4 ms·

The Finnish Secret to Happiness? Knowing When You Have Enough

18 points by thm 4y ago

mitchbob 4y ago
Archived: https://archive.ph/gYwrO https://archive.ph/gYwrO
psychphysic 4y ago
I wonder how Finland will change with the social democrats left leaning party and coalition of 5. Now it's likely to be a coalition of 2 right wing parties?
noloblo 4y ago
archive: https://archive.is/20230402205523/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/01/world/europe/finland-happiness-optimism.html https://archive.is/20230402205523/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
crtified 4y ago
This discussion is based upon a "2023 World Happiness Report" [1], which is ostensibly a United Nations initiative (though notably, Page 2 is entirely dedicated to the footnote "The World Happiness Report was written by a group of independent experts acting in their personal capacities. Any views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization, agency or programme of the United Nations.") While I don't doubt there are many truths contained within, I think it's also fair to recognise that in some respects, this is a highly prescribed version of "happiness". For example, it's telling that smiling and laughing do not form a prominent part of Finnish day-to-day life, as contrasted with plenty of less affluent cultures. [1] https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2023/WHR+23.pdf https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2023/WHR+23.pdf
stormfather 4y ago
Having lived in Latin America and Europe, it seems absurd to think that GDP correlates with happiness. And besides, it's not like the world has become exponentially happier in the past two hundred years. Trying to measure happiness by assuming it's tied to factors like these is ridiculous. After extensive traveling, I can say the best indicator of happiness is the amount of people per area who close their business on Sunday to eat lunch with their family.
insane_dreamer 4y ago
Among other tidbits, I found this interesting as important to Finns' contentment (which is probably a better word than "happiness"). Note that this applies to both public and _private_ land (which would be anathema in the U.S.): > Nearly 75 percent of Finland is covered by forest, and all of it is open to everyone thanks to a law known as “jokamiehen oikeudet,” or “everyman’s right,” that entitles people to roam freely throughout any natural areas, on public or privately owned land.
- pg938hkd 4y ago
  [flagged]
eurasiantiger 4y ago
One cannot be content with anything unless one decides to be content with something.
dangwhy 4y ago
Nonsensical article. They are a homogeneous xenophobic population with high social cohesion and safety nets. In usa we have chosen to have high immigration and sacrifice social cohesion. eg: >40% of current child poverty comes from illegal immigration. [1] I would absolutely choose to live in a society with high immigration than a xenophobic one. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/06/us/politics/child-poverty-immigrants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/06/us/politics/child-poverty...
- insane_dreamer 4y ago
  > >40% of current child poverty comes from illegal immigration. [1] That's incorrect. Re-read the article you linked to. > In usa we have chosen to have high immigration and sacrifice social cohesion. The US started as a country of immigrants, one of this country's virtues, but there have been many attempts by a large portion of Americans to stamp it out. Thankfully it has survived. However, being a much more heterogenous society has nothing to do with the lack of high social nets. These are not mutually exclusive. The US is a "sink or swim" country where the quest for individual wealth is our predominant cultural "feature". That leaves you with a small cadre of extremely wealthy winners, and a large number of poor losers. By the way, Finland has 7.5% percent of its population is foreign born - that's half than the 15% in the U.S. but not an order of magnitude less. > I would absolutely choose to live in a society with high immigration than a xenophobic one. Racism is basically xenophobia, and in the U.S. we have that in spades.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >However, being a much more heterogenous society has nothing to do with the lack of high social nets. These are not mutually exclusive. It's easier to roll out a generous social safety net when society is homogeneous, because you don't have people worrying about their tax dollars being used to fund The Others' lifestyle.
    - insane_dreamer 4y ago
      > It's easier to roll out a generous social safety net when society is homogeneous, because you don't have people worrying about their tax dollars being used to fund The Others' lifestyle. That's as much a function of class as it is race. In fact, one need look no further than highly homogenous states like Montana, Wyoming or W.Virginia (which have significantly less immigrants than Finland) to find a population highly opposed to taxation and social safety nets. Take a look at the 10 states with the smallest percentage of foreign born population (which we can use as a measure of homogeneity): 8 of 10 are highly conservative/Republican with arguably the smallest safety nets at the state level. https://www.statista.com/statistics/312701/percentage-of-population-foreign-born-in-the-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/312701/percentage-of-pop... Perhaps the fact that Europe and Japan were destroyed in WW2 while the U.S. got a huge economic boost from it, contributed to their populations' desire for strong social nets at the expense of individual wealth.
stefantalpalaru 4y ago
[dead]
leansensei 4y ago
Have you seen their suicide statistics? I guess this also counts as people knowing when they've had enough...
- insane_dreamer 4y ago
  Yes, long dark winters are a known factor contributing to suicide

