If you have less to lose, you're more willing to take risks.
Thus having the government take care of basic welfare and health care benefits frees people to be entrepreneurial, in a sense.
Compare to the US, where people are tied to a job based on the benefits they have through that job, and before the health care legislation's removal of preexisting conditions clauses, if you had a medical condition and lost your job, you could very easily end up in financial distress.
Personally, I would have transitioned to being independent a full year earlier if it wasn't for health care coverage issues.
I paid $60 a month for catastrophic healthcare from State Farm when I ran a ramen profitable startup. My deductible was $1500. When I nearly cut my toe off walking on a beach, I had surgery, $1000 worth of antibiotics and two follow up visits. I paid a grand total of $1500 for everything. I know I'm a healthy young man, but that seemed like a pretty fair deal to me.
Amazingly this plan will soon become illegal for being too minimalist under the new healthcare laws. I get that there are real problems with healthcare in the US. But entrepreneurs are mostly healthy young men, and it doesn't cost much to insure healthy young men.
I know your point was specifically about young men, but this is one of the things that keeps women from doing startups. I'm young, healthy, female, and doing a startup, but one of my major concerns was finding a health care plan that would eventually cover maternity. Prior to the health reform law, if I'd developed any kind of condition I wouldn't have been able to switch plans, and even if I did, they often don't cover maternity for the first year.
I could afford to pay the costs of a normal birth, but my nephew's cost $300,000.
Maternity is a ridiculous thing for insurance to cover, since it's an event entirely under the control of the insured. Similarly, you can't buy life insurance which covers suicide or fire insurance which covers arson committed by you.
Extremely expensive pregnancies are an insurable risk, but standard pregnancy is not.
Brilliant! You're saying we should set up healthcare laws so poor people don't have children.
While you're at it, let's completely fall down this slippery slope, and not insure people who smoke, people who play dangerous sports, or people who travel to countries with high rates of infectious disease.
Let's craft a healthcare system with all sorts of incentives not do things that might make perfect sense, and one that punishes all of people's foibles.
I'd love to fall down your slippery slope, and either not insure or charge very high rates to people who deliberately put their health at risk.
In general, a good regulatory scheme internalizes externalities (i.e., make polluters pay for the pollution they cause). If we force people who take care of their health to subsidize people who don't, we are externalizing an internality. That's the opposite of what good regulations should do.
If we're going to internalize externalities, men who get women pregnant should pay for half of all of her maternity-related healthcare expenses, and for half of the income she would have made if she hadn't had a kid. Do you agree?
I totally agree that smokers and daredevils and adventurers should have to pay higher insurance rates. But making women pay more simply because they get pregnant when they have sex without birth control (or their birth control fails) seems to be punishing them for being born with the wrong set of organs. Pregnancy is a much bigger deal for women than it is for men, yet men have at least as much agency in the process of causing a pregnancy.
I think the big issue is you're conflating healthy people with people who take care of themselves, and sick people with those who don't. There's certainly a correlation there, but there are a lot of sick people who are sick simply because of bad luck. I, for one, wouldn't like society to turn its back on me if I got too sick to work. And I would happily subsidize unlucky sick people in exchange for the promise that I'll get covered if I get sick.
If we're going to internalize externalities, men who get women pregnant should pay for half of all of her maternity-related healthcare expenses, and for half of the income she would have made if she hadn't had a kid. Do you agree?
If we accept the legality of abortion [1], then no - men should be able to terminate their rights/obligations within 3-9 months of discovering the pregnancy for a lump sum payment equal to half the price of an abortion. Equal rights and all that, right?
I think the big issue is you're conflating healthy people with people who take care of themselves, and sick people with those who don't. There's certainly a correlation there, but there are a lot of sick people who are sick simply because of bad luck.
I'm not conflating anything. I'm distinguishing insurance from redistribution. Insurance protects you from bad luck - it just doesn't force other people to pay for your choices.
Raising the price of insurance based on people's choices protects them from bad luck while forcing them to pay the average cost of their choices.
[1] Which I do, but only until the baby grows a brain. Not going to debate that here.
[2] Again, insurance which covers the normal cost of maternity. Insurance which covers maternity costs in excess of 3x (or some such multiplier) the cost of a normal birth makes perfect sense.
In Norway healthy young men make the most money, so they pay the most taxes. Essentially it's a lot harder to get super rich in Norway, but then again it's a hell of a lot harder to become super poor. We find that if everyone is moderately rich things work fairly well.
Edit: And there would be very few healthy young men if there were no healthy young women giving birth. Just check out Japan.
And you're comfortable with a system of laws that preempts women from doing start-ups? For one, that seems like it's not going to lead to good outcomes - it's in the country's and the world's best interest to have all capable young people able to be entrepreneurs.
Second, of course I'm comfortable subsidizing women, young people, poor people, and other groups, because I view the world in a Rawlsian fashion. That is, it is just chance that I am a healthy, young, and relatively wealthy young man. But if I were a woman, or an immigrant, or subject to any other set of circumstances, then I would want the same opportunities as anyone else.
As for the specific case of whether or not the healthcare laws should provide a way for all women to safely and affordably make babies - then I would say a hearty yes to this too. And as far as I can tell, this law benefits men and women equally. Unless there is a test tube involved, all babies need a man and a woman, so I really can't see how healthcare coverage for pregnancies has a sexist bias.
I hope you enjoy your youth and health, but when you get sick or old, I think you'll change your tune.
'will not pay for' is not the same as 'law preempting' and countries don't have 'best interests' only people do, so speak plainly: you see greater financial equality as a good thing.
Insurers who share your philosophy would drive men away. So you advocate market-meddling as the solution. Which adds regulation, compliance, bureaucracy, etc, costs that are pushed onto everybody.
OR realize that women marry men (and thus buy share insurance). OR charities exist to support single mothers. OR they can use contraceptives --- unless you're arguing that women have a right to take risky business ventures while pregnant on other peoples dime.
I don't think founders should concern themselves with fixing the inequities of the world. And I think it's in society's interest to place as little burden as possible on people who make goods or provide services that improve productivity.
I also don't think that you should presume to know anything about what my future tune may be.
Straw man. By buying health insurance as a healthy young man you are essentially voluntarily taking on those costs.
It is not a question of whether she wants others to fit the bill for her medical expenses, but whether society as a whole decides to accept an amount of responsibility for the health of its people.
You are only voluntarily taking on those costs because of threats of violence against anyone who would give you the opportunity to purchase insurance without those costs.
Insurers have been completely willing to sell maternity-free insurance, at least until men with guns threatened violence against them for doing so. It's not exactly voluntary when threats of violence eliminate all competing alternatives.
Could this be at least in part a self-fulfilling prophecy? Due to the way healthcare is set up in the U.S., the only people who really can consider quitting their jobs, and losing their group-health plan as a result, are: 1) people who are already rich (or have rich family); and 2) healthy young men.
edit: Actually, I suppose people over 65 also can, due to the U.S.'s strange age-based national health system. But people over 65 tend not to be likely startup candidates for other reasons.
"Could this be at least in part a self-fulfilling prophecy? Due to the way healthcare is set up in the U.S., the only people who really can consider quitting their jobs, and losing their group-health plan as a result, are: 1) people who are already rich (or have rich family); and 2) healthy young men"
Health care is a small part of it. The other part is that once you have a stable income and a family (wife+kids), most people don't want to take the risk of losing that income because the risk will have lasting effects on their entire family. When you are young and have no dependents, you can take this risk.
This is why you should get your company started first..and then settle down with a wife+kids.
I'd have figured closet marriages would be less common now, especially in the bay area, excepting senators/televangelists I suppose. Or are you referring to adoption? Ugh kids.
But entrepreneurs are mostly healthy young men, and it doesn't cost much to insure healthy young men
You're begging the question. Perhaps healthy young bachelors are the ones quitting their jobs to make the next social-coupon-micro-dating websites because they are the only ones who aren't constrained by the factors we're discussing.
