Unlike most millennials, Norway's are rich
bbc.com
bbc.com
In Spain, Germany, France, Italy, etc if you get a degree in STEM it means you put a lot of effort. It is easier to study than for our parents, so there's a more competition. But the requirements to finish the degree have not changed so drastically as in the US so going to University is quite a good choice.
[1] oddly enough I have never discussed this with british people
[2] Edit: I'm not talking about a zero-sum game; I'm talking about degrees becoming easier. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Relevant: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/same-p...
Note: I'm talking about STEM, which is what I know best. Other degrees/no degrees is catastrophic in Spain as you can see on the news.
Only if the value of a degree is having an edge over others, not if it's value is learning - primary school isn't pointless even though most people master it.
This feels like it links back to the same problem as everything else - as time goes on automation removes less skilled jobs, and more and more people will need to do more skilled jobs.
This means that at some point, university levels of education will probably become necessary for any employment - at that point (and arguably before), asking people to pay for education they need to be a functional member of society seems inherently broken.
Of course, the other option is just to accept that maybe in the future not everyone needs to work, or certainly not everyone needs to work a full time job. Unfortunately for America, the idea of anyone not working as a "freeloader" is so heavily ingrained into the public consciousness, it seems likely people will just be left to suffer (even if they are "freeloading" off the labour of machines).
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if when we reach that point, people who can't do that level of work are defined as disabled in some way to "justify" it. Or, worse, arbitrary jobs that aren't needed, but are created just to employ them.
My father had been the safety laboratory lead at a Hungarian pharmeutical company from 1989 till his retirement about ten years ago (could be a little less). What he told me about has stuck with me: when he started, he could hire people from vocational high schools but by the end, everything they used became so complex he could only hire people with university degrees.
Previous generations sometimes had a chance to learn on the job as a company was specializing. But current generations needs a lengthy education because they are joining companies that are already highly specialized - am working to specialized even more...
There are some vocational coding schools, but these won't prepare you to do real computer science.
There are some vocational carpentry schools with increased focus on AutoCad and other analytical skills. But these won't equipt you to design bridges..
Another point is that HS graduation rates in the United States have been basically flat (after a long, steady increase) since the 1970's [1], despite constant calls to increase it.
When more than 9 of 10 people already have HS diplomas; when the economic condition of each student's family is highly predictive of graduation; and when and each school tends to have a fairly homogeneous characteristics, it's hard for me to see how you can raise graduation rates without lowering the bar. Unless you're open to adjusting the economic condition around under-performing schools, of course.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...
Since the early 1990s, what was then a fairly advanced college prep track for math seems to have become the baseline standard, and graduation requirements have increased in other ways. Compared to comparably-named classes, grading or presentation may have become less rigorous, but the baseline curriculum is more advanced, not less.
Yes, and my mom just last month retired from teachig English in a nothing-special (in ratings terms) high school in a relatively poor area, and was teaching Shakespeare, Donne, and the rest of the traditional canon of classic literature, as well as a small number of more current bits of non-juvenile literature that isn't part of the Eurocentric canon, works from Amy Tan and others (many of which I also remember reading—in college.)
But in any case what makes it challenging or not isn't what books they read, but what the expectations are of what they'll be able to do having read them.
Memory is a tricky thing. I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't comparing today's 13 year old to your 16 year old self inadvertently.
That's easy, we live in a world where each generation is smarter than the previous. For IQ tests measuring abstract thinking todays teenagers score an average of 3 points higher than teenagers did 10 years ago.
This is due to better schooling, better edutainment of kids, and many other things such as increased focus on not leaving behind kids with learning disabilities.
The trend is starting to ease of in the developed world. But only in the last 10 years or so...
Whether the bar have been lowered is hard to disprove. But we know for fact that newer generations are far more book-smart than older ones where in their time.
Note. Some forms of pure generalized intelligence don't have the same trends. But analytical and abstract thinking, also commonly known as book-smart or good in school is trending upwords over the generations.
YES: kids today are actually smarter :)
(This is a reference to several jobs posted at MIT and in other Cambridge, MA workplaces on various occasions.)
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/same-p...
In general university costs money, both to the Government/State and the student, and thus incentives are somewhat aligned for both parties. Also, student loans are NOT a common thing here... When I was at uni, the cost of the studies was about 1000€/year (500€ for me as my parents have 3 children), now it's about 2 to 3k€/year, but it's still something somewhat feasible. That's Spain, in Germany for example it's free.
There's no way you can generalise about incentive structures like that for an entire continent.
In my country, only public universities exist and the incentive structure is decided politically. Currently, universities get paid a certain amount for each student that graduates, but they are also deducted some set amount if the student doesn't graduate within a specific amount of time. In addition to that, the sum of money gained from a single STEM student is double that of another kind of student, so the universities have quite clear incentives to promote their STEM degrees.
Obviously, an incentive structure based solely on passing students must also inspire grade inflation. The current structure highly incentivises making STEM degrees easy to obtain. Whether that's actually the case, I can't say, but the structure certainly encourages it.
The university departments get different amount of money depending on the amount of students they have, but this money cannot be spent freely (e.g. on increasing professor's salaries), but must be spent for education-related things like hiring more TAs, which is something that departments that get more students need to do anyways.
The professor salary is pretty much standardized (per the TVL), which does allows for sur-pluses in case that the responsibilities justify them, but university "students" do not play a role here. Things that affect these are, for example, having larger management-related responsibilities. For example, a professor with 4 PhD students and 2 postdocs gets less money than a professor with 30 PhD students, large experimental facilities, 10 mechanics, 5 middle management personell, ... adding up to 60 people under supervision.
So while I agree that the universities do have an incentive to grow the number of students in STEM degrees, the professors do not really have a big incentive to make the degrees easier.
The professors that "get rich" in Germany have large consulting companies on the side to which they try to attract the top talent, so if anything, the incentive is to produce more top talent. This can incentive them both ways, making things easier to attract more students to get more students in their companies, or making things harder to filter out the bulk from the top talent. But that's just supply and demand.
