7 ms·

I've heard so many tales of Finland's wonderful social programs. Aren't they supposed to have some of the best education quality in Europe as well? [1] It's fas

I've heard so many tales of Finland's wonderful social programs. Aren't they supposed to have some of the best education quality in Europe as well? [1] It's fascinating that a country with such a harsh climate and constant jokes about its peoples' coldness toward one another makes so much room for social security and actually caring for its people. I'm not so sure this model would work for cases that don't involve IT giants. I mean the problem that used to be widespread in the USA - factories closing down and laying off workers. Establishing another factory might simply not be regionally viable so the town gets abandoned, losing population and resources. A bit easier with the IT sector, we can all move around if the pay's right and it's not like the company itself needs some strict local conditions to fit their needs. [1]: Looked it up, they're certainly getting praise for it: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-finland-beats-america-on-education-2016-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-finland-beats-america-on...

kmlx 7y ago
i think geographic location, population size and population density have a lot to do with socio-economic differences between finland and the us: finland: 5.5 million usa: 327.1 million
- pengstrom 7y ago
  Still, the USA has a much higher GDP per capita: USA: $60k Finland: $45k So there's no reason Americans shouldn't have the same level of comfort.
  - alexpetralia 7y ago
    However there's substantially more income inequality in the U.S., so GDP per capita won't capture the distribution of that wealth particularly well.
  - kmlx 7y ago
    GDP per capita is pretty much useless nowadays.
    - danans 7y ago
      It's useful in as much as it provides a basis for comparison between differences in the base standard of living between equivalent gdp/capita societies, like Finland and the US, which is what the parent was doing. It's not, however, useful as the sole metric for evaluating the economic condition of a society.
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  This is the standard right wing excuses why social programms like they are assumed elsewhere, can't be implemented in the US. But I haven't seen a good explanation how one thing prevents the other yet.
  - protomyth 7y ago
    I figure when the USA is capable of providing proper health care and social programs to the tribes it has treaties with, then it can be trusted to provide those same service to its other citizens.
  - kmlx 7y ago
    i had no idea about this being a "right wing excuse". for me it's just a fact that in a high population, high wage, highly regulated society it's much harder to overhaul things radically than in a similar tiny nation. without some sort of a disaster (think WW2), it would be very hard to force everyone to switch from an entrenched system to a different one.
    - bigmanwalter 7y ago
      Economies of scale from the larger population and higher wages should make it easier. It is absolutely a right wing excuse.
      - nathanonhn 7y ago
        I don't think that's true at all. Larger projects often fail in ways that smaller ones don't. This is true in technology as in society.
      - kmlx 7y ago
        > Economies of scale from the larger population and higher wages should make it easier. how would it be easier to force 300 million people vs 5 million?
    - notfromhere 7y ago
      Nah, it's because 1/2 of the political system thinks the government doing anything is bad.
hogFeast 7y ago
It isn't about "caring". The US system is actually more caring because it guarantees access to social programs regardless of contributions. In the US, social programs are something you have a right to if you are a citizen. In Europe, they are something that is earned through contributions. In continental Europe, you pay high taxes but you receive a lot of those benefits back in the form of benefits. Unemployment insurance is literally insurance that is just provided by the state. That term makes no sense in a redistributive system like the US. It is fine to suggest that this system is better but there is a reason it only exists in some countries and not others. If you have a high level of business creation/destruction, it is a huge risk (Denmark is an example of a country with this system but very low regulations on business/labour, 2008 nearly killed this system). If you have a very mobile population, it doesn't work either. If you have a heterogeneous population, it doesn't work. The simpler solution is to take the parts that will work i.e. investment in retraining.
- skybrian 7y ago
  I'm not sure there's a bright line between insurance and redistribution. What is insurance other than a way to redistribute money from people who don't need the money to people who do?
  - hogFeast 7y ago
    That is 100% not the case. In addition to being factually wrong, it suggests a totally ahistorical view of social policy development. Social policy in the EU and US/UK are nothing alike, they have completely different aims because the history/context is just totally different. To be totally clear: I have studied this topic (I studied econ/policy at PG level) and no research I have ever read has suggested this. Google comparative social policy research. I understand that if you get your knowledge from misinformed politicians who haven't studied the issue but believe it will solve all their country's problems...yes, that distinction is not clear. If you actually read books though, it is quite wrong.
    - skybrian 7y ago
      I'm thinking more conceptually and financially. Fire insurance means people whose house never burns down lose money and people whose house did burn down get money. It is literally a redistribution of money as you don't get out what you put in. They do this willingly, of course, because financial security is valuable. But it is in essence a collective scheme. There are big differences between the US and EU though, not disputing that. But maybe there's a way of describing this difference that makes the distinction clearer?

