4 ms·

Regarding your final point, the article does mention it, though not in detail. "I believe we have blended the best of Europe and the United States here, the No

by ible 18y ago

Regarding your final point, the article does mention it, though not in detail. "I believe we have blended the best of Europe and the United States here, the Nordic welfare system with the American entrepreneurial spirit,' he said, pointing out that Iceland, unlike the other Nordic countries, had exceptionally low personal and corporate tax rates. 'This has meant not only that Icelandic companies stay and foreign ones come, but that we have increased by 20 per cent our tax revenue owing to increased turnover.'" The article presents a pretty narrative, not a substantive account of different economic theories and their effects, but it does mention both the welfare state policies and the free-market ones, suggesting that choosing the best of both is what has improved Iceland. On the surface this seems sensible to me. The Nordic countries generally have better 'quality of life' than the US does, the US generally is stronger economically.

miked 18y ago
Good catch on my final point. Thanks. >> "The Nordic countries generally have better 'quality of life' than the US does, the US generally is stronger economically." Iceland certainly sounds nice, if you could tolerate the weather. "Nordic countries" is too general to be useful, I think. I'm a bit sceptical about making the quality of life comparisons, in any case. While traveling in Turkey about 7 years ago, a Swedish woman told me that a software developer there takes home about $1,300/month on average (i.e., after taxes). Restaurants in Sweden are so expensive that hardly anyone eats out. Six years ago (while the dollar was still strong) a large pizza in downtown Oslo went for $60. Even business executives pack a lunch. Norway is doing fine economically, since it has a tiny population and is the world's third largest exporter of oil (though that's running out). Given the explosion in crime that Bawer mentions (at much greater length in his book _While Europe Slept_, which was a finalist for the National Book Critics Cirlce Award), I think I'll find someplace else to hang. I've lived in Europe twice (Germany and Greece) and, while it had its points, it always felt sleepy to me.
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
  Iceland certainly sounds nice, if you could tolerate the weather. How does it compare to say, Wisconsin?
- ible 18y ago
  I haven't lived in the countries in question, so I don't have any personal experience to go on. The only measures I have are the various indexes of quality of life and other academic studies. According those we have the following rankings: Economist Quality of life index (2005): Switzerland: 2 Norway: 3 Sweden: 5 Iceland: 7 Denmark: 9 Finland: 12 US: 13 UN Human Development Index (2007): Iceland: 1 Norway: 2 Sweden: 6 Switzerland: 7 Finland: 11 US: 12 Denmark:14 All of these countries are quite rich by international standards, but their GDP per capita at PPP varies from a low of 29,650 in Sweden to a high of 41,529 in the US. The Nordic countries do better in their quality of life rank than their GDP per capita PPP rank, and the US does worse, (as does Canada, my home country, at least in the Economist survey). So all of these countries are doing just fine economically, whether they have oil reserves or not, and being rich certainly helps with 'quality of life' but it isn't the whole story. What matters much more than a quality of life index or a measure of economic strength is happiness. This is a much tricker question, since it is subjective, culturally dependent, and personal. Historically happiness has been disregarded as an area for academic research, but over the past few years that has changed. The studies are still in their infancy, but what they tell us now is that different cultures value different things for their happiness (wow, shock, I know) such as personal success in the US, and family ties in Japan. The other finding I know of, which I find more surprising, is that trust seems to be the most important element in happiness. I apologize for the lack of a link in advance, this is based on memory of a talk I attended last year. In a study done by a UBC researcher in Canada, based on census data and surveys done across the country, researchers measured interpersonal trust on a ten point scale, and recorded other factors such as wealth, relative wealth, personal safety, and so on. They found that a one point increase on the ten point scale in personal trust in your boss at work had a larger impact on happiness than doubling your salary. They also found that trust in your neighbors was essential to happiness. Here the results get more interesting, because things that provided trust in neighbors was basically length of time you'd been neighbors, and speaking the same language. Any location facing rapid growth by in-migration has a risk in happiness and trust, and if that growth is international immigration by people who don't speak the same language trust is further at risk, as is happiness. If these results generalize beyond Canada, which they might not, I would expect countries which are rich, non-corrupt, and stable in their cultural composition to be happiest, which makes Iceland a good candidate for a high rank. Regardless of the overall happiness of a country, moving there if you speak a different language, and value different things, is unlikely to make you or anyone else happy, at least in the short term. So wherever your personal values match up with local conditions, given a certain baseline of wealth and security, is likely to be the best place for you and just as likely to not be the best place for me regardless of any particular ranking.

