Hacker News Reader

I think it takes a very conscious effort for a society to get to that stage.

In some countries, you see individual greed being pushed to crazy extremes. Notwithstanding dictatorships, some politicians are willingly and wittingly sacrificing millions of people for a single individual objective. But I think the latter is the default position of humanity. The opposite is also a problem: When you justify every action as "for the millions".

The vikings were particularly murderous people and have become particularly peaceful. (But I guess the Finns are not vikings for that matter.)

Also smaller countries are more peaceful. I'm curious if Finland had over 100m population, how it would become.

I think that is a fair observation, but there is nothing stopping us (well, maybe there are things stopping us) from organising bigger countries into smaller autonomous regions. I think larger countries do not scale well socially to having a single governing body. It works for a lot of things, especially economies of scale for industries and competition perhaps, but I think the best leaders and leadership situations warrant for personal interaction and personal knowledge.

What I also like about this is that it makes leadership a more natural progression where you might say: "I know this person, they are taking my concerns seriously and have our interests at heart." With Trump for example, I would be skeptical of anyone who thinks that he can possibly have all of their individual concerns at heart. And this is not just about Trump himself, but about inherent properties of the US in general. But I guess the question of whether Trump is there because of the US being a big country with inherent populist risks is a good question. One could ask the same question of many presidents before him and so too of presidents of other large countries.

The Finns are not particularly peaceful when it counts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

>what I didn't see anywhere were homeless people or beggars

Romanian beggars are a common sight during warmer months.

Romanian beggars are common all around Europe.

In spite of the belief among many Helsinki residents that these are all "Romanian beggars", a substantial number of these Roma beggars – and in at least one summer the majority – have come from Bulgaria. Yes, some of them are from Romania, but I don’t know why Romania is the sole country ever mentioned in this context. I suppose it is an inability to distinguish between the terms romanilainen (Roma) and romanialainen (Romanian) which, despite sounding similar, are not even etymologically related.

I was just about to say, the only Romanian I've ever seen here is a good friend of mine. I've seen plenty of Roma, though (some of whom are also friends).

This.

Perhaps the OP intended Romany (or the alternative Romani). [0]

It's a Wikipedia source, but it is of reasonable quality, differentiating between Romanian and Romany in matters of religion and music.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

Finland is actually great for summer holidays (although a bit expensive) - and I think it will become more popular as summers in other parts of Europe Europe get hotter and hotter. One thing you will need to get used though is the light in the night. You wait for it to get dark, you wait, and... it never happens. Very strange.

I’m totally cool with that part! I remember walking home from the event and thinking “wow the streets are empty considering how early it is” only to realize it was 10:30pm.

The lat few days of our trip the sun never set. Blackout shades are all I need to solve that.

It’s the lack of sun in winter I couldn’t handle.

So why were the streets empty that early?

EDIT: I now realize most people won't get the tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment, as over here 10:30 is considered quite early and most people go out at midnight, with the peak being around 2am.

It was a work day and I was in the business area I guess?

Go during the winter and you wait for it to get light, you wait, and... it never happens! :P

Add mosquitoes during those summers. Land of thousands of lakes has gazillions of them. Bigger ones then I was used from central Europe. Don't transmit any diseases, but boy having 50-100 stings on any non-covered part of the body is pretty annoying. After a week I've got used to it, you cover whatever you can, and unless you scratch them, stings become easy to ignore.

We met a guy who was hitchhiking, so had to stick out his arm. Afterwards he counted 168 bites on a single arm.

Yet nearly identical risk percentage of poverty as the US: https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/finland/usa?sc=...

Maybe the key difference is that poverty is better hidden in Finland with more available shelters?

I'm sceptical about the concept of poverty as defined by the economists. They seem to define poverty as being unable to live a consumerist lifestyle, and not being genuinely poor. In the US, the poverty threshold for a single person is about $1000 per month. However, for that amount of money, I think you can get shelter, food, clothing and live in material comfort (or at least lack of evident discomfort) - you're clothed, fed, warm, dry and have a safe place to rest and sleep. Is that what poverty looks like?

