Yep.
But that’s misleading. This US may be the closest, but it’s not very close at all. It’s much, much closer to the other western democracies than it is to “unfettered capitalism”.
A proxy for “everything else”? Really? Everything else? It’s actually a stand-alone thing that is an outlier when comparing the US to other western democracies in terms of government provided services.
I addressed the inequality…point. If it has something to do with the thread title, I’m all ears. Maybe you’ll come back and, as the OP, tell us why you think one country has a better government, and why inequality factors into that. Thus far you have not done so. Afterward, we may have something to debate.
As for working hours, Americans often choose to work more, because Americans who work more typically get paid more. Maybe the OP will let us know what this has to do with whether a government is better or worse.
But as for disputing data, we can do that if you like. The 49 hours number comes from a self-reported Gallup survey average. Most people (in the U.S.; I haven’t seen data for Swedes) don’t actually work as long as they say they do. That’s why ATUS and CPS often don’t agree with each other. ATUS uses a diary. CPS uses repeat interviews of 60k households. And Gallup spoke to a couple thousand people on the phone, if that.
Many of us who had the option to join unions chose not to. This varies by state. Do Swedes have the same freedom I had in Texas? Maybe you’ll explain what this has to do with whether a government is better or worse. Because I’m betting Swedes and Texans have different ideas about this. Is the better government the one that has laws that reflect the wants and needs of its citizens, or one that matches what laws you think are just and proper? Some explanation of what you think might help organize the discussion.
Well I think how good a government is has a lot to do with how democratic it is and how equal people are.
From the article:
“What Scandinavians call the Nordic Model is a smart and simple system that starts with a deep commitment to equality and democracy. That’s two concepts combined in a single goal because, as far as they are concerned, you can’t have one without the other.”
On the other hand:
“…capitalist America, now the most unequal of all the developed nations, and consequently a democracy no more.”
(also about equality and democracy)
So why inequality factors into that: (as far as they are concerned) “you can’t have one without the other”.
I think labor unions factor into it a lot too (I mean in Australia you get paid a lot more for “overtime” so that would discourage it being done so much or compensate workers more)
The government can do things like set minimum wages and like that article mentions a few times, have day care.
I suspect that Americans work more hours than people in Norway though.
Well having more union membership would mean that they have more power in the government. BTW Australia has a major party (the Labor party) that has a lot to do with unions - including where a lot of the party’s funding comes from. Unions are meant to benefit the worker. On the other hand in the U.S. I think a lot of the party’s funding comes from corporations, lobby groups for corporations, the rich, etc.
The article says there are no slums in Oslo. I think the government would be responsible for a lot of that. Does America need or want slums?
“In the mid-1950s, 36% of the United States labor force was unionized. At America’s union peak in the 1950s, union membership was lower in the United States than in most comparable countries. By 1989, that figure had dropped to about 16%, the lowest percentage of any developed democracy, except France”
I think a high rate of union membership is important for having a government that benefits the average worker because the union could help with campaign contributions, etc. If union membership is 1/5 of another country that means that a major party probably can’t exist that is significantly run by the unions. So it needs to get campaign contributions from other places. I’m not saying that unions don’t give any funding to U.S. parties but I’m saying that the parties would probably be more in debt to corporate lobbyists, etc. And that isn’t democratic. Democracies should focus on the citizen’s votes. Of course parties only get elected if they are voted for by the citizens but a lot of their agenda would be determined by the rich/corporations. BTW that article says that corporations have a role to play in Norway’s government too though.
BTW in U.S. comedies that mention the Teamsters they portray them as pretty lazy and incompetent.
Assuming the employer didn’t prevent you from doing it I wonder why? Did union membership seem pointless? (maybe due to them being weak due to lack of membership)
Well the Economist ranked 167 nations in terms of democracy, and Norway scored 9.9 while the U.S got an overall score of 8.0. The United States ranked 20th in the world, while Norway came in top as the most freest nation in the world.
The U.S. was classified as a “full democracy” with 8.05 and the next one was a “flawed democracy” with 7.98.