Entire departments are built on this principle.
On top of that, there are no limits on how many times you can retake a class, it is not unusual to be stuck with the same class for three or four years until you manage to pass.
That's sadly not true in all of Europe. I attend university in the Netherlands, and since government allowances were replaced by loans a few years back, having a student loan has become the norm for students.
American universities run on government and private finance. If they don’t graduate a certain percentage of students that financing gets withdrawn. So it’s easy to see where giving better grades leads to higher graduations connected to government financing.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it better. I have friends who have taken 8+ years to get their Bac+3. The lower tier universities have capacity issues. The class you need may be full and can take years to enroll. Also, with no motivation to pass students you are truly in your own. Things like office hours, tutors, study labs, and the library not being open late like we have in the US. These are surprisingly uncommon in France.
A more political reason is because University prestige depends partly on the knowledge of the graduading students. So if someone said they studied in X and they had no idea what they were talking about it'd give quite a bad image for the university. It's not rare to see some students crying at the exam review but it mostly doesn't work.
The main difference between grades in Spanish engineering schools and the rest of Europe seems to be that the grade curve is heavily compressed between 4/10 and 6/10 (passing grade is 5/10). The amount of study needed to reach a passing grade would amount to an A elsewhere. As long as 25% (IIRC) of the students pass there are no consequences for the department. If less people pass, they just award a 5.0 to everyone from a certain grade up, they don't do curves. It is not unusual for people to retake a class for three or four years in a row.
There is not much guidance from professors either, no homework or extra assignments. There is just one or two midterms and a final exam, and if you're lucky there will be official course materials to study from but that is not a requirement. Most exchange students have a pretty bad time here, but on the other hand Spanish students abroad usually ace their exams with half of the work they are used to.
I’m glad my university had more focus on labs and hands on work. I pretty much aced all my labs and did okay on paper exams. Paper exams always felt like an exercise for the professor to put students on an explicit bell curve.
EE->IE->IM->I'm Out.
Electrical Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Industrial Management, transfer.
There is also heightened student pressure for similar reasons. but it is not just students.
I will say however that universities in my country are heavily recruiting foreign students to the point that everything is in English.
Nope. All cultures I've seen so far have this. It's just that immigrants stuck between a rock and a hard place put in the effort to do better, and threaten their kids into doing the same. Or at least, they do so more often than other groups.
Needless to say, the natives try to sabotage this. This is also the same everywhere. In Europe, in Asia, in America. It's worse where there is more state control (ie. it's pretty bad in the Netherlands for example).
You're not too far from Spain's current situation.
We have some lower qualification titles that last two years and are almost free to get that teach a trade, there are courses to become an electrician, mechanic, plumber, hairdresser, cook, etc. There is even one to become a systems administrator and one to become a programmer.
I'm just slightly worried that STEM's problems are too close to their base of physics and math to be that hard for a computer compared to the layers of abstraction that go into the rest of our works.
Yes and no. If it's a political goal that x% of the population must be awarded a degree, then the standards will need to be adjusted, and below a certain point, the value of the learning goes away as well.
That's because the knowledge taught in primary school is way more essential to day-to-day life. If people don't know those skills then our society fails.
...
"You ask for a miracle ? I give you the (T S A) ..."[1]
[1] Die Hard
There will be plumbers and hairdressers long after the last lawyer or accountant has been replaced by AI. There is neither the demand for, nor do the prerequisites exist in the general population for, Tony Bliar's target of 50% of school leavers to go to university and achieve a degree comparable to those of even 20 years ago.
Over recent decades tuition fees have been rising, but they've been covered by a special loan. Paying back this loan is taken out of your pay cheque (via PAYE) based on how much you earn. If you don't pay it back within a certain number of years it gets wiped.
Before the last major increase it was viewed by most of my peers (I graduated in 2013) as reasonable. Graduates could expect to pay it off.
Now graduates finish with £40,000-$50,000 and the interest rate is so high many won't ever pay it off.
Being able to support yourself during university might be a problem but there are bursaries and grants you can get.
Let me know if you want more details.
You pay 9% extra from when you earn over 25k a year (IIRC). So those who need a degree to go into lower paying, yet skilled, professions (nursing, teaching) can do so easily safe in the knowledge that yes, there's this big sum of money that they "owe" but it'll only be taken once they are earning an OK salary, and they don't have to pay it all back if their earnings never rise.
For example, going from £100,000 to £100,001/year immediately costs you 570 hours/year of free childcare (potentially a couple of thousand pounds per year), and all of your tax-free childcare (potentially over a thousand pounds per year).
Note that this does require _one_ person in a couple to be earning over £100,000, so it's hard to have a lot of sympathy in that case - that certainly doesn't count as struggling! On the other hand, it's also not at all progressive - it comes in all at once, potentially meaning you should refuse a pay rise. It's also _very_ different to the headline tax rate of 40% that you _think_ you're paying...
Let's not also forget that interest rates are on a sliding scale depend on income. People earning over £45k have an extra 3% interest slapped on top of RPI, i.e. 6.1% - amazingly similar to those in the US, no?
It's a noticeable sum off your take-home that isn't going towards saving for a mortgage. As another posted pointed out, look at your total take-home pay.
Also, the large sums of money have gone towards lavish new facilities and over-the-top student halls of residences. It seems like students have provided investment capital for universities.
In effect, more successful English graduates subsidise everybody else (because it is supposed to be revenue neutral). And specifically English, because only English students pay the full £9,250 per year. (Scottish students pay nothing, Welsh and Northern Irish a reduced amount).
The English subsidise the "United" Kingdom but are discriminated against when it comes to social provision paid out of general taxation. Unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland we do not have a Parliament for England looking after England's interests. Instead we are ruled by the Union Parliament which includes MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland whose remit and interest is their own respective nations, not England, but who get to vote on legislation that affects England without England having the equivalent ability to interfere in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments.