It looks like, to economists, poverty is more about being unable to have a bigger place for yourself, newish car, newish electronics, rich variety in food etc. - but it's hardly end of the world if people don't have those things, so why should the public care?

Poverty in Europe is usually defined as having an income of less than some fraction of median income. For instance in Norway and the UK this is 60% of median disposable income. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Norway and https://www.nourishcommunityfoodbank.org.uk/docs/The_definit....

That is, poverty is relative to the environment in which one finds oneself. And we should care if only because someone without a reliable car, a mobile capable of doing the things that need to be done like banking, tolerable accommodation, etc., eventually becomes a burden for the rest of us, disaffected, disenfranchised, unable to participate in society. And that goes double for their children.

And of course we should care because they are humans too.

Where can $1k/mo. provide that? I live in nowhere Montana and the cheapest rent I could just find was $650/mo before utilities ($900/mo. in the town I went to high school at in California in a mobile home park, so it likely did not count space rent). Utilities: I'm not sure. I have a big place; I can spend as much as $600/mo in winter or $200/mo in summer. Let's say someone can get by on $100/mo. That $1k is gone in nowhere California and down to $250 in nowhere Montana. Let's say you can eat for $5/day, so there goes $150. You are now left $100 to manage everything else: transportation, clothing, phone, potentially internet, any unexpected expenses, and nevermind trying to save up first and last months rent and a deposit for utilities. I'd say $1k/mo is hard living. Heck, $3k/mo was really hard on my wife, kids, and I 15 years ago. $1k/mo might keep you from abject poverty, put I feel it is within poverty level.

Quick lookup revealed rooms for rent in Montana from $275/month. You won't have a whole place for yourself, but that in itself is an inflated modern standard.

I didn't think of renting a room, interesting point. I could only find one at $400/mo in my town fwiw

I'd be rather sceptical about poverty comparisons between the US and other countries, because the US is one of the few countries that doesn't officially accept relative poverty measures. This means that in reality poor people in the US may be much poorer in international comparison than it might seem on paper. Sometimes the comparisons are adjusted or correct, because they are not based on absolute measures, but I'd rather check the source of the figures first to see how poverty was measured in each country.

The public should care about relative poverty, since social mobility and social stigma hinge almost solely on that and not on absolute poverty (for which the threshold is usually set in whatever lowest possible way that pleases politicians). Children of the poorest families have almost no chances of breaking out of that life, leading to ghettos, social unrest, criminal gangs, drug abuse, etc. You just have to go to Skid Row in L.A. to see the effects of poverty in action. There is a photographer who currently documents poverty and other problems in the US on Youtube, it's a very interesting watch.[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCvcd0FYi58LwyTQP9LITpA

Lots of American poverty is hidden too. I'm from rural Oregon and there are tons of people that live on BLM land outside of city limits.

It’s about definition of poverty. It is defined as some percentage of average income.

Finnish poor has an apartment paid by government etc.

There are shelters too, as our system cannot handle those who drink their rent money well.

How easy is it to immigrate to Finland and enjoy these advantages of Finnish society? If it’s easy, then I wonder why more people don’t do it. If it’s difficult, then it feels a little disingenuous to praise a society for privileging the people who just so happen to be born there.

Obviously I’m not discounting the notion than certain societies can treat people better than other societies. I’m only trying to point out that given good treatment to members of a society is a pretty useless measure to judge a society unless you also analyze how people an become members of that society.

Not sure about Finland but my native Norway pops up in these kinds of discussions frequently as well. Moving to Norway is in fact relatively easy as long as you get a job which requires some kind of higher education or special skill. You cannot move to Norway just to flip burgers. But you can move to Norway as say a sushi chef or geologist. I would expect Finland as a fellow Nordic country to be similar.

