
Unlike most millennials, Norway's are rich - happy-go-lucky
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180709-unlike-most-millennials-norways-are-rich
======
franciscop
As a Spaniard who has discussed this in lenght with many other Europeans[1],
it really seems like the US is the main country with the University debt
issue. I also really believe that "score inflation" is a big issue mainly in
the US. If everyone can finish University, then having a university title
becomes pointless! [2]

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...](https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/same-
performance-better-grades/384447/)

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.

~~~
Latty
> If everyone can finish University, then having a university title becomes
> pointless!

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.

~~~
chx
> This means that at some point, university levels of education will probably
> become necessary for any employment

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.

~~~
pnutjam
If that is the case, I think revamping the high school requirements would be a
better investment.

~~~
jopsen
The problem is that today's generations are joining companies that are heavily
specialized. Unlike previous generations which could learn while the company
learned.

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..

~~~
labcomputer
That's true, but it feels like the HS curriculum has gotten easier, too, and
that might be part of the reason that a high school diploma isn't valued by
employers. My perception (anecdata!) is that helicopter parenting has badgered
the faculty such that my niece and nephew have a lower bar than I did for any
given letter grade (and that I had it easier than some of my much older
cousins).

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_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States)

~~~
dragonwriter
> That's true, but it feels like the HS curriculum has gotten easier, too, and
> that might be part of the reason that a high school diploma isn't valued by
> employers.

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.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
I'd have to disagree. My niece attends one of the top-rated high schools in
the country. I recently perused her summer reading list and was astonished
that the vast majority of them were books for children. Reading comprehension
and writing proficiency are much, much lower than they were just a few decades
ago, across all levels of schooling.

~~~
pnutjam
Memory can be tricky. You need some data, not anecdotes.

~~~
jessaustin
Lots of us remember reading e.g. Shakespeare and Faulkner in high school. If
the most challenging material they're reading now is Rowling (or whatever GP
means by "books for children"), that is data.

~~~
pnutjam
Yeah, lots of people "remember" doing things when they were sixteen or
seventeen, or maybe even 12 or 13, but the memory gets murkier. In my
experience, it's very easy for people to remember something they did at a
given age fondly, and push it for their kids at a earlier age inadvertently.

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.

~~~
jessaustin
I can't believe you're really quibbling over the possibility that some high
schools assign Shakespeare...

------
angarg12
As the article points out, the economic miracle of Norway is fueled by oil and
gas, just like Spain economic miracle was fueled by cheap industrial labour
and construction decades ago.

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.

~~~
massysett
"the economic miracle of Norway is fueled by oil and gas"

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.

~~~
jaredklewis
The lesson of Norway is how to manage a valuable natural resource. I.e. Don't
sell it off in a one time auction to the highest bidder who then reaps all the
gains. Norway tightly controls access to its oil and the profits have been
very well managed.

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?

------
jopsen
Affordable education is probably a big part of how they do this.

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 :)

~~~
endymi0n
In my not so humble opinion, it all comes down to a short- vs. farsighted
culture and the resulting fundamental attitude towards kids.

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.

~~~
maxxxxx
"In the US, kids are seen at worst a nuisance and at best a personal luxury."

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.

~~~
pfranz
I see both perspectives. As a culture that supports kids the US is way behind
on maternity/paternity leave, childcare, leisure time overall, healthcare,
higher level education. I see the increase in recent generations leaving
religion has created a gap in social support, too (not sure how this maps to
places other than the US). The US has a huge consumer culture for kids;
suburbs are one way for kids to grow up, cheap toys and entertainment. Movies
and entertainment have notoriously targeted PG-13 in recent decades because
they're the largest audience (most free time and disposable income).

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.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_\(boys\))

------
Deestan
While not as bad off as the US, we are still seeing similar trends. They still
can't afford to buy apartments until their 30s if they have good jobs, while
their parents bought houses at the age of 20 working as factory drones.

~~~
mockingbirdy
There are a ton of reasons.

\- 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.

~~~
antpls
> 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.

~~~
mockingbirdy
> what about sharing it among the people who didn't have the same luck than
> you?

