20 ms·

Unlike most millennials, Norway's are rich

• bufferoverflow 8y ago
  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.
  • ddebernardy 8y ago
    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.
  • oblio 8y ago
    Norway was rich on a global scale before oil.
    • maxxxxx 8y ago
      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.
    • yesforwhat 8y ago
      Not by European standards
      • oblio 8y ago
        Careful with that statement, you forgot Europe also has Eastern Europe :)
    • jeffreyrogers 8y ago
      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).
    • adventured 8y ago
      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.
    • hotdog97 8y ago
      Bullshit. Norway was the poor European country before they found oil.
  • dalbasal 8y ago
    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.
  • loblollyboy 8y ago
    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.
    • kiliantics 8y ago
      Not culture, that's being xenophobic. There's a much easier explanation which is the history of colonialism.
  • anoplus 8y ago
    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.
  • eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
    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.
    • rsync 8y ago
      "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 ...)
      • bradlys 8y ago
        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#tHIG8RK2kX https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-paycheck-calculator#...
        • rsync 8y ago
          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.
    • ng12 8y ago
      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.
  • 67_45 8y ago
    There are many small countries that have experienced similar abundance and not done well. Size has absolutely nothing to do with it at all.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• novaRom 8y ago
  Not just rich, but 'equally' rich.
  • joshmn 8y ago
    Weird how in America that simple, fundamental idea is so seemingly fly toxic.
• arthurfm 8y ago
  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.
  • vecinu 8y ago
    I believe the submitter was going for "Norway's Millennials" which I believe still sounds okay.
  • Nullabillity 8y ago
    I read it as "Norway's [millenials]", which seems fine grammatically.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • Thiez 8y ago
    It's referring to them as 'the millennials of Norway', short: 'Norway's millennials'. You are correct that those millennials would be Norwegians.
    • hocuspocus 8y ago
      Not all of them. About 17% of the population aren't citizens, and probably more so within the millennials.
  • Sathu 8y ago
    Norwegians, in this case, feels more right, as it is referring to the people.
  • wavefunction 8y ago
    "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).
• Deestan 8y ago
  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.
  • viach 8y ago
    I think their parents got mortgages which they were paying off all their factory drone lives, not bought these houses.
    • sideshowb 8y ago
      And the kids get mortgages in their 30s too presumably
      • usrusr 8y ago
        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)
        • sideshowb 8y ago
          Here in the UK you can port mortgages from one house to another... (Or at current interest rates let out the old place)
    • s3m4j 8y ago
      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.
      • maxerickson 8y ago
        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.
• jopsen 8y ago
  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 :)
  • endymi0n 8y ago
    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.
    • bernardino 8y ago
      > 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.
      • endymi0n 8y ago
        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.
        • 8y ago
• franciscop 8y ago
  As a Spaniard who has discussed this in lenght with many other Europeans[1], it really seems like the US is the main country with the University debt issue. I also really believe that "score inflation" is a big issue mainly in the US. If everyone can finish University, then having a university title becomes pointless! [2] 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-performance-better-grades/384447/ 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.
  • linkregister 8y ago
    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.
  • im3w1l 8y ago
    > 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.
    • franciscop 8y ago
      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-performance-better-grades/384447/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/same-p...
    • Taniwha 8y ago
      unless you actually learn something there
• mockingbirdy 8y ago
  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/norway https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/germany 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://tradingeconomics.com/norway/gini-index-wb-data.html https://www.statista.com/statistics/219643/gini-coefficient-for-us-individuals-families-and-households/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/219643/gini-coefficient-... http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm https://www.gut-leben-in-deutschland.de/static/LB/indicators/income/gini-coefficient-income/ https://www.gut-leben-in-deutschland.de/static/LB/indicators... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
  • marvin 8y ago
    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.
• aamsuzon 8y ago
  Thanks for being
• mtgx 8y ago
  > 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.
  • sokoloff 8y ago
    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.
• skookumchuck 8y ago
  "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.
  • alkonaut 8y ago
    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.
  • ethelward 8y ago
    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.
    • throw2016 8y ago
      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.
      • jessaustin 8y ago
        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...
• dotdi 8y ago
  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.
  • mockingbirdy 8y ago
    > 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.
    • mockingbirdy 8y ago
      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).
• csomar 8y ago
  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.
  • alkonaut 8y ago
    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.
• known 8y ago
  UBI improves lives, enhances freedom and is a matter of social justice; https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/04/why-the-world-should-adopt-a-basic-income https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/04/why-the-wor...
• fulafel 8y ago
  Norway is the only oil economy that has managed to avoid the resource curse.
  • dredmorbius 8y ago
    The U.S. might be another, no?
    • fulafel 8y ago
      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.
      • dredmorbius 8y ago
        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?
        • fulafel 8y ago
          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.
          • dredmorbius 8y ago
            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.
• known 8y ago
  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
  • 52-6F-62 8y ago
    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
  • guessmyname 8y ago
    > 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-programmes.html 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.
• HNLogInShit 8y ago
  Still pushing this idiotic “millennials” label? Sad.
• stefs 8y ago
  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-00144feabdc0 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.
  • Nimitz14 8y ago
    Thank you very much for sharing! That was very interesting.
• marvin 8y ago
  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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17001133 Summary of taxes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828357 Begging and homelessness: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15169167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15169167 Taxation of real estate vs. company ownership: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828227 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13914084 Balancing capital gains tax and taxes on company earnings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17277429 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17475051
• angarg12 8y ago
  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.
  • flatfilefan 8y ago
    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?
  • massysett 8y ago
    "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.
    • ordinaryperson 8y ago
      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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease Norway has been wiser in its approach.
    • jaredklewis 8y ago
      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?
• chiefalchemist 8y ago
  > "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
• cosmic_ape 8y ago
  >>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?
  • NightlyDev 8y ago
    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.
• chiefalchemist 8y ago
  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.
  • A2017U1 8y ago
    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.
    • chiefalchemist 8y ago
      Agreed. "Rich" is not only shallow, it's not accurate either.
  • flurdy 8y ago
    Post tax spendable income gives an indication on real income: * http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Cost-of-living/Average-monthly-disposable-salary/After-tax http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Cost-of-livin... * https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/disposable-income-map_n_6924568 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/disposable-income-map... General cost of living data for Norway: * http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Norway/Cost-of-living 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index
    • chiefalchemist 8y ago
      Thanks. Much appreciated. Shame the article lacked this context.
• jopsen 8y ago
  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.
• 67_45 8y ago
  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.
  • blindwatchmaker 8y ago
    This is a really bizarre statement. Could you deign to back it up in any way?
    • 67_45 8y ago
      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.