And as a resident of London, my tax will be counted as English by the books, reinforcing the idea that England subsidises Scotland. But really it was the Scottish government's progressive tuition fee policy which enabled me to go to university in the first place.
If you really want to break the UK down and pit us against eachother, then why not be honest and say that London is subsidising everyone, including the rest of England? The English aren't discriminated against, they just choose to vote for politicians who are against devolution for England, for tuition fees, and against social provision paid out of general taxation. Things would be worse without the MPs from Scotland and Wales.
As for London, it is the capital of England just like Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland. Both are richer than elsewhere in their respective countries. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
As for the Scottish Government's "progressive tuition fee policy", it was voted in by Scottish MSPs. The tuition fees paid by the English were forced on the English by MPs from Scotland who knew their own constituents would be unaffected - MPs from England (and Wales) voted against these fees but were overridden by Scottish MPs. That is not the fault of those MPs that the English voted for, but rather by a system of Devolution designed by effectively the Scottish Labour Party. And every time anybody who is English tries to address the issue there are howls of outrage from the rest of the UK, and Scotland in particular.
It's more complex than that; Scottish students are liable for the full tuition amount if they study in England, and the repayment terms are different (9% over £18330 currently, but it is changing), but Scottish students studying in Scotland have tuition paid for out of the Scottish government's general funds (and you can argue whether the majority of the government's income through Barnett Formula is fair or not to those elsewhere in the UK), though are still eligible to get bursaries/loans for living expenses.
But what lists? There are so many, Universities choose to showcase the convenient ones of course.
Repayment starts at £21,000pa; so if you earn £30,000 you'd pay back £37 per month
If you think of it as a kind of extra income tax that only applies to those who benefited from a bigger chunk of the education system, then inability to ever pay it off doesn't seem so terrifying.
But once you look at it that way, it becomes very difficult to argue (in non-libertarian ways), why those who got the same benefits without the loan (rich parents) or somehow lucked into high earnings without the education (usually some form of exceptional talent) should be exempt from that tax. In the end, a more progressive income tax would be the same, just without those exceptions.
I mean ideally, degrees shouldn't just be a zero sum game. Ideally, it should mean everyone is better off.
If everyone has access to a shovel, or a computer, does having that thing become pointless?
Certainly the competitive advantage has decreased over time. Having gone through the US university system myself I can confirm that there is... lets say "inflationary pressure", though I've also been at a european university and the same pressure existed there and for all the same reasons.
I agree that the university debt seems to be a uniquely american issue though.
When there is no obvious reason, the purpose is always monetary in nature.
https://blog.prepscholar.com/average-college-gpa-by-major it seems that Grade inflation is more rampant in non-STEM fields because assignments are usually more open to interpretation,
I don't mind and take everything with a grain of salt, but you are right, it'd not be good for most people.
Every single one of them, if implemented, would make the original post worse and the phrasing more awkward.
I may be wrong in this (I'm not a native speaker after all), but at least take it into account as an counterpoint of the above...
Only 55% of students that start at a 4-year university program graduate within 6 years. Only 19.5% of students that start at a non-flagship, 4-year program finish on time.
I think it only becomes pointless if there are limited work opportunities for your studies, however, we're lacking computer science people and having a degree almost guarantees that you'll get a job. In our current context, people who study a 1-3 month course in a code bootcamp are getting jobs, a degree with inflated score still is a degree.
I'm not saying that having an engineering degree is a guarantee that you are competent, and that someone without a degree, or a completely unrelated degree cannot be competent.
Please keep in mind that MANY college-educated people in the US never get to even $100K (teachers, architects, there are more).
Also, it takes at least 10 years (perhaps more) to get to $150K for software engineers (with a B.S. degree), and you need to live in one of the bigger cities (where the cost of living is higher).
The numbers are a bit skewed here because a lot of the posters on HN live/work in the S.F./Silicon Valley area, which is a world onto itself.
Other than not being burdened by debt, Spanish STEM majors are comparatively worse off in pretty much any post-graduation dimension you can think of compared to Americans.
> The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money
The title is a bit much but it explains in great detail the problem with 'inflation' and what you lose by this process.
TLDR: As a Spaniard, I strongly disagree. Neither our universities as institutions nor our teachers as individuals have much incentive to (fairly) fail students, whereas they have many incentives to (unfairly) pass them. As a result, the level has dropped significantly in the latest decades.
The requirements in our degrees have plummeted since 20-30 years ago. Seriously, check exams from 20 years ago for ANY subject that was taught back then, and compare them to last year's. The difference is staggering.
There are several reasons for this:
First, because the level in high-school has been dropping similarly. Students get to the university with a lower base level, and hence they cannot be taught at the same level than before.
Second, because more and more people go to uni as time passes. This also drags down the average level of the average class (with respect to when the uni population was composed mainly of good and MOTIVATED students).
Third, because -contrary to what's been said here- our universities gain significantly from passing students. For one, each degree taught by a school is evaluated regarding the percentage of students that finish the degree in a set time, percentage of students that quit, and percentage of course passes [1]. This is the main evaluation of "quality" of a degree, and not hitting the set goals will lead to the degree being dropped.
Also, teachers gain nothing from failing students. Most will just accept it (because most know they really don't deserve to pass). However, some will complain. Very loudly. And handling such complaints is a huge time-sink not just for the involved teacher, but also for the department and the School itself. The easy way out is to just pass people. Many teachers openly admit that they pass lots of students who they don't think have achieved the goals of their subjects. And many students themselves admit it too.
[1] https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2007/BOE-A-2007-18770-consolid... , Article 8
In the US, living on campus is the norm, a vast array of amenities and services are offered to students, and University bureaucracies are huge and growing by the year.
Contrast this with Europe, where many Universities are simpler affairs with students living at home, commuting to classes (which have higher student to professor ratios) at Universities without student centers, gyms, etc.
