences more than your average swede).
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I don't want to go here, because it's the thin edge of a tbh racist wedge. It's always entertaining to watch people label a claim as "racist", but refuse to call them "false" or argue against them. I made no normative claims (e.g. "screw the others"), only a positive one.
  - literallycancer 10y ago
    >So it disproves your claim that the marginalized are hardest hit. Even if poor people in Sweden are better off than poor people in the US, it doesn't mean it's because of the collective bargaining, it may be caused by something else.
    - js8 10y ago
      He lives in Sweden. Of course it always can be something else, but I think he is in a better position to judge that than you, since he lives in the system that has that policy. Unless you have a good reason to think otherwise, why not just believe him?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Collective bargaining and safety net are quite different concepts. In fact, it's been pointed out by Luigi Zingales and others that Southern European countries actually have stronger job protection rules than Northern countries, yet our workers are clearly not richer.
  - colmvp 10y ago
    On the topic of helping the bottom 20%, I should also add that in Canada, those who enjoy our socialized health insurance owe a nod to trade unions who advocated on behalf of it's huge membership (third of Canadian workers, post-World War 2). Back in the 1960s, if you look at the opposition to the proposition of Canadian Medicare, it was exactly who you'd expect: Medical associations, Pharma, Insurance Companies, Canadian Chamber of Commerce Who favored it? Trade Unions, Association of Social Workers, Farmer Associations, United Church of Canada... it also polled heavily well amongst the population In a public commission (1961), Trade Unions advocated for medicare by revealing the limitations of private insurance, where they could point out that profit-driven insurance schemes that enrolled their members tended to severely restrict or deny coverage in many areas (rehab, preventative health, mental health) despite the fact that their plans had costly deductibles and co-insurance charges. They also point-by-point countered the arguments against Medicare made by the Canadian Medical Association. And they also pointed out a purely market-driven allocation of resources created huge inequalities in access to care, such as the lack of doctors in some provinces and lack of dentists outside of our two biggest cities.
patrickaljord 10y ago
> That should be expensive for the middle-class. So you're saying only rich people should get taxi rides? I thought Sweden supported the poor more. Also, you're aware that when the minimum wage is too high, it just means there will be more unemployment, not that everyone gets a raise. Now the debate is: are people happier with a job with a low wage or are they happier at home doing nothing? Studies show that people are more depressed at home when unemployed and have more chance to improve their condition and salary by starting at lower paid jobs doing something. But many of the supporters of high minimum wage would rather people stay at home than improve themselves starting with lower paid jobs not because it helps the poor but because it helps the high minimum wage supporters sleep better at night knowing that although more people have no jobs, at least no one is being underpaid... well... except for those not being paid at all.
- js8 10y ago
  > So you're saying only rich people should get taxi rides? I do agree with that, best if middle class people use public transport (or worse, their own car). > I thought Sweden supported the poor more. It has nothing to do with support of the poor. In India, taxis are incredibly cheap, and there is no shortage of poor people. Poor people can drive buses and trams, too, you know. > Also, you're aware that when the minimum wage is too high, it just means there will be more unemployment No, it doesn't. It was never empirically proven that there is a connection between minimum wage and unemployment. (You are simplifying the whole economy to the labor market, but there is also demand side.)
  - patrickaljord 10y ago
    That's amazing, you're basically saying better services should be for the rich only while the poor should use lower public services while saying at the same time that you support the poor. Incredible. That's what socialism always does, pretends to help the poor but in the end only the elite benefits from it. > No, it doesn't. It was never empirically proven that there is a connection between minimum wage and unemployment. When it comes to low skill jobs, yes, increasing the minimum wage does create more unemployment as the middle class is not able to pay for them anymore, only the super rich. That's a well no fact, you can look it up.

fennecfoxen 10y ago

I'm going to go full-on link-to-Libertarian screed on this, so I apologise in advance, but... when regulations like this are realized, and unions protect a privileged set of existing members, the marginalized are in fact hardest hit. http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/11/think-the-sharing-economy-needs-more-reg http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/11/think-the-sharing-economy-...

