5 ms·

> They're worth paying attention to, but not sounding the alarm bells over. That's because there is a default bad assumption that because they are so wealthy t

by danans 1y ago

> They're worth paying attention to, but not sounding the alarm bells over. That's because there is a default bad assumption that because they are so wealthy that no problems should exist, similar to how very rich people are seen. Looking at other wealthy petro-states (and people) around the world, that's clearly not true. But relatively speaking I don't think there's a country that wouldn't trade most of their problems for Norway's, with the possible exception of their aging population.

9rx 1y ago
What's the problem? Only poor people care about test scores as they imagine high test scores is how one can pull themselves out of being poor. When you are rich you can also do pointless things just for the fun of it like build bridges to nowhere. None of these are problems unless you try and look at it through a poor man's lens. Poorer health might be concerning, but is likely the result of the population growing older. More children would help make the numbers look better, I suppose, but, statistically, only poor people like having children.
- nordsieck 1y ago
  > What's the problem? Only poor people care about test scores as they imagine high test scores is how one can pull themselves out of being poor. When you are rich you can also do pointless things just for the fun of it like build bridges to nowhere. None of these are problems unless you try and look at it through a poor man's lens. That may be a reasonable take at the level of an individual. But it's nonsense at the level of a country. Wealth is the ability to get other people to do things. But if everyone is becoming less capable, then that's not a problem that wealth can fix. Outsourcing may be a temporary solution to his problem, but I don't see it working well long term.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > But if everyone is becoming less capable, then that's not a problem that wealth can fix. What suggests that people are becoming less capable? More importantly, what suggests that people are becoming less capable in an irreversible way? If people are less capable, but it is reversible, then wealth can fix it. As you said, you can use wealth to get other people to become more capable.
    - nordsieck 1y ago
      > What suggests that people are becoming less capable? From the root level comment in this thread: > Student test scores have worsened more than in other Scandinavian countries, and critics of the government say there are too many boondoggle tunnels and bridges to nowhere. - > More importantly, what suggests that people are becoming less capable in an irreversible way? If people are less capable, but it is reversible, then wealth can fix it. I don't think anyone is suggesting that this trend is irreversible. But big trends like this can be difficult to turn around - if it were easy, the trend wouldn't have happened in the first place (or, at least, it wouldn't have been detectable). > If people are less capable, but it is reversible, then wealth can fix it. As you said, you can use wealth to get other people to become more capable. You can't just say "wealth will do x". That's really a semantic shortcut for saying "people will do x". But presumably people are already trying to improve the countries test scores. And people are already trying (at least to a certain extent) to spend government funds wisely. I'm not really sure how wealth will change what's currently occurring.
      - 9rx 1y ago
        > From the root level comment in this thread Oh, so you mean not that they are becoming less capable in general, but that they are becoming less capable at testing? I suppose that is a reasonable take in light of earlier comments – but, again, wealthy people don't see value in test results, so what difference does it make? This is like noticing that people have become less likely to share "hand-me-downs". You'd no doubt see that as a travesty if you are struggling to buy clothes, but if you look at it from a place of wealth where you are buying clothes as if they are nothing, what does that mean to you? Not much. > if it were easy, the trend wouldn't have happened in the first place There is a logical leap in there that you haven't explained. In the same vein, it is easy to grow food in your garden, but it is abundantly clear that people no longer see the need, even where they once did. Just because something is easy does not mean that there is reason to do it. You are going to have to elaborate.
- mandmandam 1y ago