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].

[1]: [https://youtu.be/A9UmdY0E8hU](https://youtu.be/A9UmdY0E8hU)

~~~
mockingbirdy
> Some people can afford to take risks and earn even more while some simply
> cannot.

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.

~~~
antpls
When I talk about environment and legacy, I talk about your parents, your
grand-parents and your grand-grand-parents.

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.

~~~
mockingbirdy
There are many assumptions in your comment - maybe I can provide some
anecdata: My mother is from india (so I know what you mean with the problems
for foreigners) and my parents were not wealthy for a long time. They still
aren't extremely wealthy and I can make more money than my parents combined
(but without that job security).

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.

------
dotdi
I'm from the generation mentioned in this article and IMHO, in the developed
countries, people like me are poorer than their parents because the rich are
getting richer and the "poor", including the middle class, are getting poorer
as a direct consequence.

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.

~~~
mockingbirdy
> the rich are getting richer and the "poor", including the middle class, are
> getting poorer as a direct consequence.

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.

~~~
mockingbirdy
Would love to know why this gets downvotes. I'm merely reiterating studies on
lifetime income and children expenses. Would love to know if I'm relying on
wrong data (although the studies are pretty clear about lifetime income).

------
bufferoverflow
Norway is a very special case. A small country with lots of oil, fish, and a
small population (just 5.2 million).

They would have to go really wrong to be poor.

~~~
oblio
Norway was rich on a global scale before oil.

~~~
yesforwhat
Not by European standards

~~~
oblio
Careful with that statement, you forgot Europe also has Eastern Europe :)

------
skookumchuck
"Norway’s huge oil and gas sector is the clear driving factor behind the
nation’s economic boom over the last three decades"

And there it is - a nation sitting on black gold is wealthy.

~~~
ethelward
Like Venezuela, for instance?

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.

~~~
throw2016
This perspective completely misses the politics and history of these
countries.

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.

~~~
jessaustin
One might have expected Russia, at least, to have the sort of history of
sophisticated socialism that would prepare a nation to wisely distribute the
spoils of petroleum exploitation...

------
chiefalchemist
Perhaps I read / skimmed too fast but I felt there wasn't enough mentioned
about buying power. Income without context is meaningless.

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.

~~~
flurdy
Post tax spendable income gives an indication on real income:

* [http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Cost-of-livin...](http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Cost-of-living/Average-monthly-disposable-salary/After-tax)

* [https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/disposable-income-map...](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/disposable-income-map_n_6924568)

General cost of living data for Norway:

* [http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Norway/Cos...](http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Norway/Cost-of-living)

As well as the Big Mac index as ball park cost indicator:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index)

~~~
chiefalchemist
Thanks. Much appreciated.

Shame the article lacked this context.

------
stefs
as a side note, this made me remember an article i read a couple of years ago:
[https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...](https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0)

"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.

~~~
Nimitz14
Thank you very much for sharing! That was very interesting.

------
jopsen
The world is more complex then ever before, is it possible that current
generations are behind financially because they needed a longer education?

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.

------
mtgx
> _Aarnes’ hourly pay starts at 164 Norwegian kroner (around $20), increasing
> for weekend and evening shifts. After taxes (which are comparatively high in
> Scandinavia) he’s left with around 14,000 kroner ($1700) a month, of which
> he sets aside half for rent, travel and bills and uses the rest for
> “whatever else” he likes._

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.

~~~
alkonaut
> 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.

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.

~~~
tonfa
Beer might be a bad example, isn't alcohol generally very expensive in
Scandinavian countries? (Though indeed cost of living is probably on the
higher side)

~~~
alkonaut
Yes half of or more of the unreasonable $15 beer is likely taxes. But that
pizza slice you take with it is another $15...

~~~
NightlyDev
$15 is more like a portion sized pizza, not a slice.

------
known
Norway FTW

    
    
      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 World

~~~
guessmyname
> _Tuition free education to everybody in the World_

Wait 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...](https://www.uio.no/english/studies/admission/bachelor-
> programmes.html)

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.

------
novaRom
Not just rich, but 'equally' rich.