That's debate in the US - everyone just says 'what is good for me'. The point of the article is that in Norway, the evaluation of 'what is good for us' works for them suprisingly well and doesn't stop people from starting businesses.
I don't know what constitutes "basic welfare" in Norway, but were the U.S. Dept. of Commerce to reimburse the health care premiums of anyone starting a new business, up to 100 weeks, I believe you would see a marked increase in the creation of new businesses in this country.
If anything, it would grease the rails to becoming "ramen profitable."
> but were the U.S. Dept. of Commerce to reimburse the health care premiums of anyone starting a new business, up to 100 weeks, I believe you would see a marked increase in the creation of new businesses in this country.
You'd have to word the bill very stringently to ensure that the new businesses weren't just new parts of an existing business shuffling employees around to take advantage of all the money now sitting on the table.
For example, $BIGCO all of a sudden becomes the angel investor for a half-dozen startups full of ex-$BIGCO employees who are somehow still working on pre-existing $BIGCO products and understand that $BIGCO will ensure their paychecks as long as they do the kind of work they did while they were still at $BIGCO. The only difference is that the government is paying for the healthcare of those (ex-)$BIGCO employees, allowing the $BIGCO CEO to make 300% more this quarter.
wow, what an irresponsible proposal. corporations already have free speech, now they need to get government paid healthcare also? why should US taxpayers reimburse those entrepreneur's health care costs if most of them will fail to produce any jobs at all? looks like a great way to create even more moral hazard in US companies.
health care of work force should be shared between employers and society as a whole, not offloaded back and forth from one to the other.
The Norwegian solution-- actually, come to think of it, the rest-of-the-world-outside-the-US solution-- is to break the linkage between health care and employment altogether, thus eliminating the moral hazard, and guaranteeing adequate health care for all.
In terms of the present discussion, it is easier for entrepreneurs to commit to a start-up if there is no fear of losing health-care coverage. That's a big win, if you ask me.
break the linkage between health care and employment altogether
Policy wonks on the left and right have been shouting this from the rooftops for decades, but to no effect. The problem is that any incremental change in that direction is instantly demagogued as "taking away your existing coverage".
You're conflating small companies with a few employees and revenues in the thousands to millions with massive quasi-governmental institutions with profits in the billions. The first group doesn't have access to inexpensive healthcare (because their risk pools are small and they don't have much negotiating power), they don't have access to lobbyists to write laws for them, and they don't have access to armies of lawyers that can twist the meaning of laws already on the books.
The "free speech" issue really only applies to companies that have the resources to influence the government to begin with. A startup that has five employees and is only ramen profitable isn't going to hire a lobbyist.
On the other hand, I do think you're sort of right. If a benefit like this were passed, a lot of unemployed people would suddenly become "entrepreneurs" to get free healthcare. Large companies would find ways to spin off into thousands of "new" shell companies and transfer their employees there to get free healthcare as well.
Of course, the way the healthcare system exists now is basically that the government subsidizes entrenched players with tax incentives and allows employment to become essentially indentured servitude because the risk of losing healthcare while switching jobs is just way too high.
The first group doesn't have access to inexpensive healthcare (because their risk pools are small and they don't have much negotiating power), they don't have access to lobbyists to write laws for them, and they don't have access to armies of lawyers that can twist the meaning of laws already on the books.
see, you identified a handful of problems that are worth solving, not postponing them by giving out "reimbursements".
Perhaps this is why startups are always filled with 20-somethings. Imagine how much would be done if those who happened to have families could also easily make the leap.
I agree, it would be nice if the government could help alleviate things such as basic welfare and health care benefits. Unfortunately for the USA, we are in such a massive amount of debt that it would be impossible* for the government to do such a thing. And between health care and the military spending, we're pretty much diving deeper and deeper.
* We could do it, but I doubt that any legislators would go for such a thing.
I think you would find that if the Govt. took over healthcare in the US it would probably save the country as a whole money. The US pays more for healthcare per capita than any other OECD nation, and still doesn't manage to cover all its citizens. A minor increase in the corporate tax rate would mean that the state could cover the cost of health cover and then companies wouldn't need to pay stupid money to cover their employees. An all round win-win.
Speaking as one who has started several start-ups in Norway, I'd say: there is still quite a bit to win, there is much less risk, and at the end of the day, we're not really in it for the money, are we?
"Speaking as one who has started several start-ups in Norway, I'd say: there is still quite a bit to win, there is much less risk, and at the end of the day, we're not really in it for the money, are we?"
That last part makes me think that you aren't really making that much and justifying it by saying: "we're not really in it for the money, are we?".
Everyone is in it for the money. Money means freedom. Freedom from governments and your boss. If you aren't in it for the money, start a non-profit.
Here is a list of the largest 500 companies in Norway (with gross and net revenue):
Those numbers look pitiful (I'm not sure what the actual dollar amounts are, but I'm just comparing them based on percentages). Having health insurance to fall back on does help with starting a company. But once you get the company established, the amount of taxes you will be required to pay for employees and other things will outweigh any benefits you received initially.
That last part makes me think that you aren't really making that much and justifying it by saying: "we're not really in it for the money, are we?".
Bad guess. My first startup had a successful exit; I'm not at liberty to discuss the numbers, but let's just say that it was for a satisfying amount with the appropriate number of zeroes.
Everyone is in it for the money. Money means freedom. Freedom from governments and your boss. If you aren't in it for the money, start a non-profit.
I'm not purely in it for the money; I'm in it for the quality of life. After a certain point, each additional dollar/kroner fails to significantly impact the quality of life. Similarly, there are plenty of things I absolutely won't do for money.
Having health insurance to fall back on does help with starting a company. But once you get the company established, the amount of taxes you will be required to pay for employees and other things will outweigh any benefits you received initially.
Again, wrong. I also received some very generous innovation grants from the Norwegian government. The benefits were plentiful.
"Bad guess. My first startup had a successful exit; I'm not at liberty to discuss the numbers, but let's just say that it was for a satisfying amount with the appropriate number of zeroes."
ok. So why say "we all aren't in it for the money", when that is obviously not the case for you.
"I'm not purely in it for the money; I'm in it for the quality of life."
So you are interested in running a lifestyle business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_business). You also cashed out early. However, what about the people that want to run long-term businesses to help the quality of life for others (by hiring employees and paying them a wage)?
"After a certain point, each additional dollar/kroner fails to significantly impact the quality of life."
Is this because of taxes? Even if it's not, you can't make that blanket statement for everyone. As a late 20s single guy, I would need a lot less than someone with a wife and kids. You can always use more money for something to improve the quality of your life. Your kids futures, relatives, non-profit organizations, retirement...the list goes on. I don't feel like the government should put limits on my potential success. If it's all sucked away by taxes and other government fees, your choice is gone.
> Everyone is in it for the money. Money means freedom. Freedom from governments and your boss.
No, everybody is not "in it for the money". You said it yourself, actually: most people are in it for the things that money allows them to do. That is a very important difference, and it's one that a lot of people forget about.
Here in the US, a lot of the things from which we'd like to be "free" from (living in fear of health care-related bankruptcy, having to beg a boss for an extra week of vacation, being limited to absurdly short and unpaid (ma|pa)ternity leave periods, etc.) come with a hefty price tag, and as such are associated with (and often thought of as proxies for) having a lot of money.
In a place like Norway, many of the things that that we Americans see as perks afforded to only the wealthiest of individuals are instead thought of as baseline facts of life.
Is it so surprising, then, that people whose world-views are shaped by such a system don't have the same difficulties at disentangling financial cause and effect that we Americans have? They say that "past a certain point, money's just a way of keeping score," and it sounds to me as though that point is a lot lower in a place like Norway than it is here in the US.