  > Only poor people care about test scores as they imagine high test scores is how one can pull themselves out of being poor. Bashing 'poor people' aside, it's safe to say that on a national level, declining test scores are a warning sign that merits investigation. > When you are rich you can also do pointless things just for the fun of it like build bridges to nowhere You can, but there's no small amount of broken window fallacy there. > None of these are problems unless you try and look at it through a poor man's lens. I might be too poor to see the joy of building of bridges to nowhere, but there are still 'problems' with declining test scores, government misuse of funds, and pointless infrastructure projects. > statistically, only poor people like having children Yeesh. There are at least three reasons why this is completely wrong, but what's more important is that you seem to have a weird bone to pick with "poor people". You really might want to sort that out for yourself.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > Bashing 'poor people' aside 'Bashing' is a human trait. Software on the internet carries no such emotion. > declining test scores are a warning sign that merits investigation. Just as increasing test scores is a warning sign that merits investigation. But that doesn't suggest a problem, only change. What good is wealth if it is not used to user in change? > there's no small amount of broken window fallacy there. Not really. The broken window fallacy is based on the idea of breaking windows for the good of the economy. There is nothing to suggest that bridges are being built to nowhere for the good of the economy. Maybe when you are poor the economy is front and centre in your thoughts, but not everything has to be about the economy. > government misuse of funds, and pointless infrastructure projects. This can be a problem if you aren't wealthy enough to support it, but, again, this cannot be observed through a poor lens. If the people of Norway (which is a democracy — the people direct the government) want to spend their extensive wealth in a way a poor person would consider foolish, they can. That is benefit of being wealthy. > There are at least three reasons why this is completely wrong Looks more like zero reasons. Assuming three wasn't a number randomly pulled out of hat, perhaps something got truncated during preparation of this message? > but what's more important is that you seem to have a weird bone to pick with "poor people". Again, software doesn't have this emotion you are trying to personify.
- dataflow 1y ago
  > When you are rich you can also do pointless things just for the fun of it like build bridges to nowhere. None of these are problems For one thing it's clearly a problem if you include the environmental impact of constructing those bridges to nowhere.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    Only to the extent of the environmental impact being greater than the alternative activity. Like another commenter said, wealth is the ability to get people to do things. You're not wealthy if you crawl into a cave and just sit there doing nothing (ignoring that even then you are impacting the environment with your methane emissions).
oceanplexian 1y ago
The USA surpassed Norway's median income some time in the 2020's. And it's VASTLY cheaper to live in the United States. The Nordic petro states were never really that impressive to me personally. I'm sure someone will come out of the woodwork to talk up their healthcare and social services, but again, if you were being fair we would compare them to a State like Massachusetts instead of Mississippi or Alabama and you would find our healthcare systems here are equally if not more accessible.
- EA-3167 1y ago
  Speaking for myself, I also really enjoy the diversity we have in the US, and our ability to absorb immigration and integrate into a whole. Meanwhile the Scandi/Nordic states seem to struggle like the rest of Western Europe when it comes to accepting new people without ghettoizing them for an indefinite number of generations.
  - jon-wood 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - EA-3167 1y ago
      The US has more history to it than just the last 6 months, and some of us recall that while Trump puts on a big show with lots of heat and noise, there's rarely much light. If you look at actual deportations, he lags behind previous administrations. So no, putting the frenzy over this administration aside, and recognizing that the US has more history and more of a future than the rule of one man, what I said holds.
      - em-bee 1y ago
        having lived in the US and in europe i can confirm that. the issues with integration in the US are very different from those in europe. the US suffers from systemic historic racism that they are struggling to get rid of, but they have always been a mix of cultures where some aspects of foreign cultures are assimilated and accepted and other aspects disappear as the immigrants adapt. europe suffers from xenophobia and general difficulty to integrate foreign cultures. being traditionally a single culture there is very little assimilation of foreign cultures (mostly some food items) and immigrants are expected to adapt fully to the local culture, without any allowance to keep aspects of their own culture with few exceptions. in my opinion this leads to immigrants in europe holding on to their own culture more than they would in the US making integration even more difficult.
jsbisviewtiful 1y ago
>there is a default bad assumption that because they are so wealthy that no problems should exist I live in a wealthier US state and the folks in my city's subreddit whine - and they whine a lot.

