I realize this kind of question can easily move to GD, or maybe even IMHO, but I am looking for some factual info here.
I read somewhere that Sweden has no underclass. As an American, I interpret such a statement to mean that there are no homeless people, there are no working poor, and that even the jobless are housed reasonably comfortably considering their circumstances. As for the working poor, do busboys, messengers, restaurant dishwashers, and ticket tearers feel that they are fully participating in everything Swedish society has to offer? Are such jobs filled on a part-time basis by teenagers and students who know that their situation in those jobs is not the final destination of their life? Or are there many adults permanently in such jobs, attempting to support families?
Two words: welfare system. Sweden has the most extensive welfare system in the world. And the highest taxes. But it also has one of the highest standard of living and life expectancy. These facts are not unrelated.
In standard American terms it’s practically (gasp) socialist. Whether this means it has no ‘underclass’ is a matter of opinion. Someone has to still do the undesirable jobs, but they are probably paid better and have a far better standard of living.
So why hasn’t Sweden self-destructed? According to conservative dogma, those two are fatal flaws will prevent any country from prospering, and ultimately doom it to the fate of the Soviet Union. Is Sweden teetering on the brink of economic disaster?
I read somewhere that pigs can fly. If you tell me where you read that Sweden has no underclass I’ll tell you where I read pigs can fly.
Class differences in Sweden may not be as marked as in the USA (and this is true in most of Europe) but to say they have no social problems is just silly. Furthermore, what works in Sweden will not necessarily work in the USA because, you see, they are very different countries, with different cultures, different racial composition, and different. . . everything. Sweden doe snot have the racial problems of the USA because they never had the great slave plantations. Sweden does not need to spend as much as the USA in its military because it does not need to invade Iraq or to be the world policeman. It’s like comparing apples and bananas. Sweden has its own problems, they just happen to be different problems than the US has. Whether you think one country is better than the other is strictly a matter of personal taste and preference. I am sure there are many Americans who would like to move to Sweden and I am sure there many Swedes who would like to move to the USA. They are looking for what they personally like better. That’s all. There is no country in the world which is inconditionally better than all the rest.
I was in Sweden in 1982 (admittedly, a long time ago) and saw racist graffiti scrawled on the sidewalks. (e.g. “N_____ GO HOME!”) The strange thing was that it was in English. Our friend there said that there was racial tension in Sweden. I also saw anti-Israel posters that were presumably put up by a Palestinian group. I have one of the posters that had fallen to the ground. I don’t have it on-hand, and I don’t speak Swedish; but I think that it said something like “Condemn the Israeli murder of the Palestinian people (“folk mordet”)! Support the Palestinian People’s Front!”
If that’s your interpretation, then Sweden does have an underclass. We do have homeless people and there are working poor. The differences are not as pronounced as in the US and the underclass is certainly smaller here, but it’s there.
Actually? Neither. For starters, we don’t have too many of those jobs. Ticket tearers do other things between shows, waiters do the busboying, and so on. There are no baggers in supermarkets. And yes, many such jobs are filled by students.
Sweden is great in many ways, but we haven’t solved the poverty problem just yet.
Sweden immigrant population: 13%.
USA immigrant population: 10%
Need?
Sweden military spending : 2.2% of GDP.
USA military spending: 3.4% of GDP.
Sweden foreign aid : 0.7% of GDP
USA foreign aid : 0.1% of GDP.
Funny how military spending for the good of the world as a whole is required of the USA, while equally useful foreign aid spending isn’t. You’d almost think they were picking what to spend their money on to suit themselves.
I must have missed where this was suggested in the OP.
Welfare state and high taxes make for a brain drain. I remember this being a topic of discussion in the Netherlands in the late eighties, when they had a similar system (since, I believed, somewhat reigned in). Many people left, some just across the border, many further away. I left too, so the effect is obviously ameliorated by an ijit drain…
We can certainly see how high taxes might result in a “star-drain”, i.e. film and music stars fleeing the UK for example. But is the same sort of thing seen among the educated and professional classes? Are countries such as Sweden and The Netherlands bereft (relatively speaking) of doctors, engineers, and computer programmers?
As Priceguy says, Sweden does have homeless and Sweden does have working poor. Many Swedes like to believe theirs is a classless society, but that is frankly bull. Sweden has a very clear working, middle and upper class.
The difference between Sweden and many other countries is the reasons for and consequences of ones position in society. For example, in terms of consequence, being unemployed poor or working poor in Sweden does not need to effect your access to healthcare. It does not need to effect your ability to send your child to university etc.
In terms of reasons for ones situation, while there are indeed homeless people in Sweden, it is almost impossible to end up homeless if you are not mentally ill or drug addicted. The system works in such a way that it is (more or less) impossible to lose your job, miss some payments on the house, and end up living in your car, and then on the streets. If you become sick or disabled then you will be taken care of. If your kids are sick or whatever you will be able to mind them without loosing your job.