jamesblonde 10y ago
The facts are that the bottom 5/10/20% in Sweden are better off than in the U.S. (from measures such as life expectancy, literacy, etc). Yet, our society is structured around collective bargaining. So it disproves your claim that the marginalized are hardest hit. Society provides a net to catch those that fall off the edge. Personally, I believe a society should be judged by how it looks after their worst off. That's not libertarian, I don't know what to call it. My mother would call it being 'nice' or 'responsible'.
- jamesblonde 10y ago
  Just to add an anecdote that reflects on Swedish society values from this weekend. The number one cultural event here is the Eurovision Song Contest within Sweden (to select the representative for the Europe-wide contest). The winner of the popular vote this year was an ex-convict who was considered 'rehabiltated' and always talked about his family. People love the way society helped him when he was down and how he rebuilt himself. It isn't a rugged individualistic notion of how he saved himself, more about how support structures enabled him to change himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano_Omar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano_Omar
  - strictfp 10y ago
    Please don't sell our embarrassing fascination of Eurovision as something good by calling it our "number one cultural event". Makes me sad :(
    - jamesblonde 10y ago
      By any objective measure, it's the most talked about/watched event in the annual calendar. Embarrassing - maybe, but it's all the kids talk about at school. Btw, I bet on Robin at 14/1 - my outsider perspective helps finding that kind of arbitrage opportunity.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  While true, this is likely driven primarily by demographic factors. The US averages are dragged down by demographic groups which are common in the US, but rare in Sweden. When you correct for demographics by comparing Swedish Americans to Swedes, it turns out that all income percentiles besides the bottom 10% are better off in the US. Even the bottom 10% are not very different. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nA4POTBiYKYJ:economicreview2011.blogspot.com/2010/03/super-economy-in-one-picture.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nA4POT... Note that countries populated by those other demographic groups also perform fairly badly. For example, Italy also tries to be "nice" or "responsible" (as you describe it), but Sicily is a very scenic (and tasty!) basket case. (I think it's not un-PC for me to talk about Sicily, since my ancestry is more Sicilian than anything else?)
  - jamesblonde 10y ago
    I don't want to go here, because it's the thin edge of a tbh racist wedge. In Sweden there is practically zero unemployment for 'ethnic swedes'. So the debate here is now on integrating new arrivals in the workplace. The notion that somebody would say 'hey, but we have full employment for ethnic swedes, screw the others' is inconceivable. For the reason that we live in the same society. We share the same public transport and public spaces. If they are worse off, i will eventually be worse off (through them destroying our shared space). Having buy-in from everyone in society is crucial. That is why benefits are not means tested here. Yes, socialists want benefits for everyone, not just the poor. Because, when the rich stop receiving child benefit or university grants, they actively undermine the system. Naturally, our right wing parties want to means-test benefits. It's the opposite of anglo-saxon economies (disclosure- i'm from one, hence i notice these differences more than your average swede).
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I don't want to go here, because it's the thin edge of a tbh racist wedge. It's always entertaining to watch people label a claim as "racist", but refuse to call them "false" or argue against them. I made no normative claims (e.g. "screw the others"), only a positive one.
- literallycancer 10y ago
  >So it disproves your claim that the marginalized are hardest hit. Even if poor people in Sweden are better off than poor people in the US, it doesn't mean it's because of the collective bargaining, it may be caused by something else.
  - js8 10y ago
    He lives in Sweden. Of course it always can be something else, but I think he is in a better position to judge that than you, since he lives in the system that has that policy. Unless you have a good reason to think otherwise, why not just believe him?
- icebraining 10y ago
  Collective bargaining and safety net are quite different concepts. In fact, it's been pointed out by Luigi Zingales and others that Southern European countries actually have stronger job protection rules than Northern countries, yet our workers are clearly not richer.
- colmvp 10y ago
  On the topic of helping the bottom 20%, I should also add that in Canada, those who enjoy our socialized health insurance owe a nod to trade unions who advocated on behalf of it's huge membership (third of Canadian workers, post-World War 2). Back in the 1960s, if you look at the opposition to the proposition of Canadian Medicare, it was exactly who you'd expect: Medical associations, Pharma, Insurance Companies, Canadian Chamber of Commerce Who favored it? Trade Unions, Association of Social Workers, Farmer Associations, United Church of Canada... it also polled heavily well amongst the population In a public commission (1961), Trade Unions advocated for medicare by revealing the limitations of private insurance, where they could point out that profit-driven insurance schemes that enrolled their members tended to severely restrict or deny coverage in many areas (rehab, preventative health, mental health) despite the fact that their plans had costly deductibles and co-insurance charges. They also point-by-point countered the arguments against Medicare made by the Canadian Medical Association. And they also pointed out a purely market-driven allocation of resources created huge inequalities in access to care, such as the lack of doctors in some provinces and lack of dentists outside of our two biggest cities.

patrickaljord 10y ago

> That should be expensive for the middle-class. So you're saying only rich people should get taxi rides? I thought Sweden supported the poor more. Also, you're aware that when the minimum wage is too high, it just means there will be more unemployment, not that everyone gets a raise. Now the debate is: are people happier with a job with a low wage or are they happier at home doing nothing? Studies show that people are more depressed at home when unemployed and have more chance to improve their condition and salary by starting at lower paid jobs doing something. But many of the supporters of high minimum wage would rather people stay at home than improve themselves starting with lower paid jobs not because it helps the poor but because it helps the high minimum wage supporters sleep better at night knowing that although more people have no jobs, at least no one is being underpaid... well... except for those not being paid at all.

js8 10y ago
> So you're saying only rich people should get taxi rides? I do agree with that, best if middle class people use public transport (or worse, their own car). > I thought Sweden supported the poor more. It has nothing to do with support of the poor. In India, taxis are incredibly cheap, and there is no shortage of poor people. Poor people can drive buses and trams, too, you know. > Also, you're aware that when the minimum wage is too high, it just means there will be more unemployment No, it doesn't. It was never empirically proven that there is a connection between minimum wage and unemployment. (You are simplifying the whole economy to the labor market, but there is also demand side.)
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  That's amazing, you're basically saying better services should be for the rich only while the poor should use lower public services while saying at the same time that you support the poor. Incredible. That's what socialism always does, pretends to help the poor but in the end only the elite benefits from it. > No, it doesn't. It was never empirically proven that there is a connection between minimum wage and unemployment. When it comes to low skill jobs, yes, increasing the minimum wage does create more unemployment as the middle class is not able to pay for them anymore, only the super rich. That's a well no fact, you can look it up.