Euro-area economies are stagnant or shrinking whilst US economy is churning onwards like a madman. They will buy all of our assets away over time unless we start seriously competing.
Sad, but this is the only choice now that we've chosen to participate in the global economy.
What we actually need to do is develop a political and economic language which values things people actually care about.
I very much agree with the Finish parent that we need to adapt our societies. It’s not just about economic standard of living, it’s about staying relevant.
In fact I would even go further: it’s an ethical question to me. I see the holding back of ambitious, entrepreneurial people in order to preserve “social stability” as increasingly unethical.
I am also a Swedish engineer and find that there are plenty of interesting and innovative companies to work for. As a software engineer it has typically been easy to find jobs that offer better compensation packages than what the union requires but I still see a union agreement as a positive thing if the company has it. To me it signals that they care about their employees. I also believe that the strong unions in Sweden have given us the (at least) five weeks of vacation, compared to the two in (the weakly unionized USA) and other quality of life and safety improvements.
> I see the holding back of ambitious, entrepreneurial people in order to preserve “social stability” as increasingly unethical.
This is quite an ignorant view. Social stability is the foundation for society, and society is the foundation for innovation. Who will build what you innovate? Who will buy it? Who will service it? Who will innovate based on your innovation? If you did an honest comparison of the innovative output of socially stable countries with those that are not socially stable you would change your mind.
What I was referring to was the Nordic cultural focus on a certain kind of “equality”, often referred to as the law of Jante, which is very focused on holding capable independent-minded people back.
> Who will innovate based on your innovation?
This is an excellent question, but I would like to turn it around: Who’s innovation do you innovate on top of? The answer in my case is “Anglo-Saxons”. There is pretty much nothing in my tech stack from the EU. It’s just a black hole. Does that not concern you at all?
Then again maybe we have different tech stacks but mine typically includes: Linux (originally from Finland), ARM (from previously EU member UK), C++ (designed by a Dane) and Python (designed by a Dutch). That's the basis at least then there are other stuff as the need comes by.
As for social stability, I didn't intentionally misinterpret you. The kind of monetary equality that we traditionally have had in Sweden is good for social stability (the one without quotes I was talking about). That has changed during the last couple of decades and with increasing differences in income comes the increasing social problems we see.
OTOH I do agree that Jante can definitely be a negative factor when it comes to innovation.
youre so high on copium if you think that the economic model has anything to do with that...
if you were a world class talent, you'd be able to get a position for such a job under any economic system. youre just not.
Do you have concrete examples? I can imagine that if you're working on avionics Sweden might not be the best place, but otherwise it really doesn't seem to be lacking opportunities for a small country.
I’m interested in fundamental challenges around computing: programming languages, cloud platforms, operating systems, combinatorial optimization, database technology, machine learning and the like. Not many bleeding edge opportunities around that here.
We also have a work culture were effort and ability is not rewarded (which at least I associate with strong unions), but “playing politics” is. It’s very hard to stay motivated in a culture like that. I think this is an important part of the downward spiral.
Yeah, for programming languages you should probably have been Danish and for operating systems the Finnish have had quite an impact. Both socially stable countries with dare I say pretty strong unions...
I'm guessing that their decision to move west had very little to do with the "stifling" unions and more to do with the increased opportunity for a skilled SWE over there. I would say that that increased opportunity has also very little to do with "stifling" unions and more to do with the huge single market that the US is. That huge single market allows companies to grow fast. The EU works hard to be a single market as well but we have language barriers, bigger legal differences and dare I say bigger cultural differences.
Also talking about Scandinavia, as tiny as it is population-wise, we've had a disproportionately large impact on the world in many different areas. Some factors that contribute to this, I believe, are our free education system and the social safety net that unions have played an important part upholding.
To me that sounds like your typical large company. I've had a great time working at small startups but I've found that my job satisfaction pretty much scales with the inverse of company size (within limits, it seems 20-30 employees is the sweet-spot for me).
What sort of interesting work is not possible in Sweden? I've worked in many tech hubs and am now in Stockholm; Oxford, London, Palo Alto, etc, and haven't noticed anything
Again, then you either need to invent your own currency and stop participating in the global economy or accept that Nordic welfare state will cease and we'll become akin to a soviet block economy in the next 50 yr timespan
Ask the average US citizen if it feels that way.
https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than...
I wonder how rich Elon Musk would be on that scale? "Wow Elon, you have managed to consume goods for $50000! You are off the chart of richness. $50k, what a rich man!"
Flexibility in the economy only creates flexibility for those at the _very_ top. It creates potential instability for literally everybody else.
As for a better hypothesis as to why the US economy is so powerful: "The Prize" or "Guns, Germs and Steel".
You have many counter-examples of countries doing fine with a welfare state, but instead you cherry pick an example of one of the countries that you consider does "well" without one.
Nice false dichotomy there.
There needs to be a balance between what the employers want and what employees want. Or else...
Unions are a way to reach balance.
Almost always, the unions ask for too much get bloated, then the employer outsources or offshores to get back to paying market wages.
It’s a pattern I’ve seen over and over again. For whatever reason, union agreements often turn out to be unstable arrangements.