kmlx 7y ago

i think geographic location, population size and population density have a lot to do with socio-economic differences between finland and the us: finland: 5.5 million usa: 327.1 million

pengstrom 7y ago
Still, the USA has a much higher GDP per capita: USA: $60k Finland: $45k So there's no reason Americans shouldn't have the same level of comfort.
- alexpetralia 7y ago
  However there's substantially more income inequality in the U.S., so GDP per capita won't capture the distribution of that wealth particularly well.
- kmlx 7y ago
  GDP per capita is pretty much useless nowadays.
  - danans 7y ago
    It's useful in as much as it provides a basis for comparison between differences in the base standard of living between equivalent gdp/capita societies, like Finland and the US, which is what the parent was doing. It's not, however, useful as the sole metric for evaluating the economic condition of a society.
cyborgx7 7y ago
This is the standard right wing excuses why social programms like they are assumed elsewhere, can't be implemented in the US. But I haven't seen a good explanation how one thing prevents the other yet.
- protomyth 7y ago
  I figure when the USA is capable of providing proper health care and social programs to the tribes it has treaties with, then it can be trusted to provide those same service to its other citizens.
- kmlx 7y ago
  i had no idea about this being a "right wing excuse". for me it's just a fact that in a high population, high wage, highly regulated society it's much harder to overhaul things radically than in a similar tiny nation. without some sort of a disaster (think WW2), it would be very hard to force everyone to switch from an entrenched system to a different one.
  - bigmanwalter 7y ago
    Economies of scale from the larger population and higher wages should make it easier. It is absolutely a right wing excuse.
    - nathanonhn 7y ago
      I don't think that's true at all. Larger projects often fail in ways that smaller ones don't. This is true in technology as in society.
    - kmlx 7y ago
      > Economies of scale from the larger population and higher wages should make it easier. how would it be easier to force 300 million people vs 5 million?
  - notfromhere 7y ago
    Nah, it's because 1/2 of the political system thinks the government doing anything is bad.

hogFeast 7y ago

It isn't about "caring". The US system is actually more caring because it guarantees access to social programs regardless of contributions. In the US, social programs are something you have a right to if you are a citizen. In Europe, they are something that is earned through contributions. In continental Europe, you pay high taxes but you receive a lot of those benefits back in the form of benefits. Unemployment insurance is literally insurance that is just provided by the state. That term makes no sense in a redistributive system like the US. It is fine to suggest that this system is better but there is a reason it only exists in some countries and not others. If you have a high level of business creation/destruction, it is a huge risk (Denmark is an example of a country with this system but very low regulations on business/labour, 2008 nearly killed this system). If you have a very mobile population, it doesn't work either. If you have a heterogeneous population, it doesn't work. The simpler solution is to take the parts that will work i.e. investment in retraining.

skybrian 7y ago
I'm not sure there's a bright line between insurance and redistribution. What is insurance other than a way to redistribute money from people who don't need the money to people who do?
- hogFeast 7y ago
  That is 100% not the case. In addition to being factually wrong, it suggests a totally ahistorical view of social policy development. Social policy in the EU and US/UK are nothing alike, they have completely different aims because the history/context is just totally different. To be totally clear: I have studied this topic (I studied econ/policy at PG level) and no research I have ever read has suggested this. Google comparative social policy research. I understand that if you get your knowledge from misinformed politicians who haven't studied the issue but believe it will solve all their country's problems...yes, that distinction is not clear. If you actually read books though, it is quite wrong.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    I'm thinking more conceptually and financially. Fire insurance means people whose house never burns down lose money and people whose house did burn down get money. It is literally a redistribution of money as you don't get out what you put in. They do this willingly, of course, because financial security is valuable. But it is in essence a collective scheme. There are big differences between the US and EU though, not disputing that. But maybe there's a way of describing this difference that makes the distinction clearer?