Hacker News Reader

Comment by WilTimSon | Hacker News Reader

I've heard so many tales of Finland's wonderful social programs. Aren't they supposed to have some of the best education quality in Europe as well? [1] It's fascinating that a country with such a harsh climate and constant jokes about its peoples' coldness toward one another makes so much room for social security and actually caring for its people. I'm not so sure this model would work for cases that don't involve IT giants. I mean the problem that used to be widespread in the USA - factories closing down and laying off workers. Establishing another factory might simply not be regionally viable so the town gets abandoned, losing population and resources. A bit easier with the IT sector, we can all move around if the pay's right and it's not like the company itself needs some strict local conditions to fit their needs.

[1]: Looked it up, they're certainly getting praise for it: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-finland-beats-america-on...

View on HN

i think geographic location, population size and population density have a lot to do with socio-economic differences between finland and the us:

finland: 5.5 million

usa: 327.1 million

Still, the USA has a much higher GDP per capita:

USA: $60k Finland: $45k

So there's no reason Americans shouldn't have the same level of comfort.

However there's substantially more income inequality in the U.S., so GDP per capita won't capture the distribution of that wealth particularly well.

GDP per capita is pretty much useless nowadays.

It's useful in as much as it provides a basis for comparison between differences in the base standard of living between equivalent gdp/capita societies, like Finland and the US, which is what the parent was doing.

It's not, however, useful as the sole metric for evaluating the economic condition of a society.

This is the standard right wing excuses why social programms like they are assumed elsewhere, can't be implemented in the US. But I haven't seen a good explanation how one thing prevents the other yet.

I figure when the USA is capable of providing proper health care and social programs to the tribes it has treaties with, then it can be trusted to provide those same service to its other citizens.

i had no idea about this being a "right wing excuse".

for me it's just a fact that in a high population, high wage, highly regulated society it's much harder to overhaul things radically than in a similar tiny nation. without some sort of a disaster (think WW2), it would be very hard to force everyone to switch from an entrenched system to a different one.

Economies of scale from the larger population and higher wages should make it easier. It is absolutely a right wing excuse.

I don't think that's true at all. Larger projects often fail in ways that smaller ones don't. This is true in technology as in society.

> Economies of scale from the larger population and higher wages should make it easier.

how would it be easier to force 300 million people vs 5 million?

Nah, it's because 1/2 of the political system thinks the government doing anything is bad.

When conservatives say that they think the US is too "diverse" for such policies to work, take them at their word. They think that social democracy is fine as long as the benefits don't go to black or brown people. In fact, this was the essence the "grand bargain" that FDR struck to get the New Deal passed with reluctant support from southern Democrats - FDR was allowed to create redistributive programs so long minorities were systematically excluded from them (see Richard Rothstein's "The Color of Law" for examples on how this was achieved through federal housing policy). It's also the reason why the woman Reagan chose as the canonical example of the "welfare queen" (who herself is a fascinating character, see https://pictorial.jezebel.com/the-long-shadow-of-the-welfare...) was black.

It isn't about "caring". The US system is actually more caring because it guarantees access to social programs regardless of contributions. In the US, social programs are something you have a right to if you are a citizen. In Europe, they are something that is earned through contributions. In continental Europe, you pay high taxes but you receive a lot of those benefits back in the form of benefits. Unemployment insurance is literally insurance that is just provided by the state. That term makes no sense in a redistributive system like the US.

It is fine to suggest that this system is better but there is a reason it only exists in some countries and not others. If you have a high level of business creation/destruction, it is a huge risk (Denmark is an example of a country with this system but very low regulations on business/labour, 2008 nearly killed this system). If you have a very mobile population, it doesn't work either. If you have a heterogeneous population, it doesn't work.

The simpler solution is to take the parts that will work i.e. investment in retraining.

I'm not sure there's a bright line between insurance and redistribution. What is insurance other than a way to redistribute money from people who don't need the money to people who do?

That is 100% not the case. In addition to being factually wrong, it suggests a totally ahistorical view of social policy development. Social policy in the EU and US/UK are nothing alike, they have completely different aims because the history/context is just totally different.

To be totally clear: I have studied this topic (I studied econ/policy at PG level) and no research I have ever read has suggested this. Google comparative social policy research.