True the U.Saudi standing is pretty good globally, Norway is just closest to perfect.
Wei not trei a holiday in Norway this yeer?
Jesus, dude, you don’t have to post every asinine thought that pops into your head.
I highly doubt there are no slums in Oslo. I know first hand that there are slums in Stockholm.
This right here is the reason Europe has the big immigration/refugee crisis today. You’re absolutely right unions wielded great power in the past decades and “protected” the workers. The way they did that was to make sure no immigrants came and took the union members precious jobs. This had two major effects:
Result: The only non-Europeans most Europeans see/interact with are refugees on welfare. Racism, tensions, and general nastiness is the result.
Moving from Europe to the US, how immigration integration differed was one of the things I really noticed. It’s one of the US’ greatest triumphs. European governments have failed completely at integration.
Thank you, OP, for the clarification. I think we’re getting toward something to discuss now. I still think you’re equating the betterness of government based on outcomes you personally favor vs looking at whether the laws reflect what citizens actually want, whether those laws efficiently realize the desired outcomes, and whether they are executed fairly. I think there’s a lot to be said about whether the U.S. manages the above. I can’t speak for Norway.
There still isn’t much of an argument in the article or in your post, but I’ll make one for you. Increased inequality in a money-dominated political system leads to rent-seeking by the wealthy. This feedback mechanism is ultimately destabilizing. To what extent remains to be seen.
I don’t necessarily adhere to that, but if it resonates with you, you might be interested in Stiglitz’ The Price of Inequality, recommended by another poster. He articulates the point better than either of us. The intention was for a bunch of us to read it and have a grand brawl in GD, but I haven’t finished it yet.
The question then is what to do about it? Americans hate welfare, for good or bad (Gilens argues there’s a hefty dose of racism in that sentiment), and supposedly value hard work (and most Americans living in poverty do not work or only work part time.) So is this an instance of the government following the will of the people, or ignoring them to dance to the tune of the one percenters?
I don’t need the government or a union to interfere with my labor negotiations. I’ve worked 70 h/w to get ahead. If I moved to Norway, could I have done that? Or would the government first protect me from working the way I wanted to, and then tax most of my extra gains? If I want to improve my condition by working hard and delaying gratification, which government is better for me?
The U.S. government does set a minimum wage, and most people earning it are not living in poverty.
As for childcare, I’d love to see a cost benefit analysis. The article also mentions parental leave. We’ve seen some actual experiments in the U.S. California started a parental leave program funded through payroll taxes. They’ve seen increased retention of women in the workforce, and businesses like it. I haven’t looked into it since I last posted some cites about it in another thread.
Both childcare and parental leave (and healthcare) are mentioned in a sentence about the ease of starting a business. I’m curious about what else factors into starting a business, and which country better facilitates entrepreneurship. Poking around online I’m seeing some indexes that put Norway ahead of the U.S. This has my attention.
I suspect they do as well. I choose to work more than the average Norwegian. I also make more and have more disposable income (as do most Americans, see median equivalized disposable household income; the median American household has 12% more disposable income than the median Norwegian household.) And I fail to see what this says about which government is better.
Don’t worry; there’s plenty of union money to be had in U.S. politics. And it shows. 3/4 of Americans favor right-to-work laws, yet only half the states have them. Is that good government or bad? Most Americans don’t want unions to have more influence, so maybe that isn’t a good criterion for the goodness of government?
Among other reasons, it cost money and favored tenure over skill and merit.
Sounds like left wing heaven.
Well, I don’t know of any American cities with street signs inspired by Monty Python: This “Silly Walk” Sign At A Crosswalk In Norway Is The Future Of Traff
My estimation: It’s been better for Norway so far, else they’d have got rid of it.
Why is this thread in the Elections forum? Seems more like GD material.
See the loveli fjords . . .
Norway is basically demographically homogeneous and, as mentioned above, has a population 60 times smaller than the U.S. Whatever government works for it may not work for the U.S. or China or anyone else. It’s not a good comparison.