As an experiment, let's try formulating it (semi)-logically (it's been a while since I had logic, so if I'm getting this wrong, please let me know):
if (has lots of money) -> (freedom from financial catastrophe, and lots of social perks)
In the US, the inverse is true:
not (has lots of money) -> not (freedom from financial catastrophe, lots of social perks, etc.)
Because of how our system is set up, the converse is also typically true:
if (freedom from financial catastrophe, lots of social perks) -> (has lots of money)
This leads us to conclude that there's an inevitable relationship between having lots of money and having the freedom that you talk about.
In Norway, however, the system is different, and it doesn't sound like the aforementioned inverse relationship between money and freedom is true: since you can have the freedom from healthcare-related financial catastrophe, a decent vacation policy, educational benefits, etc. all without having tons of money. Since there are different "givens", it's not surprising that Norwegians have arrived at different conclusions and attitudes towards money. QED?
"No, everybody is not "in it for the money". You said it yourself, actually: most people are in it for the things that money allows them to do. That is a very important difference, and it's one that a lot of people forget about."
You need money though. So directly or indirectly, money is always a factor.
"since you can have the freedom from healthcare-related financial catastrophe, a decent vacation policy, educational benefits, etc. all without having tons of money."
Well, you had that money, it just went to the government instead of your pocket. The choices you could have made with that money are now gone. Once you are an established company in the US, you could afford those benefits yourself (which is more efficient because rather than paying for all healthcare, you can figure out what will work for your company).
For many non-web related business, it will make it that much more difficult. If you need to spend money on physical goods and your profit margin is razor thin, huge taxes aren't going to make it easier. If you have a business that doesn't scale well with one person (IE: a tech business where you need to hire more employees quickly), the increased employee taxes and requirements might make it an impossibility to continue (if you have no funding).
So, it might help with web businesses that can scale well with one employee or ones that are funded by VC. I wonder how many people are actually bootstrapping a company there.
"Since there are different "givens", it's not surprising that Norwegians have arrived at different conclusions and attitudes towards money. QED?"
Norwegians now have a sense of entitlement. It all depends on what you want. If you want an easier start, but have your overall potential income limited, start a company in Norway. If you want a riskier start, with less limits in the long-run, start your company in the US.
I still have to wonder. If this was such a great system, why aren't more people starting companies? There is no risk, right? Why isn't Norway the center for startups?
"Rates of start-up creation here are among the highest in the developed world, and Norway has more entrepreneurs per capita than the United States, according to the latest report by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, a Boston-based research consortium."
You don't hear about it as much because Norway is a relatively small country relatively far away from the U.S. (both geographically and culturally). The lack of Silicon Valley-like echo chamber is also a factor.
-50% alone to the federal government.
-1% of your total net worth, which is means you may have to pay taxes, even when you have no profits coming in.
-Anytime he purchases something, he is charged VAT
-They mentioned 25% payroll taxes
-This doesn't include local city/state taxes
-There are tons of other taxes that aren't even mentioned (property, luxury, etc)
After all this, there isn't much left over. At that point, it's almost state capitalism. The state pretty much owns every company.
Even better, you can figure out exactly how much anyone makes through the government website.
More gems from the article:
"When you start buying expensive stuff, people start to talk," says Dalmo. "I have to be careful, because some of the people who are judging are my potential customers."
I don't know about you, but I would rather have the added risk of health care than having the government in full control of my business.
The unemployment rate is also misleading. Does Norway consider people that are getting government assistance unemployed?
"Between workers who do the same job at a given com
pany, salaries vary little, if at all. At Wiggo Dalmo's company, everyone doing the same job makes the same salary."
Interesting, so I guess skill set doesn't really matter in Norway. A guy with 6 months of experience will be paid the same rate as a guy with 4 years.
Some people are alleging that Norway isn't socialist. They are more socialist than I ever thought.
"firing an employee for cause typically takes months, and employers generally end up paying at least three months' severance. "
More proof that starting a company may be easy, but having a long-term business will be tough. If you are bootstrapping a company, how can you possibly afford this?
"The three things we as Americans worry about—education, retirement, and medical expenses—are things that Norwegians don't worry about,"
Norwegians are putting all of their eggs in one basket, which is riskier than anything in my mind. They are under the impression that their government will be around to pay for all of their medical expenses in 30-40 years when they want to finally retire. What happens if the system collapses during that time? Since the majority of your money is going into the system, you won't nearly have enough to pay out of your pocket.
"Even if Nordlaks made no profits, paid no dividends, and paid its owner no salary, Berg would owe the Norwegian government a third of a million dollars a year. "Every year, I have to take a dividend, just to pay the tax," he says, sounding genuinely angry."
I'm amazed that people actually put up with this. I would have left that county asap.
You say that like it's a bad thing. One could say that us Americans have a "sense of entitlement" about things like clean drinking water, functioning emergency services, and a publicly-funded education system; alternatively, one could just as easily say that we have a set of baseline expectations about the sorts of things that a modern society is supposed to provide to its citizens (in exchange for taxes, etc.).
It sounds like Norwegians have a different idea of where that baseline should be.
> It all depends on what you want. If you want an easier start, but have your overall potential income limited, start a company in Norway. If you want a riskier start, with less limits in the long-run, start your company in the US.
OK, fair enough, but again- remember why it is that you care one way or the other about how big your "overall potential income" is. There comes a point where you've got enough to live luxuriously, have all your material wants satisfied, and basically do whatever you want on a day-to-day basis- is there a point to accumulating more than that? From the article, and from what other posters on this thread have said, it sure sounds like the "limited" potential income level in Norway is still quite high, by any rational standard, so what does it matter? After five or six million dollars per year, would an increase actually impact your life in a noticeable way?
By the way, I'm speaking from a strictly pragmatic standpoint here, not an idealogical one- some people see this as a moral issue, and that's not where I'm going here. I'm basically saying, "if my income is X millions of dollars, why do I care if the government takes half of that and I only have .5X?" Especially since I know that, by giving up that money, I'm ensuring that my neighbors and employees don't have to worry about medical costs and will be able to retire comfortably? Past a certain point, can you really spend more? And if you do, will it make you happy?
Of course, I should point out that this is all very easy for me to say, seeing as I never have and probably never will earn enough to face this question personally. Maybe I'd feel differently if I were rich, who knows.
> I'm basically saying, "if my income is X millions of dollars, why do I care if the government takes half of that and I only have .5X?"
As I understand it, he fundamentally believes he should be the one making the decision what to do with X dollars he earns -- including potentially distributing it as charity -- rather than a government. I don't agree with this position, but it's fairly consistent.
"You say that like it's a bad thing. One could say that us Americans have a "sense of entitlement" about things like clean drinking water, functioning emergency services, and a publicly-funded education system; alternatively, one could just as easily say that we have a set of baseline expectations about the sorts of things that a modern society is supposed to provide to its citizens (in exchange for taxes, etc.)."
Having basics is a good thing (clean drinking water, police/fire). Too many of these things means there is less freedom for the people putting money into the system and less incentive for the people utilizing these services to get a job. There needs to be a balance. Too little or too much is a bad thing.
"OK, fair enough, but again- remember why it is that you care one way or the other about how big your "overall potential income" is. There comes a point where you've got enough to live luxuriously, have all your material wants satisfied, and basically do whatever you want on a day-to-day basis- is there a point to accumulating more than that?"
Like I said, it's not just me. With more money, I can help friends, family, and anyone else I choose. I don't want the government deciding what do do with my money. I also enjoy the freedom. It's something you seem to have trouble understanding.
"From the article, and from what other posters on this thread have said, it sure sounds like the "limited" potential income level in Norway is still quite high, by any rational standard, so what does it matter? After five or six million dollars per year, would an increase actually impact your life in a noticeable way?"
Why does it matter to you? It's my money. 5 or 6 million per year really isn't that much anymore.
If I am limited to this, I probably would just keep the money in a bank. Otherwise, I might try to invest in other businesses and or start another one. One leads to more jobs and an improved economy and the other doesn't.