The social safety net is in place and working most of the time.
There is not much talk of minimum wage etc in Sweden but rather of “Minimum standard of living”. If you are unable to earn sufficiant amounts of money to attain that minimum standard then you will be assisted in meeting that standard. This of course then forces certain obligations on you such as that you train for a better paying job etc.
On preview (cept I don’t preview so it’s on reload, Sweden has been quite spared in terms of brain drain. Most people in the country seem accept the ideology of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, even many of those who identify as financially right-leaning.
While people are to greater and lesser extent in favour of privatisation of healthcare, education etc there are very few people willing to accept the idea that uni would cost 5k a year, or that people would have to consider if they were sick/badly injured enough to seek health care. The Swedes are a relativly unpatriotic gang, but this is one of their areas of national pride, that the country runs efficiantly and humanely for (almost) all.
I spent 24 years in Sweden before I moved to Texas. I’m an engineer. Maybe this qualifies as brain drain.
Believe it or not, but I saw much stronger racism in Sweden than the US. In Sweden racism is directed towards immigrants (1st and 2nd generation, mostly) from south america (Chile mostly) and the middle east (Iran, Iraq etc). These people have a VERY hard time getting a job, and the Swedish system discriminates strongly against them by not accepting their foreign educations. Only jobs available to them are janitors, pizza restaurants, bus drivers and such. Many of these immigrants are doctors, lawyers and even professors. None of their credentials count for squat in Sweden.
As for poverty, it most certainly exists and the under class feels just as hopeless as they do in the US. Instead of rickety housing in projects they live in high-rise bunker looking apartments with junkies in the hallways and gangs roaming the streets randomly beating and stabbing people. Guns may not be common but a knife will do the job just fine.
The settings may be different, but class divisions exist just like pretty much any country. Biggest difference, IMO is that the middle class in the US is much better off than in Sweden.
Sweden does have (quite) a large black population. I wouldn’t say that posters supporting leftist Palestinian groups are much of a sign of racism, however strongly worded (without ay racist comments tho’).
We actually have a similar situation same situation here, but perhaps not as bad. It’s my understanding that our hospitals are full of Filipino nurses who are doctors at home, but their educations and/or licenses are not recognized here. I imagine law would be the same, at least to the extent they’d have to take the bar exam. As for engineers, I suppose it could be the same if you’re in a field where you have to have a PE, though I have no idea there. In general it seems the more formalized the qualification requirements are, the harder it is for immigrants, even if they are legally here.
Seeing as I’ve never been to Sweden, I’m far less competent to pass judgement on this question than you are. Perhaps it’s partly a question of values though. Unlike your typical American middle-classer, I live in an urban area and prefer to walk, when feasible, instead of driving. That being the case I’m apt to be more aware of problems in the city than one who lives in a suburban house. Since it’s further the case that I live in West Los Angeles, which can be lively and diverting, yet is rather drab in appearance, when I see images of Sweden on TV I think it would be wonderful to live there. For instance, just last night I saw something about Goteborg (sp?) on the National Geographic channel and it looked great. Of course, I happen to be interested in midieval history too, so that’s a further, specific attraction.
Oh, there are tons of gorgeous areas in Sweden. Stockholm, for instance, has a large preserved 17th century area still functioning (i.e people living on the houses, shops etc).
It also has many very depressing, grey, bunker like suburbs built in the 60’s. IMO Sweden is fantastic to visit but I personally did not enjoy living there. Of course there are many people who are perfectly happy.
As for the standard of living, I’m an electrical engineer as well as software engineer with a 4-year degree. Living in Sweden annual income is around $30-$40k with 10 years of experience. Income tax would be about 35-40% on that. Good and services are noticably more expensive, in part to the 25% sales tax. Disposable income is definetely lower. The free healthcare is a nice idea, but quality of care is lower than the US. It is very hard to see an actual doctor. Budget cuts the last 30 years has taken its toll.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a BAD place to live, but they have their share of problems including a strained economy, government waste, highest taxes in the world (#1 spot alternates between Sweden and Denmark), racism and so on.
The Zwede handle came from years ago when I applied for a personalized license plate and “Swede” was taken. Figures there’d be more than one Swede in Texas… So changed the spelling… This was before the kids started using Z’s to be cool.
I understand what you mean, but, and not to be obtuse, you don’t understand and the question is wrongly put.
Well yes.
A brief background.
The social democrats were in rule four over 40 years, from the 30’s to 1976. During this time they built the welfare state, roughly accroding to Keynesian principles, to wit: To counter the cycles of economics, the state should hire people during recesion to avoid having a large group of people living in squalor. In times of economic growth, the private industry would attract people from the public sector, thus giving a dynamic system which, by itself, assures a fair distribution of wealth and resources, without socialising industry. Indeed, the system needs private industry to work. To pay the bills, the state needed to tax both individuals and companies to a higher rate, but would give back, re-distributing, for the good of all. Even companies would benefit, from getting work force that ios better educated (through state financed higher education), healthier (through state financed national health care) ASF.