I understand that if you get your knowledge from misinformed politicians who haven't studied the issue but believe it will solve all their country's problems...yes, that distinction is not clear. If you actually read books though, it is quite wrong.

I'm thinking more conceptually and financially. Fire insurance means people whose house never burns down lose money and people whose house did burn down get money. It is literally a redistribution of money as you don't get out what you put in. They do this willingly, of course, because financial security is valuable. But it is in essence a collective scheme.

There are big differences between the US and EU though, not disputing that. But maybe there's a way of describing this difference that makes the distinction clearer?

Yes, the principle of European social policy is that you get out what you put in. The principle of UK/US social policy is that you have an entitlement to a small amount of money because you are a citizen (univeralism).

Because you seem to not understand some part of this: in Europe, if you make $100k/year and you lose your job the state will pay you a percentage of your previous income for a fixed period of time (and you then get nothing or put onto a long-term unemployed program). For example, 75% so you will get pro rata $75k/year. In the UK/US, if you lose your job you will get $x/year, regardless of your previous job and what you contributed to the system (i.e. it is redistributive...some people pay a lot into the system and get nothing, people who pay nothing in get the most...insurance doesn't work this way).

The history isn't worth going into but the European welfare state was invented by Conservatives. The US/UK welfare state was invented by Socialists. Practically, what most people think about the European system is almost 100% wrong: the US/UK welfare system is intended to intervene in the market, the European welfare system is not (and the Nordic countries are usually most strident about not interfering in the market, particularly Denmark which has very high rates of job creation/destruction).

Just to be totally clear: what most Americans are being sold by Democrats is a total fiction. There is no alternative to the market. Every country that has had politicians that tried to outsmart the market has failed (the Nordic countries did this in the 80s, they were bankrupt by the early 90s). The US already has the most heavily redistributive social policy anywhere. If it isn't working, that doesn't mean you need to go further.

And yes, that is why I suggested you read about it yourself. This is seminal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Worlds_of_Welfare_Ca... - but social policy is perhaps one of the biggest areas in comparative politics (because the importance of context/history is so evident).

Strange, I know several in Sweden who receive social money from the state and can live a decent life and they haven't worked a single hour in their life. How is that possible if "you only get what you put in"? Unemployment is different of course, but that is capped at a very low level so in most cases it is essentially fixed unless you have a private employment insurance.

Totally agree. Short-ish term unemployment is (beside pensions) the only social program I can think of that pays out depending on what you payed in. Thus I also have a real problem with the sentiment of "you have contribute to get taken care of" in GPs original comment.

Social programs take care of you based on needs, regardless what you payed in. Healthcare (the public program) gives the same service to everyone while having you to pay a % of income. You won't get neither more housing nor child benefit by having payed in more.

Yes, unemployment is a bit of a special case since its goal is to minimize disruption on peoples live in case of sudden job loss. Not just being a basic safety net... those are available to everyone.

Right, and the thing that you have chosen as the "only" example is probably the most important aspect of the Nordic system, relatively, within European social policy.

Great, you have a "real problem"...no-one cares.

Yes, I explained that above. Again: in most European countries you will usually get put into a long-term unemployment program. More information: this benefit can and does get removed totally (if you refuse work, it stops), and in most European countries you will be required to essentially perform work in these programs (i.e. retraining). The only way to obtain money without performing work is to be disabled. That is it.

Why I have to tell you this is unclear? Just look on the internet. Too much like hard work, amirite comrade? Also, you are not only reasoning from your sample size of "people I know" but that is limited to one country...at least try to be serious.

I'm from Sweden so that is what I'm aware of, and I have a hard time finding anything aspect with more benefits in the US than in Sweden. For example our unemployment benefits works almost exactly like USA (up to $550 a week in USA but not higher than you earned, up to 20000kr a month in Sweden but not higher than you earned). So I don't see how the American system is special, it seems kinda standard to me.

> The only way to obtain money without performing work is to be disabled. That is it.

Right, but getting a diagnosis from a psychologist that you are depressed or similar and can't work is not very hard. I've also received this kind of aid before I got a job so I know.

Even if you don't claim actual benefits you receive value from your high-taxes in things like cheap childcare, good transport, local parks, etc.

Though it is true the higher taxes are also the source of benefits they provide other benefits even if you're employed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com