"Especially since I know that, by giving up that money, I'm ensuring that my neighbors and employees don't have to worry about medical costs and will be able to retire comfortably? Past a certain point, can you really spend more? And if you do, will it make you happy?"
The US already has Medicade and Medicare. Over 70% of people are covered in some way or another by their employer.
You haven't talked about the negative effects of a socialized healthcare system and you are trying to use sympathy to get me to agree with you. Healthcare is a finite resource. We need some way to limit usage. There needs to be a hybrid system in place that limits total visits per year (and charges fees after that) or it will eventually collapse. Unlimited anything is a bad idea.
I also think that people that engage in risky behaviors (smoking, drug use, etc) should have more money taken out in taxes. It's not really fair that I, a person that doesn't engage in that behavior, has to pay for your poor life choices.
> Having basics is a good thing (clean drinking water, police/fire). Too many of these things means there is less freedom for the people putting money into the system and less incentive for the people utilizing these services to get a job. There needs to be a balance. Too little or too much is a bad thing.
I agree with you 100%. I also think that it's an area that people (and countries) can and do have reasonable disagreements regarding where that balance point should be.
> I also enjoy the freedom. It's something you seem to have trouble understanding.
No, believe me, I understand; I think that you and I place different value on that level of freedom. For me, the freedom isn't necessarily an end in and of itself- it's one of many different means to an end. In other words, the freedom isn't valuable; it's what that freedom allows us to do, and how it allows us to live our lives, that's important.
Furthermore, I think of freedom as a vector, not a scalar- there are multiple dimensions to it. Simply talking about "more" or "less" freedom isn't very meaningful. Sometimes, trading one kind of freedom for another makes sense. For example, I generally try and follow traffic laws when driving. This is a constraint on my freedom to drive as fast as I want, wherever I want. However, by accepting this constraint, I experience a net gain in total freedom (i.e., the magnitude of my freedom vector increases overall), since by buying into the system of traffic laws, I get to enjoy a traffic and road system that lets us all have cars and use them to go wherever we want to go without having to worry (too much) about somebody driving the wrong way down our lane of traffic, and so on. I value that quite a bit- enough to follow rules that are sometimes suboptimal, or downright annoying.
Personally, I would feel a lot more free and happy if I knew that my friends all had health insurance, and there have been times in my life when it would have been very nice to be able to find a different job without worrying about what the effects would be on my partner's access to health care. I also feel like the overall societal benefits to everybody's friends having health insurance and what-not would result in a net increase in the magnitude of my personal freedom vector, to the extent that I'm willing to accept a hit to one or another of my vector's dimensions in terms of paying higher taxes, etc.. Obviously, you disagree with me on this count, and that's fine- but let's make sure we understand precisely what it is that we're disagreeing about.
It seems to me that one way to think about our difference of opinion is that, when you and I calculate the magnitude our freedom vector, we're placing different weights on the various dimensions--- in other words, some dimensions are more important to you than others. Heck, we might even be calculating our freedom vectors in entirely different spaces- our dimensions themselves might be different, which would make it very hard to compare how you think about and value these things to how I think about and value them. Can you tell I'm in the final throes of dissertation writing? :-)
> Why does it matter to you? It's my money. 5 or 6 million per year really isn't that much anymore.
Well, it actually doesn't matter to me personally; I just have a hard time getting my head around the concept that, past that point, another million would have any net effect on my personal happiness level. However, as I said before, this could totally be an artifact of the fact that I'm not in that position. Maybe if I were, I'd feel differently. Note that the exact amount isn't really so important- just the idea that there's a point past which it doesn't matter. Maybe the real point is 10 million, maybe it's only 1 or 2. Obviously, it'll be different for everybody, but I don't think it'll differ by all that much, once all is said and done.
BTW, I disagree that 5 or 6 million/year "isn't that much anymore." First of all, in most of the world, that's such a fantastical amount that you might as well as be talking about being paid in unicorn horns; however, we're not talking about living in Botswana- we're talking about living somewhere like the US. So, here in the US, 5/6 m/year is way more than enough to live in incredibly decadent luxury in any city in the country. I suppose it might not enough to actually own and operate a private jet, but it's certainly enough for NetJets; it's probably not enough to buy one's own island, but short of that sort of thing, I'm having a hard time imagining something I'd like to do that I couldn't do easily on that kind of income.[1] Again, maybe my imagination is too limited, here, but I kind of don't think so- I've certainly got a taste for creature comforts, and enjoy luxuries as much as anybody else. Remember, I'm not saying that people shouldn't earn tons of money- just that, after a point, what does it matter? And, if it doesn't matter, why not use it supporting a system that efficiently makes life comfortable for people that don't have as much as you do?
> The US already has Medicade and Medicare. Over 70% of people are covered in some way or another by their employer.
First of all, that still leaves 30% of the country that isn't covered, which is way too damn many. Second of all, what most people call "Medicaid" is actually a patchwork of different programs that vary widely in terms of coverage requirements and services from state to state, and is far from an ideal system, although it is better than nothing. As to the fact that most people who are covered are covered through their employers, doesn't that strike you as a major dent in their freedom? How many potential entrepreneurs do you think don't bother simply because they can't risk losing their (or their family's) health insurance? In my mind, this represents a major hit to personal liberty, and as such seems like exactly the sort of thing that a system intent on maximizing individual freedom would be attempting to fix.
> You haven't talked about the negative effects of a socialized healthcare system and you are trying to use sympathy to get me to agree with you.
Well, I haven't talked about it, because I didn't see it as relevant to the discussion- most of the rest of the world's countries employ some form of government-funded universal healthcare, and even though there certainly are negatives, I gotta say- I've traveled a fair bit, and due to my work, wherever I go I end up talking to people about healthcare. I've never- not once- heard somebody tell me that they'd rather have the US's system than their own country's, even if they've spent the last half-hour enumerating their system's problems. That says something, in my mind. Furthermore, there are a lot of different kinds of "socialized healthcare systems." Some of them have usage limits, etc.; some are surprisingly market-driven (e.g., Switzerland). That's not really what we're talking about, though. No system is going to be perfect; the question is whether a government-run system that guarantees a certain level of coverage to all citizens would be better or worse than our current system (or lack of system).
> Healthcare is a finite resource. We need some way to limit usage. There needs to be a hybrid system in place that limits total visits per year (and charges fees after that) or it will eventually collapse. Unlimited anything is a bad idea.
All 100% true points. "Rationing" is a really dirty word when it comes to health care, but it's an absolute necessity, if for no other reason than resources are ultimately finite. Right now, one of the ways we limit usage is by limiting access, which I personally view as unjust. If everybody had equal access, maybe we could figure out a better way (not bloody likely, IMHO, but it can't be worse than what we've got now). Note that I'm personally extremely pessimistic about health care in the US, even if we somehow were able to get a better system into place, but I don't think that means that we shouldn't try.
At any rate, this is all kind of off-topic from our original discussion.
[1]: Exception: massive-scale philanthropy, along the lines of the Gates Foundation.
Might have something to do with the wages and benefits they are getting from employment along with what sounded like great job security in the article.
This tax system is really only taking a large chunk if you have a lot to begin with, so I don't think you are going to lose your freedom because of it.
"This tax system is really only taking a large chunk if you have a lot to begin with, so I don't think you are going to lose your freedom because of it."
The tax system will prevent everyone from getting a large amount and taking a large chunk from the people making a large amount.
Even if you have money just sitting in a bank account with 0% interest, you are still taxed every year on that money (IE: your net worth, which is explained in the article).
It has created entire generations of people reliant on government services. I just hope the same system is around in 30 or 40 years or all that money will be gone (and since so much is taken from your paycheck, most people won't have enough by then for medical/living expenses). This is the long-term risk nobody is talking about because they are only concentrating on the short-term.
It reminds me of all the people that invested their entire lives into big companies like General Motors thinking they would be around forever and that they would have a pension when they retired. Now they are getting more and more of their benefits taken away. A government is no different.