It's not that the US through sheer stupidity is missing out on some easy fix for college costs, the issue is simply that in the US Universities offer more than in Europe. This is in keeping with our overall culture.
You have the freedom to be entirely focused on academics in the US, participating in research etc. But you also have the freedom to live off your loans without any serious focus on academics, treating college like a vacation more than anything else. For the "students" who are tempted by the latter option, college is a waste.
The European commission already tried to swap all systems for a loan based one twice.
Which "European model" are you talking about ? If there is any of the models worthy of being called "European model", surely it'd be the commission's model, which would be the US model (with the state going after students who fail to pay, not sure about bankruptcy cases).
The USA is like the EU, where the various states vary as much if not more than the countries in the EU. The USA is far more racially varied than individual EU countries. The USA has used two big main policy tools to right wrongs of the past: home ownership and education. This has led to terrible policies, like the crazy mortgage crisis and student loan act, that means you can never get out of the debt through bankruptcy, which is morally extremely questionable.
When you have debt that can never liquidate, things get a little crazy, and a lot of the US college craziness is as a result of too much guaranteed money.
Unlike Spain, they have been wise enough to use their money to diversify their economy, aware that this won't last forever.
Sadly there are few lessons we can learn and apply here to other countries, as not everyone has a tiny population and literally sits on mountains of money. Still I'm looking forward to see if their efforts pay off, and we don't find that the next generation of norwegians have a drop of 30% in their disposable income with respect to their parents.
It can't be that simple. Plenty of other countries have lots of oil and gas (Russia, Venezuela, the US) and they aren't necessarily having economic miracles.
I agree that other nations like Venezuela and the US have squandered their natural wealth when compared with Norway's careful management.
That being said, I agree with the parent that the aforementioned lesson isn't particularly universal, as a perquisite is having a plentiful and valuable natural resource to manage.
So what lesson can a country like the UK or Germany take from Norway, given their natural resources are, for the most part, already exploited?
Total oil production per day per capita in 2017.
Norway: 1.9m bbl/day, 0.365 barrels per day per capita.
US: 13m bbl/day, 0.04 barrels per day per capita.
Russia: 11.2m bbl/day, 0.07 barrels per day per capita.
I always think about this when I read comments on HN declaring that immigration implies a breakdown/dilution in the value of the host nation's "superior culture".
Russia is a kleptocracy of Putin and his inner circles of billionaires.
The US economy has seen a fairly significant boost from shale gas and fracking.
Better counter-examples than those 3 would be Saudi Arabia and (to a lesser extent) Nigeria. And yes, as those 2 demonstrate it's not that simple, it's easy to fall prey to "the resource curse" aka "Dutch disease": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
Norway has been wiser in its approach.
In northern Europe it is a clear political decision to invest in education. You'll politicians argue that we can't afford not to educate our teenagers, as it would make the welfare state unsustainable.
Also, huge credit to Norway for how it handled it's olie money :)
In the US, kids are seen at worst a nuisance and at best a personal luxury.
In most of the northern/western EU, kids are seen as the future workers, decision makers and keepers of the whole economy 30 years into the future.
All of the symptoms you are seeing, be it maternal / paternal leave, financial support for parents, universal health care at least for kids, (mostly) free education — from child care up to college level — how teachers are selected and paid and much more are resulting from this attitude.
There's downsides, such as a high tax level, but observations like this one show that America is slowly coming into the age where you see the longterm effects of neglecting its treasure and letting inequality explode rampantly.
That's nonsense. The US is all about children. That doesn't result in long term thinking about their education or maternal/parental leave but children are not seen as a nuisance.
I feel like in the US a century ago there were incentives to have more kids; need for labor, childhood mortality. These incentives have gone away and disincentives have taken their place; women entering the workforce, educating children until their mid-20s before entering the workforce as a career, and little things like the costs needed to raise a child[1]. We haven't really changed anything to improve those disincentives and the results speak for themselves. People are having fewer kids later in life.
I think cynicism and acceptance are two sides of the same coin, unfortunately.
One cannot cite high tax levels as a downside without looking at what you get for the bargain. High price is not a downside when you get better value for money.
I like it because there aren't many legal means by which I can invest in humans :)
And if you're trying to diversify your portfolio, why wouldn't you want to bet on humans?
Please, if you may, explain why you think this is so.
The US is really weird about children, they’re the most important thing in most peoples minds but as soon as they turn 18 they’re dangerous and entitled.
Many of the countries we think of as quite successful and wealthy and educated and having many social programs are also shockingly homogeneous, so it’s hard to know if, say, Finland would be exactly as nice if they had more different races there. But we can say for certain that racism is holding America back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
For instance, 35 million children get health insurance from the government:
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica...
That's close to ½ of the kids in the country.
Um, that's a good thing?
In a private insurance model, ½ is a lot. I suppose it can be fun to act all astonished that the US has a private insurance model.
The welfare system is in many ways the ultimate index fund, as it earns back it's investment via. taxes :)
To cherry pick literally the most successful of such systems is not representative. (Though you could still be essentially correct)
Also, Americans, on average, a much richer in the end.
The American problem could have to do with 'longer lifespan' meaning 'longer in school' meaning 'longer in debt with higher salaries afterwards' , i.e. the 'higher highs' and 'lower lows' exposing a social problem that was not apparent before.
I agree it's an issue though.
Either the community/state pays for it, or the student.
Someone has to.
In the case of Norway, it's you and I, i.e. Oil.
Do you know Kuwaitis go to school for free as well eh?
Norway's sovereign wealth fund is about 8% the size of the US economy, and also the size of the entire Canadian economy.
So it's hard to make comparisons with Norway on anything.
- Adolescence lasts longer (until mid-20s) which means that people don't grow up so fast anymore. Why? Because of the wealth of the societies they live in.
- More people study. Many are around 25-27 when they finally start to work.
- Real wages didn't increase although inflation did.