It’s a beautiful theory, andf during the late 40’s, 50’s and half the sixties it worked swell. The companies were happy too. The whole deal guaranteed central negotiations over wages, meaning that an organisation for employers sat down with the unions every five years and decided what wages should be for the next five years. No individual negotiations, and easy to make budgets. It created… I dunno… a calm period where the weels of industry and the public services worked very well together.
There were some problems though.
Sweden’s economics growth didn’t start during this era. It started in 1860. Mostly due to some reforms by a parliament who were not very interested in social reforms, but were out to make agriculture and industry more efficient. lso, we exported about a thirld of our population to the US, effectively getting rid of a lot of poor and troublesome elements. However, during these years, Seden had the highest annual GNP growth in the world.
A lot of the Marshal aid ended up here after the war. We had delivered iron ore to Hitler before the war. When it came time to rebuild, Sweden was very opportunitic, not participating in the war and leaning towards Germany up to Stalingrad, always skating on the thin ice that officially was a ‘neutral’ stance during the war. All industry was safe and we still wanted to sell lumber and iron ore, leading to a lot of exports and American money, indirectly, fueling the Swedish industry, and thereby economy. In short, the Marshal Aid subsidised the social experiment of the Social Democrats.
FF to the 60’s. The private companies, making money like there was going to be a constant, perpeptual boom, had no problems paying the taxes. A lot of Swedes where leaving the industry, and getting cushy, if not well paying, jobs in the public sector. Sweden imported work force, mainly from Yugoslavia, Finland, Greece. These peopel took the ‘dirty’ jobs in the industry, while the public sector grew, exponentially. But things were slowing down.
Europe was not in ruins after WWII any longer, exports slumped, while taxes soared. More and more people were living of the public sector, which kept spending money, like there was no tomorrow. To pay the bills, the government, counties, cities and villages started borrowing money from abroad. The deficit soared and we’re now at 1974 an the global energy crisis.
Things have been going downhill ever since. Through leftist or conservative goverments, setting thinghs right is very difficult. Labor laws, election promises, public benefits - all add up to a country that wants to provide for its citizens, but can’t afford it. There have been reforms, but I understand why a change is difficult. New rules would create havoc and have dome so on many occasions during the past 30 years.
So the problem is - we still have among the highest overall tax rate in the world, but as compared to when I was a kid, we’re not getting as much for those taxes anymore. A lot of the money is going towards employing people, supposed to re-distribute the taxes to the public, but giving out less and less, since the tax base is shrinking or static, while coasts go up.
Today, less than a quarter of the population is employed in the private sector. And even a lot of those are dependent on the public sector, having a spouse working there, having kids in kindergarten or schools, ahving parents in nursing homes.
Normal income tax is 30%. There is a progressive scale, meaning that people with very high income can pay up to 56% income tax, on the amount obove a vertain level (around $40k.) On top of this, employers pay a social security fee of ~34% of the wages paid out, and the first three weeks of sick leave. Everyone is guaranteed five weeks of paid vacation. Add public holidays to this about 15 public holidays on weekdays, every year and you have a work force, not obliged to work, eight weeks a year (while getting paid), in effect meaning that employers might have to pay employees 100% wages, for 80% work.
As an amployee, you might think that is great, but when you have to wait two years for (the publically financed) hernia operation, or realize that your kids have (free) text books from 1982, being re-used by generation after generation, or that the free (tax paid) school lunch, can only cost $0.75 per kid and day, you realize that these advantages you have as an employee is hurting someone else. And a lot of the times, it’s hurting yourself.
Of 9 million pop. about 1 million are immigrants of one kind or another. As others have noted in this thread, these are the people filling the low end jobs. Driving buses or cabs, working the lowest paying jobs in health care, taking care of garbage, cleaning offices, working as dishwashers. Many Swedes don’t want to do these jobs, especially since unemployment benefits still are fairly generous, paying about $1.500 / month for a year. If you don’t find a new job, you’re gonna have to live on social security. The formula is a bit complex, but they’ll pay your housing plus about $600 in cash every months, forever. There are rules as to what kind of housing you can live in, but a standard, one bedroom apt, costing about $600/month is OK. More luxorious living will be frowned upon.
There are homeless people, belonging to one or all of three cathegories: Former inmates of mental institutions, being thrown out in the street in 1994, with the pretext that they should be integrated in society. The other two are alcoholics and narcotics users. However, all these people can have dormlike housing if they want to, but then of course, they have to abide rules about non drug use, and there a quite a few who don’t want that, prefering to feed their habits instead.
(I’ll post more, but have to take my puppy for a walk, he’s been whining for the past 15 minutes).
