Their happiness is tied up in what the state can do for them? Weird.
Slightly? the income gap between Sweden and the US is pretty large. Even larger if we only count Swedish Americans. It’s fine to claim that Swedes are “better off” or happier, but they are certainly much poorer for some reason.
Happiness is an amorphous thing, one of the consistently happiest countries in the world based on polling like this is Nigeria. How many people from either Sweden or the United States would actually want to live in Nigeria? (And I’ve actually been to Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya–some of the nicest sub-Saharan countries and I would not want to live permanently in any of them.)
My guess is that the original Swedish immigrants were educated and skilled. They never had to flee famine or unrest like the Irish or German immigrants, who were mostly unskilled laborers. So it is not that the Swedes were more economically mobile, but they had a massive head start.
Really? Not on that table. Or this one. Or this one.
Though I’m open to the possibility there’s something we could learn from Nigeria in this regard.
And, to go back to the OP’s question, I would suspect that, given that the big waves of Scandinavian immigration were - what - a couple of hundred years ago? what we’re probably seeing here is a high correlation between “wealth” and “gives enough of a shit about their ancestry to know that specifically what it is after that many generations.” It’s not like the original study (which was about Sweden specifically, not really about the USA) went back to see what the GDP of an “Italian-American nation” or “Korean-American nation” would be like.
That could explain why Swedes are richer than other American ethnic groups, it doesn’t explain why they are richer than Swedes in Sweden.
My experience with Scandanavia as a whole is that they like a more equal society. It may reduce the likelihood of having a wealthy elite but it also reduces the likelihood of abject poverty.
Relatively high taxation buys a welfare state that takes the rough edges off low wages to the benefit of the many.
I confess that I lean towards that model, especially when anyone unhappy with their earning potential is free to leave and go elsewhere. In fact I wonder how much that average USA figure is skewed by relatively new Swedish immigrants seeking big bucks?
This is one of those questions where the answer is so stupidly obvious we often overlook them in favour of more complicated answers that aren’t as correct.
The reason Americans of Swedish origin are richer than the average American is that they are white and overwhelmingly aren’t rednecks. The dearth of Swedish-Americans who are black or Hispanic or live in Bumhump County, Alabama means they represent next to no percentage of Americans on the downslope of the economic pecking order.
The reason Americans are richer than Swedes is that the United States is a richer country. Sweden is NOT a socialist, community-property state. Cuba is. Sweden is a mixed economy, like almost every other industrialized nation, but it just isn’t as rich as the USA because, frankly, a subarctic nation with a small population and its own economic problems probably isn’t going to be. Some countries are lucky and some ain’t.
Here’s a question; **why is the average Norwegian richer than the average American? ** Norway’s right next to Sweden and has an enthusiastically supported welfare system. Is Norway inherently superior in some way, or did they luck out in some way?
My guess is that’s largely down to North Sea oil, which Norway has been exporting since 1969. A large portion of the revenue goes into a pension fund, which is now worth over $500 billion: Norway 'petroleum fund' tops $500bn - BBC News
Norway has 58% of the reserves, and the UK has about 30%, which means not much is left over for the rest of the countries around the North Sea.
Serious question. Are we pemitted to use terms that denigrate southern states in GD? I ran into trouble with that in another forum here.
Where do Swedes (or Nowegians) form a significantly higher portion of the US population? Minnesota. Minnesota is a breadbasket state, has massive iron ore resources, expansive forests, and shipping via both the Great Lakes and the Mississippi. Quite apart from whatever historical cultural influences they may have, the simple fact is that they landed up in a land of plenty, and (the USA being what it is), they do not suffer the discrimination that is often suffered by people who are brown or black.
Anyone have comparative immigration stats since the 1880s or so that compares Swedish immigration to Minnesota against Swedish immigration to Alabama?
So it’s the luck of the draw, not anything especially systemic.
Since Americans are richer than Swedes on average, and Swedish-Americans richer than the average American, there is no mystery as to why Swedish-Americans are richer than Swedes also. If you’re asking why the average American is richer than the average Swede then you are doing it in some very bizarre way.
That’s what Swedes think, I’m sure, but do they realize how much it impacts middle class earnings as well? The idea of a more equal society built on taxing the rich has always been a fantasy. In the real world, middle class taxation is where you get the money for a generous social state.
I can only conclude that Swedes are actually unaware of the income gap between their middle class and ours.
Maybe America as a whole privileges Whites over other groups more than Sweden does, and by American standards, you can’t get much Whiter than Scandiwegians, so they have been the beneficiaries of more than the usual amount of societal privilege?
Not saying you’re wrong, but I’d have to see a cite to believe that.
It might. It could be that a hundred years ago, the Swedes who wanted to live in a capitalist system left Sweden and immigrated to America. If immigration hadn’t been a ready option, they might have stayed in Sweden and pushed it in a more capitalist direction.
I think it has to do with pluralistic societies vs. homogeneous ones. Sweden can impart more taxation and more government because the society itself is a rather small and there is less immigration than a larger society like the US. Also a homogenous society itself more to agreement on social issues because they all have a similar life history. When you have a very small population spread out over a vast cold climate, it requires more government to keep the roads open. But it also is a society that can invest in great projects to help the environment, like their underground garbage filtration systems, again because they view it as a collective good.
An immigrant Swede to America has all the advantages of what many see as the ideal. There are a high proportion who are taller, also weigh less than the average American, possess pale skin, And are fluent in English upon arrival. Employers hire themselves or the idealized self. The average swede comes from a gentrified tradition of elegance, and strong education even if their incomes are not high by American standards, so they can and do very easily move in higher society. Now when the taxation system is at an all time low, lower than the 1950’s those who have the advantages can take advantage like no other time in history.
I’d like some definition for “Swedish-American,” please. I’m 1/8 Swedish. Do I count? What about mom (¼)? I wouldn’t think so, since I can guarantee that there’s 0% of my culture that connects me to Swedish culture (unless shared with general US culture), and very little if anything for my mother.
I suspect the data relies on self-identification as Swedish. If so, that suggests it’s not so much about being Swedish as self-consciously identifying as such, which might include social values conducive to success (work ethic, strong investment in one’s community, for all I know Lutheranism and bland food).