18 points by thm 4y ago

Archived: https://archive.ph/gYwrO https://archive.ph/gYwrO

I wonder how Finland will change with the social democrats left leaning party and coalition of 5. Now it's likely to be a coalition of 2 right wing parties?

noloblo 4y ago

archive: https://archive.is/20230402205523/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/01/world/europe/finland-happiness-optimism.html https://archive.is/20230402205523/https://www.nytimes.com/20...

crtified 4y ago

This discussion is based upon a "2023 World Happiness Report" [1], which is ostensibly a United Nations initiative (though notably, Page 2 is entirely dedicated to the footnote "The World Happiness Report was written by a group of independent experts acting in their personal capacities. Any views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization, agency or programme of the United Nations.") While I don't doubt there are many truths contained within, I think it's also fair to recognise that in some respects, this is a highly prescribed version of "happiness". For example, it's telling that smiling and laughing do not form a prominent part of Finnish day-to-day life, as contrasted with plenty of less affluent cultures. [1] https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2023/WHR+23.pdf https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2023/WHR+23.pdf

stormfather 4y ago

Having lived in Latin America and Europe, it seems absurd to think that GDP correlates with happiness. And besides, it's not like the world has become exponentially happier in the past two hundred years. Trying to measure happiness by assuming it's tied to factors like these is ridiculous. After extensive traveling, I can say the best indicator of happiness is the amount of people per area who close their business on Sunday to eat lunch with their family.

insane_dreamer 4y ago

Among other tidbits, I found this interesting as important to Finns' contentment (which is probably a better word than "happiness"). Note that this applies to both public and _private_ land (which would be anathema in the U.S.): > Nearly 75 percent of Finland is covered by forest, and all of it is open to everyone thanks to a law known as “jokamiehen oikeudet,” or “everyman’s right,” that entitles people to roam freely throughout any natural areas, on public or privately owned land.

pg938hkd 4y ago
[flagged]

eurasiantiger 4y ago

One cannot be content with anything unless one decides to be content with something.

dangwhy 4y ago

Nonsensical article. They are a homogeneous xenophobic population with high social cohesion and safety nets. In usa we have chosen to have high immigration and sacrifice social cohesion. eg: >40% of current child poverty comes from illegal immigration. [1] I would absolutely choose to live in a society with high immigration than a xenophobic one. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/06/us/politics/child-poverty-immigrants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/06/us/politics/child-poverty...

insane_dreamer 4y ago
> >40% of current child poverty comes from illegal immigration. [1] That's incorrect. Re-read the article you linked to. > In usa we have chosen to have high immigration and sacrifice social cohesion. The US started as a country of immigrants, one of this country's virtues, but there have been many attempts by a large portion of Americans to stamp it out. Thankfully it has survived. However, being a much more heterogenous society has nothing to do with the lack of high social nets. These are not mutually exclusive. The US is a "sink or swim" country where the quest for individual wealth is our predominant cultural "feature". That leaves you with a small cadre of extremely wealthy winners, and a large number of poor losers. By the way, Finland has 7.5% percent of its population is foreign born - that's half than the 15% in the U.S. but not an order of magnitude less. > I would absolutely choose to live in a society with high immigration than a xenophobic one. Racism is basically xenophobia, and in the U.S. we have that in spades.
- gruez 4y ago
  >However, being a much more heterogenous society has nothing to do with the lack of high social nets. These are not mutually exclusive. It's easier to roll out a generous social safety net when society is homogeneous, because you don't have people worrying about their tax dollars being used to fund The Others' lifestyle.
  - insane_dreamer 4y ago
    > It's easier to roll out a generous social safety net when society is homogeneous, because you don't have people worrying about their tax dollars being used to fund The Others' lifestyle. That's as much a function of class as it is race. In fact, one need look no further than highly homogenous states like Montana, Wyoming or W.Virginia (which have significantly less immigrants than Finland) to find a population highly opposed to taxation and social safety nets. Take a look at the 10 states with the smallest percentage of foreign born population (which we can use as a measure of homogeneity): 8 of 10 are highly conservative/Republican with arguably the smallest safety nets at the state level. https://www.statista.com/statistics/312701/percentage-of-population-foreign-born-in-the-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/312701/percentage-of-pop... Perhaps the fact that Europe and Japan were destroyed in WW2 while the U.S. got a huge economic boost from it, contributed to their populations' desire for strong social nets at the expense of individual wealth.

stefantalpalaru 4y ago

[dead]

leansensei 4y ago

Have you seen their suicide statistics? I guess this also counts as people knowing when they've had enough...

insane_dreamer 4y ago
Yes, long dark winters are a known factor contributing to suicide