When the majority of your money is being pumped into the system, it becomes almost impossible to diversify your risks, which is scary. I'm just surprised that so many people here can't see this.
If you're in it for the money, you won't succeed. That is for certain.
If money motivates you, become a day trader, hedge fund manager, bank executive. Work with money. At the kind of shear stress you get at these levels, you need the edge that comes from doing something you want. Just trudging in day after day for the money just won't cut it.
Less to win, maybe, but still you can read from the article: "He bought a Porsche". And I doubt everybody wanted to have one in Norway can do so (and even if it is the case, it would be even greater :P )
No human being needs 1 billion dollar to live correctly, and even in indecent luxury. Some people also value well begin of other and not only their own. (It might still be partly egoistic in a sens that this makes them feels better and it's probably very cool to live in an environment where people are happier, but i don't thing that invalidate the whole idea...)
> If you have less to lose, you're more willing to take risks.
Completely disagree, social security has rather a negative on the willingness of the population to take risks. In countries with high social securities, such as Switzerland or Germany there are less startups founded on average. People instead are in a kind of security thinking and take the most safe jobs, get an insurance for everything, etc..
Did you miss the bit of the article where it wsas pointed out that those countries have the highest number of startups in the world?
Not "less on average" but "the most".
Its possible we shouldn't be too quick to infer too much from this article, however. Norway is a major oil producer and if Norway's startup creation rate is very different from Sweden and Denmark's maybe we should be looking at other factors.
Didn't the article mention that Denmark was number 2 in startups after Norway? So not very different at all. And I suspect Finland is quite up there too.
Along with the fact that Norway saves all its oil in a fund for a rainy day, I don't think oil figures that much.
As I recall Germany and Switzerland do not have particularly good social securities. They both differ from Norway (the country in the article) by having very, very, very limited base health insurance. Their system is pretty similar to the US.
Germany and Switzerland have insurance-based UHC systems. More market-oriented, and somewhat more expensive than the other European systems. In fact Switzerlands system is very expensive indeed, running at almost 66% of the USAs costs per head. But the results are on par with the other European systems. Social securities are fairly good.
Do you actually know anything about these countries? I see a lot more entrepreneurs in Switzerland than I do in the US. That is, I see people with small businesses all over the place. It feels like every 3rd or 4th car on the road is a company car for some small business. Maybe there aren't thousands of useless, never-going-to-go-anywhere web start-ups starting every day, but who cares?
And yet, "Rates of start-up creation [in Norway] are among the highest in the developed world, and Norway has more entrepreneurs per capita than the United States." Did you read the article?
> it's much more expensive to fail in Scandinavia for those who venture into actually risking.
Norway's population is the size of a modest US city. It is not informative to compare a country of 5 million to a country of 307 million. This is always a flaw in the old argument that the United States should be more like Scandinavian country X, but I am yelling into the wind on this topic.
How does the rate of startups in Norway compare to Silicon Valley? I suspect it is much lower. If Silicon Valley's rate of startups were reduced to that of Norway, it would be a loss for the US and for the world.
I read the size argument a lot. But I never hear it. It crops up on the internet a lot, but never in the serious debate.
You always compare countries. Iceland to Austria to Italy to Britain to Germany to Japan. That is a lot of what people do in these areas.
No-ones ever pointed out a mechanism which would make it impossible to compare countries of varying sizes to each other. And normally, the advantage accrues to the larger one, with the bigger internal market.
In short, everything else being equal, you would expect the US to hasve more startups per cpaita, just based on the size advantage alone.
The article talks about Norway as being socialist. How serious is that?
With regards to the number of startups I would like to see the actual data they use to derive at this number.
For instance government funded initiatives are often part of the scandinavian models to push startups. Which means a lot of cleaning companies and window polishers become part of the statistics.
Also a lot of people in the US would have a company if they could.
Of course size matters or are you saying that there is no difference between people living in a small village and people living in the big city? Are you saying that the social dynamics are completely the same if you have 200 million people vs. 5 million?
I am saying that all the advantages go to the country with the biggest size. Economics of size. Bigger market. One language. One set of regulations. There is far better economic opportunity in the larger country, whn you just look at the size.
That is fact. Not an opinion.
Also, macroeconomics, public health, health care economics, etc compare countries all the time. Fact. The argument "It doesn't compare due to size" is something that crops up on the internet with people trotting it out as a reason for why their policies/countries/footballteams cannot possibly be expected to perform.
There is never any reasoning for why size has this effect of excusing select objects from comparing to others of the same class.
Nor any musings on whether the scaling can be compensated for. It is an internet thing, this cry of "SIZE! Can't be compared."
Menawhile, if yoy check out some serious research papers of a nmber of disciplines, you'll see they don't hesitiate to compare countries of widly differing sizes.
And "it is more expensive o fail"? With no risk of medical bankrupcy, guaranteed health care, free university for the kids, a generous safety net, pensions etc...how can it possibly be more disastrous?
Norway don't say yes to socialism they say yes to social welfare in a different way than in the US.
So do Denmark (where I am from) and Sweden.
Yes the taxes are higher (up to 60% in Denmark with a progressive tax system) and about the same I believe in Norway.
But it's not like everyone walks around an love it. In fact there is great opposition to the level that taxation have gone to. In Denmark it's an election year and several social welfare benefits plus income tax is being discussed as the main theme.
But all this doesn't really matter cause the US have something that neither of the Scandinavian countries nor any other European nations have.
They have a big ass market and one language.
Europe is a huge market (around +400 Million no?) but most countries (unlike Scandinavia) don't do well with english so there is no unifying factors that allow for the kind of scalable business that can be created in the US (at least not as easily)
There are many problems with the kind of social welfare models and lack of aspiration is actually one of them. People don't try as hard and because they pay high taxes they come to expect A LOT from the government.
I have lived in the US for enough years to know that there are many things that the US should envy from the Scandinavian countries. But the start-up environment is not one of them.
Thanks for setting the record straight on this. I'm Norwegian, and this is exactly what I would say about this. There are many things we do in Scandinavia that should be copied in the US, but start-up culture and small business is not helped along by the tax system and social services/benefits. In fact, the progressive taxation alone incentivizes everyone to _not_ earn more than about 100000 USD a year (if you work harder to earn more, taxation is about 45% on the marginal income).
There are "official" (state-sponsored) investment companies, but they are incredibly risk-averse and never invest in anything halfway radical. Private financing for computer startups is nonexistent.
What sort of startups/work have you been doing? When I'm talking about disincentivizing, I just mean that making the conscious decision of working more seems like a no-brainer. Your personal reasoning behind this may be different, but overall, fewer people will do this if they only get paid for 70-80% of the extra hours than if they get paid for all of them.
Really? You think there is a linear relationship between tax rates and hours worked? It's never worked that way in my experience, either as an employee or as a founder.
As an owner, you don't get paid for hours, full-stop. You get paid for outcomes. I don't know about you, but if the government raised the corporate tax rate by 5%, that would have no bearing on my desire to have my company succeed.
The same holds true, ceteris paribus, for my years as an employee. I worked hard (and a lot of hours) because I enjoyed what I was doing, and wanted the company to succeed, even if my income was divorced from the hours worked--as it was, most of the time, as a salaried employee. In other words, I got paid zero percent of the "extra hours", and yet still worked them, gladly, for other reasons.
> In fact, the progressive taxation alone incentivizes everyone to _not_ earn more than about 100000 USD a year […]
100k is a lot. Only people who've seriously lost perspective (or living in areas that have collectively lost perspective and have huge local inflation) think it's not enough. I'm quite happy to pay taxes to support social services. The only thing better would be to equalise incomes so that it wouldn't be necessary…
I concur–the US has a big market and a big advantage culturally in terms of startups.