by ible 18y ago

miked 18y ago

Good catch on my final point. Thanks. >> "The Nordic countries generally have better 'quality of life' than the US does, the US generally is stronger economically." Iceland certainly sounds nice, if you could tolerate the weather. "Nordic countries" is too general to be useful, I think. I'm a bit sceptical about making the quality of life comparisons, in any case. While traveling in Turkey about 7 years ago, a Swedish woman told me that a software developer there takes home about $1,300/month on average (i.e., after taxes). Restaurants in Sweden are so expensive that hardly anyone eats out. Six years ago (while the dollar was still strong) a large pizza in downtown Oslo went for $60. Even business executives pack a lunch. Norway is doing fine economically, since it has a tiny population and is the world's third largest exporter of oil (though that's running out). Given the explosion in crime that Bawer mentions (at much greater length in his book _While Europe Slept_, which was a finalist for the National Book Critics Cirlce Award), I think I'll find someplace else to hang. I've lived in Europe twice (Germany and Greece) and, while it had its points, it always felt sleepy to me.

LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
Iceland certainly sounds nice, if you could tolerate the weather. How does it compare to say, Wisconsin?
ible 18y ago
I haven't lived in the countries in question, so I don't have any personal experience to go on. The only measures I have are the various indexes of quality of life and other academic studies. According those we have the following rankings: Economist Quality of life index (2005): Switzerland: 2 Norway: 3 Sweden: 5 Iceland: 7 Denmark: 9 Finland: 12 US: 13 UN Human Development Index (2007): Iceland: 1 Norway: 2 Sweden: 6 Switzerland: 7 Finland: 11 US: 12 Denmark:14 All of these countries are quite rich by international standards, but their GDP per capita at PPP varies from a low of 29,650 in Sweden to a high of 41,529 in the US. The Nordic countries do better in their quality of life rank than their GDP per capita PPP rank, and the US does worse, (as does Canada, my home country, at least in the Economist survey). So all of these countries are doing just fine economically, whether they have oil reserves or not, and being rich certainly helps with 'quality of life' but it isn't the whole story. What matters much more than a quality of life index or a measure of economic strength is happiness. This is a much tricker question, since it is subjective, culturally dependent, and personal. Historically happiness has been disregarded as an area for academic research, but over the past few years that has changed. The studies are still in their infancy, but what they tell us now is that different cultures value different things for their happiness (wow, shock, I know) such as personal success in the US, and family ties in Japan. The other finding I know of, which I find more surprising, is that trust seems to be the most important element in happiness. I apologize for the lack of a link in advance, this is based on memory of a talk I attended last year. In a study done by a UBC researcher in Canada, based on census data and surveys done across the country, researchers measured interpersonal trust on a ten point scale, and recorded other factors such as wealth, relative wealth, personal safety, and so on. They found that a one point increase on the ten point scale in personal trust in your boss at work had a larger impact on happiness than doubling your salary. They also found that trust in your neighbors was essential to happiness. Here the results get more interesting, because things that provided trust in neighbors was basically length of time you'd been neighbors, and speaking the same language. Any location facing rapid growth by in-migration has a risk in happiness and trust, and if that growth is international immigration by people who don't speak the same language trust is further at risk, as is happiness. If these results generalize beyond Canada, which they might not, I would expect countries which are rich, non-corrupt, and stable in their cultural composition to be happiest, which makes Iceland a good candidate for a high rank. Regardless of the overall happiness of a country, moving there if you speak a different language, and value different things, is unlikely to make you or anyone else happy, at least in the short term. So wherever your personal values match up with local conditions, given a certain baseline of wealth and security, is likely to be the best place for you and just as likely to not be the best place for me regardless of any particular ranking.