- The workforce is divided: Too many marketing experts, but a shortage of craftsmen. Too many people want jobs where they just sit in an office.
- Some millennials have seen that their parents work insanely hard; they don't want to repeat their mistakes and miss important aspects of life. They value their time more and accept compromises in their salaries.
- Many young people lack money management skills. Delayed gratification is very hard to learn if you're used to a certain type of living.
- Real estate gets used as an investment opportunity which drives housing prices up. This wasn't so drastic when other more profitable investment opportunities existed.
- The job market is professionalized and more efficient, degrees get valued highly but lack their former signal effect because everyone has a degree. Therefore it's harder to find good opportunities. You need more skills and more luck to succeed in this system.
We can't just say "The previous generation had more", we have to analyze thoroughly why they could pay for a mortgage in their early 20s and how their lifestyles differed.
I'm around 20y/o in Europe and I think $60k is a low salary for someone in their 30s (with work experience of 10-15 years). I can make $10k in a good month without any degree. Maybe millennials should learn to negotiate better and demonstrate real business value to their employers. I know many people who make €7-15k (which is a top-10%/top-5% salary in Germany) who are in their 20s or early 30s.
I think many don't understand how money works and that money is just a number. So few people think strategically about their salaries and just accept their circumstances.
You should be more humble. You are on an "hacker" website. Did someone say we can't hack money? If you earn 10k a month, that's great, what about sharing it among the people who didn't have the same luck than you?
People aren't born with the same information environment and legacy. Some people can afford to take risks and earn even more while some simply cannot.
That's one big thing what taxes are for: To redistribute wealth. And I have employees which earn good money. I don't know what you expect from me.
> Some people can afford to take risks and earn even more while some simply cannot.
That's why a solid social system is so important. It gives us the room to take risks because we can be sure that we can get food, shelter and healthcare. See [1].
I would like to know what you mean specifically. When you are jobless, the German system gives you enough to rent an apartment and eat something. It's not luxurious, but it's better than those anti-social systems like those in the US. You don't have to worry about getting enough food.
When these basic needs are met, you are free to open your mind. Most people don't - even those that have jobs - and I think that's pretty sad. Many people accept the pointless work and shitty environments because the fear of social decline is so big in their heads. I think most of those points you talk about can be changed on the psychological level. Money doesn't necessarily change this, it's a mindset.
If you are born Germans and your parents are Germans since generations, there are higher chances they teached you how the system works since the first day. It's probable they accumulated a social network of friendly lawyers, politicians, or any other persons the system already rewarded, and told you what to do to make sure you keep your privileges and protect the system.
Trusting the system when you are a foreigner is way more difficult, especially when you know no one.
You can't compare the lifestyle of someone who lives with $10k/month with someone who is clueless and, because of lack of information and ressources, cannot defend his/her own human rights.
We are not born equal, if your parents are richer than mines, you are probably privileged before we even proved our skills.
All they've told me was how important education is. But I've dropped out of college anyways. I wasn't very good in school. I didn't care.
I agree with you in general, but not everyone who's able to achieve something got it naturally. My father works 50-70 hours a week and he was the best in school because he had no other chance to study otherwise (he wasn't allowed to get a degree and needed the best grades to get an exception; GDR was a hostile place for intelligent people). My grandfather worked since he was 13 (this was shortly after the war; his father died).
I'm not the type of person who thinks that the world owes anyone anything.
I've learned about how the system works in economics classes in school (we had a very good teacher who showed us the BS in the world) and through psychology books.
There are many money-poor people who give their children the opportunity to grow. As I've said: Many times, it isn't about money and privilege. It's about attitude and mindset - a specific mindset can lead to privileges. Not taking anything for granted, for example. Not immerse oneself in self-pity.
- - -
I still agree with you in general, because the numbers are very clear about it: Social mobility is very low in Germany.
Most poor people have other problems holding them back e.g. some parents were abused in their childhood, so they're unable to give proper emotional support. Many are jealous of the opportunities their kids have (not because they're bad people, but because they never felt loved). Escaping those vicious cycles is extremely hard and we're currently not doing enough to change it. But I still think that our current system enables people who value education and have a certain mental health to move upwards - much better than the system in the US. You don't need to be rich to get good education here or accumulate big debt.
[1] The whole computer thing, generally much better healthcare, much better daycare offerings if you're the sort of person that wants or has to give her children away, etc.; or even things like being able to buy a used car for 5k with excellent interior, crash safety and gimmicks. (But you of course can't afford to fuel it, so maybe that's a moot point).
How much was it? You can make 3500€ pre-tax with a bachelors degree in many fields. That's around 2200€ after taxes. Two people can live comfortably with ~2500€ and lay away 1900€ a month. You will not be able to buy a property in a big city, but after 10 years you'll be able to pay for a small house. And you even get a tax break for it.
Today it's uncommon to be a couple that takes a mortgage together - young people don't really trust relationships in the same way anymore. This halves their net worth to buy a house.
I think stable relationships are extremely important for the wealth of our parents. Many older people are now broke because they've split up with their partners. So if you want to have the same wealth, you also have to find a partner who's up for this challenge.
What a lot of people don't realise that some eu countries where before they joined the eu - developing countries
Like many, they did this on a single income.
This sounds funny if you think about it.
Women fought a long time for emancipation which also means they have the same obligations w.r.t work and other activities.
Now they work and the market corrected itself to account for the new labor supply. In the end: No one won except companies. Sounds like a bad deal in general.
- - -
I don't think that emancipation is bad. I think it's a good thing and necessary for social progress. But I think it's hilarious that good intentions can have these unwanted consequences. I don't want to offend anyone, but I'm too cynical to not laugh about it.
Instead of gaining actual, actionable choice and freedoms, merely one social ideal (man works, woman cares for the children) was exchanged for another social ideal (both have to work, state handles the children), and the demographic pressuring women into compliance changed perhaps slightly.