Switzerland has the opposite problem, people are very ambitious, expect to earn a lot of money, and so are unwilling to take the pay cut to go to startups. I have run into many who think creating a successful startup involves having an idea and throwing money at outsourcers to program it. There's so much money thrown around that the idea of a MVP is out the window, a few companies I know have runways of 6+ years....
It's also partly about catching the bug and reaching the critical mass. If you have many friends making amazing things it's hard not to be inspired to try to join in. I don't think the cultural problem is by any means inherent in socialism, but those are just my 50 kroner...
>Norway don't say yes to socialism they say yes to social welfare in a different way than in the US.
But they do say yes to what most people in the US would call "socialism". When it comes to politics the words the US uses don't match what the rest of the world uses.
I thought this line was particularly telling: "Although America remains near the top of the world in terms of entrepreneurial aspirations - that is, the percentage of people who want to start new things-in terms of actual start-up activity, our country has fallen behind not just Norway but also Canada, Denmark and Switzerland."
Yet any mention of figuring out what they're doing right (and what we're doing wrong) is SOCIALISM
QUIGGIN: After I wrote the book, I saw the movie "Zombieland," and rule number two is double tap. You always have to hit them twice. I talk about the trickle down theory, that when you help the rich that helps everybody. I think a theory so convenient to powerful people is never going to be cured permanently.
RYSSDAL: And the theory about trickle-down economics is in some way coming back to the United States in this debate we're having about the Bush era tax cuts.
QUIGGIN: Absolutely. It's suggesting that keeping on giving tax cuts to the top 1 or 5 percent of the population is going to help everybody else. The evidence is very clear that that's not the case. That the vast majority of benefits of economic growth have gone to people in the top 10 percent of the income distribution. Within that 10 percent, the top 1 percent has done much better than the remaining 9 percent, and within that 1 percent, the top tenth of a percent has done even better.
> Yet any mention of figuring out what they're doing right (and what we're doing wrong) is SOCIALISM
I don't understand this. Just because some Americans consider "socialism" to be a poor fit for their country, doesn't mean we shouldn't accept it when other countries self-describe their actions as "socialism". To do so, would be to adapt language to pander to the American world view (e.g. we think something is good, so avoid calling it socialism so Americans may adopt it without bias) rather than retain concise accuracy in discussion.
Please stop pointing to successful market economies and calling them socialist.
In some ways Switzerland is a libertarian tax haven and really makes the US look socialist.
Switzerland, Canada and Denmark are more economically free than the US according to this: http://www.heritage.org/index/
Just because there are some very rich people in the US, it doesn't mean the average person would be better off in a socialist country such North Korea or Cuba.
Switzerland is by no means socialist and is rather an example of many libertarian ideals. Taxes are done by canton (city/state) and in some one can pay as little as no income tax. Health care is required, decoupled from employment and well regulated, but private. I've lived in all of the aforementioned countries and prefer the socialist model, but Switzerland is another example of there being many ways to reach the same ideal. I only hope the US can make it there too one day so that I could feel comfortable living in it.
This article rings true to me. I've lived and worked in Norway for a successful startup (FAST Search, later bought by Microsoft) above the Arctic circle. It's a lovely country, the startup did feel like a family (in fact, many brought their kids to work), we worked and played hard, etc. I paid 50% tax and $15 for beers and was more than happy to do so as well–the taxes were well used and having an entire population, rather than a small circle of friends with a high standard of living was so much more fun.
It's all in how you define a term, but traditionally Norway is a very socialist country - The major businesses were owned by the state, and while that has changed, the government does still hold large stakes in telecom, oil, and transportation companies. Private businesses also generally have a much flatter hierarchy than you find in the US, and income distribution is much more equally. And, of course, the member parties of the ruling coalition consider themselves to be socialist parties.
Of course you can slice the definitions in different ways, but the common definition is that the capitalist ideal of all means of production being in private hands and socialism is the opposite of that - they are all in public hands. Norway is a mixed economy. I think that the USA and Norway are not at the poles of that continuum but much more close together, especially given the Fed's recent acquisitions.
Actually, I think the way the US and Norway handled the crisis helps to show how different they are.
Norway stepped in much more quickly, even though the risk was much less compared to the US (Norway had already placed stricter controls on banks due to the crisis they had in the late 80's and early 90's). While the Fed did step in in the US, they were more concerned with pumping in money rather than trying to fix the underlying cause of the trouble - because, after all, telling the banks what to do would be "socialism", which is why there is still so much uncertainty in the US right now.
Obviously not everything in Norway is perfect, but taking everything into account - the 3.1% unemployment rate just one example - I certainly have no desire to move back to the US anytime soon.
You're free to leave Norway whenever you like.
You can own private property in Norway, and grow your business and keep at least half the profits.
Socialist countries have state ownership, no private property, restrictions on freedoms.
Norway is a social democracy. At any point the government could be voted out and replaced with one that changes all the laws. It's not a socialist country.
I didn't. I said that a socialist country would have freedom restrictions in place. I didn't try and describe socialism as a construct, I described a country with a socialist government which referred to itself as such. I repeat, Norway is not a socialist country.
I'm happy to be given an example of a socialist country in which you're free to leave and own private property.
The joke here is that China and Vietnam are anything but socialist nowadays. China even has a property bubble, which must be turning old Mao around in his grave. But look down the list and you'll see a real who's who of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. And not many startup hotbeds.
You are still saying the same thing. "A socialist country would have freedom restrictions in place". Who says that? Norway, and many other countries, have had socialdemocratic governments for a long time, who also define themselves as socialist (for instance, they belong to the socialist international). Why is an authoritarian regime describing itself as socialist actually socialist but a socialdemocratic government doing the same isn't? Honest question here, just trying to figure out how do you end up there.
I'll make my point very simple for third party readers.
Socialism != Social Democracy != Socialist Country
It's a matter of semantics but so many things are. I do not conflate socialism and social democracy. One is an 'ism' - the other a description of a type of government. Any government can have elements of socialism, but socialist governments, to me (and others) are ones that are self described as socialist countries. Norway has a currently elected parliament that has a majority of members who identify with socialism, but that does not make it a socialist country. It's not about post-Reaganism or whatever. USSR stood for United Soviet Socialist Republics. That was a socialist country. If a pile of Norwegians want to define their country as Socialist, let them do so.
No, everyone else is mixing up self-described socialist countries with social democracies, whose ruling parliamentary members identify with socialism as a guiding principle. There is a difference.
The first thing I learned is that Norwegians don't think about taxes the way we do. Whereas most Americans see taxes as a burden, Norwegian entrepreneurs tend to see them as a purchase, an exchange of cash for services. "I look at it as a lifelong investment," says Davor Sutija, CEO of Thinfilm[...].
Probably, especially considering I'm fairly sure we've never met. :)
Don't get me wrong, the Americans I talk to regularly (and work with) aren't complaining about this, but if you get enough foreigners in a room together, there always seem to be a few who like to complain about taxes.
As for the FrP, the ones I know tend to be younger, and while they don't mind complaining about taxes, the real reason they tend towards the FrP is racism, even when they'd rather not admit it.
If that was what they truly thought then there would be no reason to use force to collect taxes, they could just have a recommended donation and collect that. For some reason, I don't think that would work.
This form of mental gymnastics, is very comparable to Nietzsche's analysis of the slave morality - where one alters their values in reaction oppression, so that it becomes moral, or even desirable, to act in a subservient way.
Let's not forget that if it was such a bad deal, they could vote to change things. When's the last time a "slave", using your words, had a vote?
But it takes more than perks to keep a worker motivated in Norway. In a country with low unemployment and generous unemployment benefits, a worker's threat to quit is more credible than it is in the United States, giving workers more leverage over employers. [...] "You can't just treat them like machines," [Bjorn Holte, founder and CEO of bMenu] says. "If you do, they'll be gone."
Because a minority loses out in a democracy, they can either adapt and accept the situation or struggle to change it. Often times it's easier to just change ones own position than to actually do something, that most likely will not succeed and if it does provides limited benefit - the ROI isn't worth it.