by danans 1y ago

9rx 1y ago

What's the problem? Only poor people care about test scores as they imagine high test scores is how one can pull themselves out of being poor. When you are rich you can also do pointless things just for the fun of it like build bridges to nowhere. None of these are problems unless you try and look at it through a poor man's lens. Poorer health might be concerning, but is likely the result of the population growing older. More children would help make the numbers look better, I suppose, but, statistically, only poor people like having children.

nordsieck 1y ago
> What's the problem? Only poor people care about test scores as they imagine high test scores is how one can pull themselves out of being poor. When you are rich you can also do pointless things just for the fun of it like build bridges to nowhere. None of these are problems unless you try and look at it through a poor man's lens. That may be a reasonable take at the level of an individual. But it's nonsense at the level of a country. Wealth is the ability to get other people to do things. But if everyone is becoming less capable, then that's not a problem that wealth can fix. Outsourcing may be a temporary solution to his problem, but I don't see it working well long term.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > But if everyone is becoming less capable, then that's not a problem that wealth can fix. What suggests that people are becoming less capable? More importantly, what suggests that people are becoming less capable in an irreversible way? If people are less capable, but it is reversible, then wealth can fix it. As you said, you can use wealth to get other people to become more capable.
  - nordsieck 1y ago
    > What suggests that people are becoming less capable? From the root level comment in this thread: > Student test scores have worsened more than in other Scandinavian countries, and critics of the government say there are too many boondoggle tunnels and bridges to nowhere. - > More importantly, what suggests that people are becoming less capable in an irreversible way? If people are less capable, but it is reversible, then wealth can fix it. I don't think anyone is suggesting that this trend is irreversible. But big trends like this can be difficult to turn around - if it were easy, the trend wouldn't have happened in the first place (or, at least, it wouldn't have been detectable). > If people are less capable, but it is reversible, then wealth can fix it. As you said, you can use wealth to get other people to become more capable. You can't just say "wealth will do x". That's really a semantic shortcut for saying "people will do x". But presumably people are already trying to improve the countries test scores. And people are already trying (at least to a certain extent) to spend government funds wisely. I'm not really sure how wealth will change what's currently occurring.
    - 9rx 1y ago
      > From the root level comment in this thread Oh, so you mean not that they are becoming less capable in general, but that they are becoming less capable at testing? I suppose that is a reasonable take in light of earlier comments – but, again, wealthy people don't see value in test results, so what difference does it make? This is like noticing that people have become less likely to share "hand-me-downs". You'd no doubt see that as a travesty if you are struggling to buy clothes, but if you look at it from a place of wealth where you are buying clothes as if they are nothing, what does that mean to you? Not much. > if it were easy, the trend wouldn't have happened in the first place There is a logical leap in there that you haven't explained. In the same vein, it is easy to grow food in your garden, but it is abundantly clear that people no longer see the need, even where they once did. Just because something is easy does not mean that there is reason to do it. You are going to have to elaborate.
mandmandam 1y ago
> Only poor people care about test scores as they imagine high test scores is how one can pull themselves out of being poor. Bashing 'poor people' aside, it's safe to say that on a national level, declining test scores are a warning sign that merits investigation. > When you are rich you can also do pointless things just for the fun of it like build bridges to nowhere You can, but there's no small amount of broken window fallacy there. > None of these are problems unless you try and look at it through a poor man's lens. I might be too poor to see the joy of building of bridges to nowhere, but there are still 'problems' with declining test scores, government misuse of funds, and pointless infrastructure projects. > statistically, only poor people like having children Yeesh. There are at least three reasons why this is completely wrong, but what's more important is that you seem to have a weird bone to pick with "poor people". You really might want to sort that out for yourself.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > Bashing 'poor people' aside 'Bashing' is a human trait. Software on the internet carries no such emotion. > declining test scores are a warning sign that merits investigation. Just as increasing test scores is a warning sign that merits investigation. But that doesn't suggest a problem, only change. What good is wealth if it is not used to user in change? > there's no small amount of broken window fallacy there. Not really. The broken window fallacy is based on the idea of breaking windows for the good of the economy. There is nothing to suggest that bridges are being built to nowhere for the good of the economy. Maybe when you are poor the economy is front and centre in your thoughts, but not everything has to be about the economy. > government misuse of funds, and pointless infrastructure projects. This can be a problem if you aren't wealthy enough to support it, but, again, this cannot be observed through a poor lens. If the people of Norway (which is a democracy — the people direct the government) want to spend their extensive wealth in a way a poor person would consider foolish, they can. That is benefit of being wealthy. > There are at least three reasons why this is completely wrong Looks more like zero reasons. Assuming three wasn't a number randomly pulled out of hat, perhaps something got truncated during preparation of this message? > but what's more important is that you seem to have a weird bone to pick with "poor people". Again, software doesn't have this emotion you are trying to personify.
dataflow 1y ago
> When you are rich you can also do pointless things just for the fun of it like build bridges to nowhere. None of these are problems For one thing it's clearly a problem if you include the environmental impact of constructing those bridges to nowhere.
- 9rx 1y ago
  Only to the extent of the environmental impact being greater than the alternative activity. Like another commenter said, wealth is the ability to get people to do things. You're not wealthy if you crawl into a cave and just sit there doing nothing (ignoring that even then you are impacting the environment with your methane emissions).

oceanplexian 1y ago

The USA surpassed Norway's median income some time in the 2020's. And it's VASTLY cheaper to live in the United States. The Nordic petro states were never really that impressive to me personally. I'm sure someone will come out of the woodwork to talk up their healthcare and social services, but again, if you were being fair we would compare them to a State like Massachusetts instead of Mississippi or Alabama and you would find our healthcare systems here are equally if not more accessible.

EA-3167 1y ago
Speaking for myself, I also really enjoy the diversity we have in the US, and our ability to absorb immigration and integrate into a whole. Meanwhile the Scandi/Nordic states seem to struggle like the rest of Western Europe when it comes to accepting new people without ghettoizing them for an indefinite number of generations.
- jon-wood 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - EA-3167 1y ago
    The US has more history to it than just the last 6 months, and some of us recall that while Trump puts on a big show with lots of heat and noise, there's rarely much light. If you look at actual deportations, he lags behind previous administrations. So no, putting the frenzy over this administration aside, and recognizing that the US has more history and more of a future than the rule of one man, what I said holds.
    - em-bee 1y ago
      having lived in the US and in europe i can confirm that. the issues with integration in the US are very different from those in europe. the US suffers from systemic historic racism that they are struggling to get rid of, but they have always been a mix of cultures where some aspects of foreign cultures are assimilated and accepted and other aspects disappear as the immigrants adapt. europe suffers from xenophobia and general difficulty to integrate foreign cultures. being traditionally a single culture there is very little assimilation of foreign cultures (mostly some food items) and immigrants are expected to adapt fully to the local culture, without any allowance to keep aspects of their own culture with few exceptions. in my opinion this leads to immigrants in europe holding on to their own culture more than they would in the US making integration even more difficult.

jsbisviewtiful 1y ago

>there is a default bad assumption that because they are so wealthy that no problems should exist I live in a wealthier US state and the folks in my city's subreddit whine - and they whine a lot.