The inflation-adjusted incomes (median for a more accurate analysis) stayed pretty much the same in the US [1], but the purchasing power dropped.
> For example, the Census Bureau reports that the average price of a new home in July 1994 was $144,400. According to the inflation calculator, that price today should be $232,141. The same report places the average sale price for July 2014 at $339,100, however, more than 46% higher than the price when accounting for inflation alone.
The housing and living costs are higher today. It seems that capitalists are chasing inelastic demands (people can't really defend themselves there). I can understand why they do this, but politics should use proper regulations to enable normal people to buy their houses. The system seems to be corrupted at those places.
[1]: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/09/1...
[2]: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/what-does-cu...
Did you get your sarcasm backwards?
finite -> infinite ?
Drones, really? The skill of even a basic assembly line worker dwarfs that of the glorified typing that passes for most middle-class employment. But machine tool operating is often highly skilled work.
But you are right with very skilled machinists, one of my relative makes as much as senior developers or even some CEOs by tendind lathes and similar machines. As with software development you just want to be in shops that are doing stuff with high margins.
Today you can’t even buy a house with 2 salaries. If you are living on one salary you will be struggling and will not be credit worthy. The banks assumes a life-standard to uphold which not everyone can cope with. Even if you can live with less the bank follow it's idea of life-standard.
(Or at current interest rates let out the old place)
Just walk away from the property and there you go. The worse the collapse the easier that is.
I live in central Europe, have a STEM masters degree, my wife a bachelors degree (but is a stay at home mom) and, if we were to buy a house now, I'd be happy if I paid it off by the time I retire. I'm not living in a big city or an upscale neighborhood. That's just how it is.
This is correct. That's the reason we have to close the loop holes that make it possible that high-net-worth individuals evade taxes.
Unfortunately, kids are very expensive, some say you have to budget €250k for each kid in total (until they start earning their own money). Most people make approx. €1.25 million in their lifetime, so this is a pretty big part of their lifetime spending (retirement needs another €200-300k). I agree that it's not easy.
I hope that we will be able to solve this problem. Good luck!
edit: removed financial advice.
They would have to go really wrong to be poor.
Norway's model has worked very well, and they also had lucky timing Vis a Vis capital markets. But, it's a rare success.
Although better than most other U.S. states, I don't have access to the services that Norwegians do. But my taxes are also very low here. We could have the same kind of services as Norway if we want to pay for it, but taxes would have to go up.
Until Americans stop thinking of the word "tax" as evil, we'll always value it wrong.
CO State taxes are (roughly) 5% which puts it right in the middle of US states (between 0% in places like Florida and 10-ish percent at the (non CA/NY) high end).
Then factor in (roughly) 35% federal + local taxes ... let's call it 40%, give or take. Let's just forget property taxes for the sake of this discussion.
Why should I think of 40% as a "low" taxation rate ?
Why shouldn't I expect a high level of government services in return for 40% taxation ?
(FWIW, I live in CA so you can add 5-8 more percentage points for my own tax burden ... same questions apply ...)
Even at $100k, you're around 31% total. That's for CA.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-paycheck-calculator#...
I don't think the suggestion was that lower income brackets should bear that burden.
Therefore it only makes sense to discuss the highest brackets.
I don't know how Norway scores so low in corruption, and how such a high level of trust among strangers, people and the government has evolved though.
I worked in Norway for a couple of months (They payed me really well as a junior). One of my first impressions was their emphasis on being honest. The first thing the manager told me is that he once hired a person who admitted being "weak" because he appreciated his honesty.
In the span of seven or eight years from the moment oil production began, their economy tripled in size (from 1973 to 1981). Oil caused that economic miracle.
Norway GDP per capita in 1973, pre oil, was $5,600 or so. Sweden was $7,200. Denmark was $6,100. Finland was $4,200.
Norway's GDP per capita in 1984 as the oil boom was underway was $15,000. Sweden was $13,000. Denmark was $11,500. Finland was near $11,000. Keep in mind these other three are among the best run couple dozen nations on earth.
Today: Norway $75,000; Denmark $56,000; Sweden $53,000; Finland $46,000.
Now show me the extraordinary products that Norway is creating and selling to the world, to generate that stunning $75,000 figure, as opposed to Sweden's remarkable economy that has boomed for a long time and is still lagging far behind Norway.
Norway's GDP per capita went from $38,000 in 2001 with cheap oil prices, to $97,000 by the end of 2008, due to the oil boom. It's very obvious that Norway owes its particular outlier performance to oil.
And there it is - a nation sitting on black gold is wealthy.
You can't deny that Norway adopted a peculiar way of managing its good fortune, IMHO far better that what you can find in Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. It's the only “oil” state I know to be so good at it.
Colonialism, interference from external powers, exploitative capitalism, being caught in the middle of the 'great game' can all derail any natural resource wealth like in Venezuela.
Saudi Arabia is a very unique history and continues to exist as a feudal regressive regime with global support and approval while Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad who would be Mother Teresa in comparison to the Saudis in terms of women's rights and religious freedom get the full 'human rights demonization treatment' with their countries and people in tatters.
50 years later people may well wonder why these countries are so 'backward' with no context of what happened to them. Russia is nearly an entire continent with a dramatic history and is unique in nearly every way.
Making $100k in NYC or London is not the same as $100k in Costa Rica, etc. It's not what you make that matters. It's the ratio between income and living / life costs.
* http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Cost-of-livin...
* https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/disposable-income-map...
General cost of living data for Norway:
* http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Norway/Cos...
As well as the Big Mac index as ball park cost indicator:
Shame the article lacked this context.
Have earnt decent money in unpleasant places where the cost of living is cheap, it's not worth it at all.
"The Iraqi who saved Norway from oil", the story about the young iraqi oil engineer farouk al-kasim, who helped shape norways oil industry into what it is today.
Is it possible that this will pay off in the long run?
Just wondering, if maybe we're focusing on a phenomenon that haven't played itself out yet. Unless, of course we haven't educated enough of the current generation.