For example, I think the taxes are too high:
1. I can complain all the time, and be miserable.
2. I can work to change it - but lets say it takes me 10 hours a week to make any dent at all, and I'll only save 10k -- not worth it.
3. I can wish that it was lower, but do nothing and just live my life as it is. Though, I may feel anger or frustration - negatively impacting my life.
or lastly
4. I can change my position - I guess the taxes are good, I get this stuff that I need, etc. Now I'm happy with my current situation and don't have any need to change it. By changing my perspective I've removed a source of pain in my life, even though it still exists -- I am no longer consciously aware of it.
A little bit more on the concept of slave morality, it applies to Nietzsche's critique of Christianity:
"By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master. Biblical principles of turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind, and thus enslaving the masters as well." [1]
He argues that in early Christianity instead of glorifying standing up to their oppressors, which was difficult and fraught with danger, that they glorified being subservient - when the master hits you turn the other cheek, don't defend yourself
5. Why must one opt out of the economic system?
6. Why must one stop working?
7. Why must one move away from their friends and family, to a foreign land? What if there is nowhere else with lower taxes?
I believe the the observation, about slave morality is being misunderstood.
But more importantly, the crux of my argument is this - if people are truly happy about the level of taxation, then why is it mandatory. For instance, you could have a minimal tax of 5% for core government functions and allow people to contribute any percentage they would above that to fund other various programs - you could even provide a guide. For current government functions to continue at their current level, the suggested donation for individuals at your income level is 55%.
If you don't accept that deal, then it doesn't seem that you are being honest with yourself that you have no problems with the level taxation.
It's an enforceable commitment scheme. I will happily pay if everyone does. If it's optional, most people will become free riders, so I'm not going to be the sucker who bears more than my share while failing to actually solve the problem.
This looks to me as more of an argument against democracy than anything else. Not sure how you intended it. Its definitely interesting. But what would we be if not for democracy or some other form of rule? Anarchy. I don't think that is what I want, at least. It would be back to Darwin and "Survival of the fittest".
Democracy in its pure sense is quite horrible, it's commonly referred to as mob rule. That is why modern democracies are constitutional democracies, the rule of the mob is limited so that minorities are protected.
I do believe that his line of thinking exposes flaws in democracy - it's important to identify flaws in the system so that they can be addressed.
Norway would have a lot more trouble saying "ja" to socialism if it didn't have so much oil. That's what makes the whole thing seem like such a good deal - you're getting more than you're paying in.
Aw come on, Norway has oil and it is small, but was social-democratic long before any oil, and both Denmark and Sweden have built successful welfare safety nets without relying so much on a natural-resources windfall.
Sweden is a big industrial nation. The relatively free market system allowed them to flourish.
In all of the Scandinavian countries the welfare state really didn't start until around the 1960s-1970s.
The government programs have only been possible because of the successful private economy to pay for it, just like in the US.
Although Denmark doesn't have the massive oil wealth that Norway does, there is still some and enough that Denmark is a net oil exporter. And the Danish state gets billions of kroner from oil each year.
Of course Norway's way of doing things could work in the United States - if the typical American had the underlying culture, beliefs, and attitudes of the typical Norwegian.
Since they don't, and cultural change is the sort of thing that happens incrementally over a generation or more, there's no plan of action to be gained from such articles - they're valuable because they teach us a bit about other cultures, but trying to use them to make political points is silly.
Bloody good on Norway. Now if you want Norwegian taxes or the Norwegian government, move to Norway. I'll take the American moral view on taxation, and fight taxation tooth-and-nail until I die, regardless of the pragmatics of it. It's about choice, and freedom, not the actual dollars and cents.
Come up with a scheme that moves functions currently executed by the government into a privately run, voluntary collective, and chances are I'd join it, participate, and pay as much as - or more than - I do now. But if you use the hammer of government force to mandate participation, I - for one - will never accept it as just.
Norwegian examples simply aren't applicable to the rest of the world. Here in the UK we are often compared to Norway, since we are both North Sea oil countries. Well, Norway makes 20x the oil revenue per head of the population than we do. That covers up a an awful lot. We don't have the luxury of economic inefficiencies that Norway can get away with.
For many generations the American moral view, like most everyone else's, has included taxpayer-funded programs that promote the general welfare. The only debates are about how much and which ones. Anarchists and libertarians have found negligible traction with the voters. If they want Somalia, they know where to find it.
As for "they'd pay more voluntarily", I just don't believe they'd go to all the trouble to dismantle our one crude solution to the free rider problem if none of them intend to become free riders. Usually when anyone says it's not about the money, it's about the money.
The article implies that most people in Norway believe that individual rights are less important than the average welfare of all individuals taken together and that personal lives are less important than the well-being of the collective. This is quite logical, because it is the acceptance of this view of the world that makes their system possible.
A similar view is at the root of most governments around the world today and it certainly underpinned the socialist/communist block in the 20th century, though to a different degree. The United States has been a notable exception.
But let's focus on Norway and the idea that it can serve as a model. To take a small example, who believes that a skilled doctor is genuinely happy to have half of his income taken away by law and given to the janitor of his hospital, so that the latter receives the roughly same pay? Well, the surveys say that the level of happiness in Norway are very high, so the doctor must be happy. Happiness measures aside, does that make sense? Is the doctor genuinely happy or has he been told by generations of intellectuals what he should feel happy about and what he should feel guilty about? This is a question that everyone who nominates Norway as a model for the US should answer logically.
A bit of anecdotal evidence from a Norwegian citizen to counter your "doctor vs janitor" argument: I'm more than well aquainted with a doctor and she is more than happy to pay her taxes, in order to benefit the rest of society.
You should also know that even though the tax system in Norway works to even the footing of different posed people financially, it does not wipe out the class difference between a janitor and a doctor. Their net income will still differ by quite a bit (up to 400% at least).
The benefit here is that someone who is considered poor, and would perhaps be forced to live in the street, and only serve to increase the crime rate, will instead recieve help. And the doctor can sleep peacefully at night knowing that the police is out protecting. The hospital emergency staff is ready to recieve the next cardiac arrest patient, the road will be cleared from that heavy snow fall during the night, the list goes on.
In my view the philosophy of the Norwegian tax models is less worries == more happiness, and that is exactly what this model offers for everyone included.
On the other hand its very easy to paint a rosy picture of Norway in a case like this. Mostly becasue US is so easy to outcompete on many of the issues directly involved. Crime rates, mortality rates, helthcare and so on. Norway does of course, like any country, suffer from several political problems. Spending, immigration and government control is perhaps the most fleeting issues right now. But they diminish substantially compared to the issues the US has to face the next decade. And perhaps even worse is it, that the political environment in the US seems allmost hopeless. With the country polarized into two extremes. In Norway the debate is still very much alive around all of these issues. In the US you can quickly get yourself into a place you dont want to be by just shifting your perspective slightly.
Fundamentally, it comes down to the questions "Do you have the right to keep the fruit of your effort? And do you have the right to dispose of it as you see fit?"
It appears that your acquaintance agrees with having her government take away part of her income and give it to the janitor. She accepts the janitor's claim to part of her property as the janitor's right - i.e. the janitor does not owe her any gratitude, and her act is not a voluntary act of benevolence - she is simply giving him what is already his due.
So where does this right come from? The janitor's need. The question here is whether need can give rise to a legitimate right.
You say that your acquaintance thinks that her giving away part of her wealth helps prevent poorer people from becoming criminals. And that this danger gives them the right to claim part of her wealth. But if you extrapolate this thinking further, you'd get people keeping others hostage by means of a threat - i.e. if you refuse to share with me what you earned but I didn't, I'll turn into a criminal and hurt you. This way of thinking about rights is very dangerous.