The reason we are not overrun with people moving to Norway is simply that people don't actually know Norway is fairly easy to move to. I have spoken to many foreign professionals here and while most of them originally had positive attitudes to Norway, pretty much none of them had believed moving to Norway was even an option.

It was often entirely random reasons why they ended up in Norway, such as getting hired by a Norwegian company at a foreign branch.

To most people contemplating emigrating the only countries that exist in their heads are the US, Canada and Australia.

Also especially people from poorer countries who decide to emigrate are extremely ambitious. They want to make a lot of money and shoot for the stars. Nordic countries are not really a place for such people. Ambition and making lots of money is not central value in Nordic societies. Nordics is all about work-life balance, moderation etc.

While Norway e.g. is one of the worlds richest countries you will not find any Rolls Royce, Bentley's or 200m tall luxury hotels. The wealth is sort of hidden in child-care facilities, humane prisons and stuff that isn't very glitzy. If you want to show off that you made it, then you are in the wrong place if you aim for the Nordics ;-)

Norwegians pretend they don't care about a status symbols, but the reality is very different. You'll see many high-end cars and people walking around with designer bags and clothes, even teenagers. For a month prior to the 17th of May you'll also see teenagers spend obscene amounts of money fitting out a bus to drive around the city drinking and annoying everyone with horrible music. --It may seem normal to you, but it really is a rather ostentatious display of wealth.

Of course, people care about status all over the world. We are not an entirely different species. It is a question of relative difference. Compared to how wealthy Norway actually is, there is relatively little display of wealth. Compare to something like Hong Kong, Moscow or the Gulf States.

You're forgetting English. Learning a foreign language is really hard and many people learn English as school/by listening to music/by watching movies/TV series/etc. Few people want to go through the hassle of learning another foreign language.

Yes that is a key issue, but most people don't even get to the point of investigating the language situation. You don't have to learn Norwegian to live and work in Norway. I have friends who have lived here for over 10 years who can barely say a word of Norwegian.

I believe it's no more difficult then any other EU country. I was engaged to a Finn and I was accepted on those grounds, even though I didn't have work. When I got married, I could attend the immigrant integration course (maahanmuuttajakoulutus), which included an intensive language learning program.

I'm an EU citizen, and I believe EU citizens can live in Finland if they have employment.

You don't have to have employment, but must have some other means for supporting yourself besides social benefits. It's ok to collect them between jobs for a while, though.

Finland is part of the EU, so it is very easy to immigrate there if you are from one of the member country.

If you are not, it is still not that hard (comparing to some other EU country). I actually had some member of my step family immigrating to Finland, and ultimately getting the citizenship. The administration is very helpful and provide a lot of help for people who immigrating to Finland (like full time language classes, which a lot of country don't do).

Finland is a small country, so they are usually very open to qualified immigration because they usually have more position than what they can provide nationwide. Having company where the official work language is English says a lot about that.

> If it’s easy, then I wonder why more people don’t do it.

Why everybody is not moving to Finland is usually the weather and the language which is considered difficult (but very interesting) for people who don't know a ural/altaic language. Also, not everybody want to move out of their country and leave their friends and familly.

> If it’s difficult, then it feels a little disingenuous to praise a society for privileging the people who just so happen to be born there.

Well, this is a concept of nation. I would like to live in a world without border but this is not reality. You cannot criticize a country for treating their citizen good.

Language is one of the main reasons for low immigration. Local employers expect very often Finnish speaking skills. Even highly educated foreigners may have difficulties to find a job because of this, often ridiculous and unnecessary requirement.

It is not a rediculous requirement when you go to someone's country. Noone called you to go there and you have the nerve to impose your will? The best thing you would have to do is to respect that country and learn their language and customs.

Yes that is true, but Finnish people speak quite good English and many job positions does not really require perfect Finnish skills.