The likely reason why he can earn this much with a supermarket job is because everyone else has more disposable income, which means it's easier to make products more expensive and to afford to pay higher salaries for such jobs.
I think there have been at least a few studies in the past few years that show just how important it is for an economy for everyone to have decent amounts of disposable income. It means there are more consumers who can afford more types of products = a healthier economy.
A healthier economy with more spread-out rather than consolidated companies, means the companies are also more willing to pay higher/more competitive salaries, as opposed to if only a handful of companies dominated the economy.
In the U.S., the middle-class has been drained out of disposable income. Recent reports have shown that something like 60% of the country can't afford a "$500 emergency".
That is likely due to several reasons:
1) the crazy situation with student debt that the U.S. has gotten itself into (I believe it's because the government guaranteed the loans, which made it easier for universities to keep increasing the prices, but what's important is that the situation exists and must be fixed/ended)
2) the crazy healthcare system that leaves almost everyone financially bankrupt if they have a more significant health issue, or they just can't afford to pay for full coverage. Again, U.S. is just about the only country that has this problem.
3) the rising (negotiation) power of mega-corporations, who are allowed to become ever larger, and the fact that they can outsource workers from abroad almost at will.
They have just about obliterated any negotiation power workers have in the U.S., which also means most workers get little pay and they can't hope for too many salary increases over the years (even to cover for the real inflation, not the "low" inflation the government keeps talking about but doesn't jive with how fast product prices are rising in the economy).
There are also studies showing that basically since the 70's the real salary has stayed the same and hasn't increased with productivity at all. The salaries of CEOs and the payout to shareholders on the other hand have skyrocketed.
Prices also show this. If you want to go get a couple of beers in Oslo you’ll find $10-15 to be normal in central parts of town ($10 average for the city). Nominal wages don’t say much. Purchase power does.
And yes, taxes on sugar and alcohol adds to high prices for alcohol.
The oft-repeated "$500 in savings" thing was based on the savings accounts, which most Americans don't use or don't have because they aren't useful. I don't have $500 in a savings account either, but I have much more than $500 in cash available in the case of emergency. That study is frequently misinterpreted; it measured something irrelevant to how Americans manage money.
Perhaps if we return to a system of minimal government-run healthcare with less regulation (which requires paper pushers) we can reduce healthcare expenses to something that most people can afford out of pocket.
If true, that’s a question of priorities, not resources.
Free public parking to Electric vehicles
Govt distributes 1000 copies of every book published to libraries
Police officers are trained in Higher Education for 3 years
Tuition free education to everybody in the WorldWait what? If this is true, why is not everyone studying in Norway?
> At this point in time, the University of Oslo only offers bachelor studies where Norwegian language proficiency is a prerequisite to be qualified for admission. Applicants who can document that they are already proficient in the Norwegian language, may apply for bachelor programmes at the University of Oslo via NUCAS (Samordna opptak).
> — https://www.uio.no/english/studies/admission/bachelor-progra...
Ah! That's why. You need to know Norwegian before applying (at least at UiO).
I wish I knew about these international study programs when I was younger.
Ontario just cancelled our electric vehicle subsidies. We’re probably in for even further cuts of all kinds... at least my shares in $big_corp will climb.
Seriously. I wonder what a student visa and residence/board would look like for a few years
What has become clear to me reading HN and other US-centric news sources, is that this is in fact a deliberate tradeoff. Certainly it's a multi-dimensional continuum that can be better or worse in certain areas, but it's not just a question of other countries not discovering the path to such a society. It's also a deliberate choice that has consequences many voters in other cultures would not accept.
The flip-side of the equality question is that the ability to excel diminishes. Everyone gets good (although rarely best-in-the-world) free healthcare and a strong social safety net, but taxes are very high. If you have the means, there are many things you might want to do that are not allowed to. E.g. building/expanding your property the way you want, or living off investment income (requires >50% more capital than elsewhere due to taxes, and that's assuming a low middle-class consumption).
Society is not without its issues, and there are certainly some power struggles going on in various areas - e.g. regarding the employment terms for public-sector employees, the ability of large worker groups to get good employment terms etc. There is some degree of hidden institutional corruption, and I suspect that there is a degree of wage collusion that would not be accepted in the US. The tax system strongly favors real-estate investments, which means that property is very expensive and average household-debt-to income ratio is >220%.
The oil, energy and fish industries are certainly strong enablers the social safety net, e.g. with oil companies paying 78% tax on profits, and with similar scheme for the hydropower companies.
I've written about some details of the Norwegian economic system and welfare net on HN before, if you happen to be interested.
Consulting vs. being securely employed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17001133
Summary of taxes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828357
Begging and homelessness: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15169167
Taxation of real estate vs. company ownership: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828227
The law of Jante, or the skepticism towards people who try to excel: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13914084
Balancing capital gains tax and taxes on company earnings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17277429
Free health care and the social safety net, in the context of whether "making the free choice" to "rent out your body" should be legal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17475051
So she means that while the population is well educated, many do not choose the "right" education?
Eg. a lot of students are studying finance and management or maybe history, but there is basically no demand compared to the supply.
See the national debt of Norway (34.33% of GDP) - this is insanely low for developed countries.
For comparison: US - 107.40%, Germany - 61.51%
https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/norway
https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates
https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/germany
- - -
Another important measurement is the Gini coefficient [1] which shows us if the wealth is distributed equally (G = 0% means everyone gets the same; G = 100% means one person has everything).
Norway: G = 27.5%
US: G = 48% (this means 1% owns half the wealth)
Germany: G = 28.9% after taxes (G = 49% before taxes). This shows how big the impact of taxes is for a fair distribution of wealth. Unfortunately, it's known that high-net-worth individuals have options to extract wealth without paying taxes. But I think they don't necessarily do themselves a favor because they simultaneously destroy the society they enjoy and depend on.
https://tradingeconomics.com/norway/gini-index-wb-data.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/219643/gini-coefficient-...
http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm
https://www.gut-leben-in-deutschland.de/static/LB/indicators...