My view of happiness is simply the achievement of your values, which you have defined consciously and rationally and which do not infringe on the rights of others. The questions for your acquaintance are "Is she feeling happy because she can buy a protection from criminals", or "Is she feeling happy because she truly loves all her fellow citizens (known and unknown, good and bad, lazy and hard-working)?". Regardless of the answer, the more important question is: "Why does she prefer a situation where she is given no choice, no right to refuse to give away, to a situation where she could give away voluntarily, as an act of kindness?"
Doctors are an extremly well-educated, mobile workforce. Few chose to leave the country, there are more coming in.
There is more happiness in being well-off in a rich country, than being rich in a poor or troubled one.
Especially if you have a family.
People don't measure themselves against the superrich of other countries anyway. A doctor in Norway has a high-status job and among the best wages in the country. Changing from being in the top in a rich country to being somewhat further from the top in a more trobled one is not a winning proposition. Even if it does mean more number in the bank.
Also, it is undeniable that there are more freedom under the Norwegian system than the US one. Health care, vacation time, education, personal development....I cannot imagine what freedoms the US could measure up in.
You're getting into interesting ground here with questioning happiness. How is happiness defined? Can you truly distinguish between someone who is happy on their own and someone who is happy because their society tells them they should be? Does any happiness not stem from generations of people shaping perceptions of what individuals in their society should feel happy about?
Norway is successful because of the oil and gas resources here. This makes the economy boom, and is why the welfare state and social democracy works so well. I still think the US has a far more competitive start-up environment. I'm from Norway, by the way.
One swallow does not make a summer, and one happy entrepreneur does not equal a system which produces a lot of new companies.
Norway is a nice place and the culture and beliefs of the people mean that they have decided as a country to opt for a high social safety net and associated high taxes.
But trying to extract a hypothesis that somehow high taxes and social safety nets are somehow good for starting up a business is, well, stretching it somewhat.
Perhaps one of the reasons this guy found success is that so many of his countrymen can't be bothered because the extra effort isn't worth it. He clearly is motivated by more than money, so high taxation doesn't affect him much. So you could say Norways taxation system encourages people to build family style companies, and only suits entrepreneurs who aren't money-driven. That's an equally valid conclusion to draw from the article if you ask me.
The fact that Norway, followed by Denmark, has the highest rate of strtups in the world, according to the article, would seem to argue against the "one swallow" theory, and indicate full summer.
And it is not reasonable to assume that his countrymen can't be bothered when they are the most prolific in the world.
The base definition of socialism is "worker ownership of the means of production and distribution". Some interpret this to be state or public ownership, but others see worker co-operatives, collectives and federations to be socialist formations which can operate within a market. Syndicalists, market socialists, etc. would fall under this definition.
Not that simple, no. Profit-sharing is not the same as worker ownership, since if shares are available to non-workers, then it's not a socialist system. Also, if workers are required to "buy in" to shares, instead of collectively owning the results of their economic organization, then that is not socialism either.
The real problem is the high cost of health care. This article argues persuasively that it's government interference in the sector that has caused the enormous costs:
My God, where to begin on this unnecessarily provocative link-bait fuckup of a story.
"This is particularly surprising, because the prices Dalmo pays for government services are among the
highest in the world."
>Of course, the country has some of the highest wages in the world so nursing is naturally not as cheap as in Nepal.
"The capitalist system functions well," Dalmo says. "But I'm a socialist in my bones."
> Let's put some context on this. Imagine a Norwegian magazine travelling to Alabama, interviewing an entrepreneur who also happens to be a Tea Party member. The point is that the vast majority of Norwegians do not identify themselves as socialist in the American sense of the word. The word lost its meaning in the late 70s, when labor sobered up and realized it needed to export, since then Norway has had moderate European taxes.
"This is a place where entire cities smell of drying fish—an odor not unlike the smell of rotting fish"
> What?
"and where, in the most remote parts, one must be careful to avoid polar bears."
There are no wild polar bears in Norway. There are polar bears on arctic island owned by Norway.
"The food isn't great."
> The food in northern Europe isn't the most exciting.
"It ranked third in Gallup's latest global happiness survey"
> Define happiness. It's also the country in the world with one of the highest suicide rates.
"Bear strikes, darkness, and whale meat notwithstanding, Norway is also an exceedingly pleasant place to make a home."
> Alligators, heat-waves, and death-valley notwithstanding, the US is also an exceedingly pleasant place to make a home.
"The unemployment rate, just 3.5 percent, is the lowest in Europe and one of the lowest in the world."
> Thanks to how Norway actually measures unemployment, by declaring long-term unemployed people sick.
"There are no private schools in Norway"
> Incorrect, there are many private kindergartens, elementary schools, high schools and private higher-eds in Norway.
"The problem for entrepreneurship in Norway is it's so lucrative to be an employee," says Lars Kolvereid, the lead
researcher for the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor in Norway."
> I included this statement because it's TRUE, and because I was delighted that the author finally decided to interview an expert.
"Kenneth Winther, the founder of the Oslo management consultancy MoonWalk, regaled me for hours about the virtues of Norway—security, good roads, good schools."
> Norway is a very safe country, but it has terrible roads and its schools are mediocre at best.
So in summary, what's wrong with this article? Remember that assignment you got in college, where you were supposed to pick a side in the abortion debate and argue for that side? You pick a thesis and then you selectively cherry-pick facts with the occasional intermittent concession to the opposite side as a rhetorical device. The problem with this story isn't that it presents wrong facts, it's that it presents a highly skewed picture of reality. In fact, this is why I have stopped reading magazines like Time, Newsweek, Bloomberg business review and last but not least Business Week. These days I only read the Economist, which is the magazine that seems to care more about reality than making a provocative point. Pick any story in the Economist and you'll find that the ingress usually has the format "While event X may be positive Y, it also may have a downside Z".
Let's also not forget the fact that Norway is a very oil-rich country which brings a huge degree of wealth into the economy, and this skews the image considerably. You might have noticed that the guy the article talks about got rich selling stuff to -- guess who? -- the Norwegian oil industry.
The number of startups in a given community doesn't causate a great entrepreneurship scene. By that metric Norway could just give every team that's interested 50k dollars from their oil, call them a startup and automatically have a more vibrant startup scene than Silicon Valley. Troll economics, anyone?
People also overestimate the degree to which the US is capitalistic. Government spending in the US is now around 40%, with the free-market days of the pre-WWII era long replaced by a heavy-handed state that has never shrunk meaningfully. Maybe we Scandinavians run our bloated government bureaucracies more efficiently in our comparatively small, historically homogenous societies, but they're certainly not the reason we're rich. We're rich because we've been relatively free and capitalistic for a long time, also historically enjoying relatively low political corruption and a strong rule of law. At least that's the picture as I see it, being an Icelander that has lived and worked in Denmark I feel I grok the way these relatively small communities of my kinsmen work on a gut level.
One more thing: New Hampshire is one of the richest states in the USA, has about the same population as Norway and has a higher GDP per capita. If we're going to compare the US to Norway (one of the richest European countries) while excluding other much poorer countries from the equation, we should also compare New Hampshire to Europe to put things in proper perspective.
"This is a place where entire cities smell of drying fish—an odor not unlike the smell of rotting fish" > What?
I think the author means that you're told that smell is "drying fish" (I assume for eating), but to an outsider it just smells like rotting fish. Sarcastic humor.
Very true. Many refuse to think logically and accept whatever happens to be the fashionable idea of the day.
My family and I also had to witness a similar experiment. I join you in your wishes.
That was inadvertent, not clever. The person who sent me the link did it via mobile phone, so he used the mobile link, and I didn't see it when it was posted previously.
Thus having the government take care of basic welfare and health care benefits frees people to be entrepreneurial, in a sense.
Compare to the US, where people are tied to a job based on the benefits they have through that job, and before the health care legislation's removal of preexisting conditions clauses, if you had a medical condition and lost your job, you could very easily end up in financial distress.
Personally, I would have transitioned to being independent a full year earlier if it wasn't for health care coverage issues.