My impression is that marginal taxation here is massive, since we have a sales tax of 25% (consumption tax, effectively), high taxes on luxury goods (cars especially), wealth tax of 0.85% of net worth every year and capital gains tax of 30% with no exemption for long-term holdings. The marginal tax rate on income is 46% IIRC, but your employer has already paid 14% of your salary in employment tax before you're paid. On top of this is property taxes, fees to local government, annual car tax etc.
If you make a complete assessment of the taxes a high-earning, high-spending person pays, it can easily surpass 70% of all income.
Interesting. That's very much in line with what my experiments showed: just on a computer model of incredibly primitive 'economics', you can use an incredibly tiny wealth tax to redistributive effect. I think you can even ditch a lot of sales, income tax etc. if you're prepared to do a wealth tax. It seems to be very effective but this is the first I've heard of it actually being done anywhere.
It started of as a 30% capital gains tax, but at some point the government was like: "Math is hard, let's pretend 4% return on capital." and we effectively ended up with a 1.2% wealth tax.
In the last few years they realized that wealthier people have a higher return on capital and the effective wealth tax is more progressive with an effective wealth tax of ~1.6% at the highest bracket.
In Germany we also get heavily taxed although I don't think it's that drastic: 19% consumption tax, 25% + 5.5% on capital gains, a marginal tax rate that linearly increases up to 42% for high-earners [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
VAT here is a whopping 25%. Personal income tax rates border 55%. Corporate profits tax ranges from 28% to as high as 78%
Moreover revenues from Equinor also help.
Norway is exporting $50+B/year worth of oil industry products with a population of 5 million people and this has been going on for a long time.
It was a net exporter from the 1860s through 1950.
It had surplus extraction capacity until 1972.
And yet, no resource curse?
I don't have an answer, but the question's an interesting one.
Accounts of early US oil history and sudden and capricious wealth, particularly in Pennsylvania, Texas, California, etc., are fascinating.
Some people confuse themselves by pointing to education as a contradiction to this. They say that the presence of education changes the product of society, so it's not just the inherant intelligence of people that matters. This is incorrect because as I stated, it is the characteristics of people that matter and education has the effect of improving characteristics. It is the end result of both nature and nurture that then determines how well a society fares. People who have good "nature" are required though, because they end up doing well regardless of education level whereas naturally dumb people need to be force fed an education which leads to a fragile system where any lapse in educational infrastructure leads to prolonged slump in society overall.
There are complicating factors that make my initial observation difficult to find. Power and influence over the product of society is not evenly distributed over the population. This just means you need to take an integral over the influence levels -- if all of the power is in the hands of very intelligent people then everything will be ok even if there are mobs of stupid people. There are many examples of this.
...
Look at gun rights. If we abstract away the gun we can see that it is really responsibility that is being talked about. Is the population up to the task of owning guns without killing other people? This is not very different from the responsibility to own a car or powerful cleaning chemicals or knives or a million other things, or even the vote. Guns happen to be perhaps one of the most damaging rights in the short term. But I no longer ask whether or not people are ready for guns because if they are not ready for guns they are not ready for the vote or the car or raising children. The result I have come to is that everyone in society needs to be up to the task of having responsibility because if they aren't, the country will collapse. Taking away the guns will stop deaths but it won't solve the root of them problem and it won't stop the slow death of the country.
I think that is probably the biggest theme of my idea. Slow, subtle changes that are difficult to attribute to anything are actually influenced by a very simple thing. Lack of good characteristics will result in a slow and nebulous death manifesting itself as failures of institutions and other things. Injecting good characteristics via education, culture or immigration results in fantastic progress in prosperity and quality of life -- all looking like good luck or a magical combination of law and infrastructure.
Edit
And I have to add that there are countless examples everywhere you look. News for example: people blame news companies for publishing misleading, fake, distasteful, etc stories but really it's the people consuming the news who are at fault. If nobody bought or watched that kind and of news then it wouldn't be published. And there are endless examples like that. Most things that are a national embarrassment like that are a result of the people in general supporting it or being apathetic to it.
Norway gets short term rich.
Mother Nature continues to live in poverty.
The masses and the media continue to ignore the aggregate cost of the latter.
#BeamMeUpScotty
I have never heard of a Norwegian referred to as a 'Norway'.
To me, the title reads as: "Unlike most millennials, the Norway countries are rich" which doesn't make any sense because millennials are people not countries.
>Unlike most millenials, Norway's (millenials) are rich.
You seem to be making the common conflation of the possessive with the plural of Norway (and of course there's only one Norway).
If you're confusing them you must be a native speaker of English ;)
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/04/why-the-wor...
> Norway’s youth unemployment rate (among 15- to 29-year-olds) is also relatively low at 9.4% compared to an OECD average of 13.9%.
But for the USA
> Youth unemployment stood at 8.4 percent in April 2018.
Also
> People in their early thirties in Norway have an average annual disposable household income of around 460,000 kroner (around $56,200).
But remember that Norway is a small petrol country. That would not be fair and square to compare it to behemoths like the USA.
Compare Norway to the Bay Area? I can't find stats but I'm pretty sure the "average" person is getting more than $56k in SF.
So what am I trying to say:
- Don't compare small countries (smaller than big cities in population terms) to big countries.
- Don't compare oil rich countries to non-oil rich countries.
- Don't pick your stats (he compared unemployment to the OECD and not to the US). Everyone know that some European countries are going through hell now (Spain, Greece, Portugal, etc...)
- Maybe we have reached peek capacity and the younger can't do better. In these terms, Norway can still grow faster if it didn't (but I don't think that is the reason).
Anyway, it is an article for article sake. Means pretty much nothing to why we are here.
Comparing a European state to a US state isn’t so far fetched either. Compare Norway to Oregon - not to the US. Population of small European states match many US ones.