~~~
joshmn
Weird how in America that simple, fundamental idea is so seemingly fly toxic.

------
marvin
I think we're doing a lot of stuff right in Scandinavia/Norway, if optimizing
for the average quality of life rather than personal freedoms is what you
consider right. (I do, but not without critical analysis -- if it happens to
appear otherwise from this post, I am actually very happy living here, but the
lack of a critical eye in national media feels a bit oppressive sometimes).

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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17001133)

Summary of taxes:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828357](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828357)

Begging and homelessness:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15169167](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15169167)

Taxation of real estate vs. company ownership:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14828227](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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13914084)

Balancing capital gains tax and taxes on company earnings:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17277429](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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17475051)

------
cosmic_ape
>>Employers will also have to be more open to attracting international talent
to fill the jobs created outside its oil and gas sector, she suggests. On the
other hand, young Norwegians “used to being able to work wherever they like”
may need to become increasingly “focused on where the skills are needed”...

So she means that while the population is well educated, many do not choose
the "right" education?

~~~
NightlyDev
There is a lot of students in Norway who studies what they want with no plan
at all when it comes to work.

Eg. a lot of students are studying finance and management or maybe history,
but there is basically no demand compared to the supply.

------
mockingbirdy
I'm seriously impressed:

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/norway)

[https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates](https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates)

[https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/germany](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://tradingeconomics.com/norway/gini-index-wb-data.html)

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/219643/gini-
coefficient-...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/219643/gini-coefficient-
for-us-individuals-families-and-households/)

[http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-
database.htm](http://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm)

[https://www.gut-leben-in-
deutschland.de/static/LB/indicators...](https://www.gut-leben-in-
deutschland.de/static/LB/indicators/income/gini-coefficient-income/)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient)

~~~
marvin
Did your sources distinguish Norway's Gini coefficient before and after taxes?

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.

~~~
Applejinx
"wealth tax of 0.85% of net worth every year"

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.

~~~
sobani
The Netherlands also have it, sort of.

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.

------
fulafel
Norway is the only oil economy that has managed to avoid the resource curse.

~~~
dredmorbius
The U.S. might be another, no?

~~~
fulafel
US was until recently a net importer of oil, so it's sort of a lite oil
economy.

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.

~~~
dredmorbius
The US has extracted more oil than any other country on Earth, full stop.

It was a net exporter from the 1860s through 1950.

It had surplus extraction capacity until 1972.

And yet, no resource curse?

~~~
fulafel
Ots the $$ per capita in (un/underrefined) exports that does it. Oil was cheap
pre-50s and us has a big population. I can't be bothered to look up the figure
but i bet it was much smaller than Norway's $$/capita figure.

~~~
dredmorbius
Possibly.

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.

------
67_45
The success of Norway lies with the intelligence of of it's population. People
attribute it to this or that, some institution or policy. But in reality
policies and institutions are concievee of, built, and maintained by the
sentiment of the people. They are smart people and they will always be well
off considering their circumstances as long as that is true. Furthermore, the
intelligence and well-being of the population of every country is the sole
source of their outcomes. Endless ruminations on other, higher level things
are a complete waste of time.

~~~
blindwatchmaker
This is a really bizarre statement. Could you deign to back it up in any way?

~~~
67_45
The product of a group of people is a function of the characteristics of the
people. This is just a simple fact.

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.

------
chiefalchemist
> "Norway’s huge oil and gas sector is the clear driving factor behind the
> nation’s economic boom over the last three decades..."

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

------
arthurfm
Shouldn't Norway's be Norwegian [millennials] in the title?

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.

~~~
Thiez
It's referring to them as 'the millennials of Norway', short: 'Norway's
millennials'. You are correct that those millennials would be Norwegians.

~~~
hocuspocus
Not all of them. About 17% of the population aren't citizens, and probably
more so within the millennials.

------
known
UBI improves lives, enhances freedom and is a matter of social justice;

[https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/04/why-the-
wor...](https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/04/why-the-world-should-
adopt-a-basic-income)

------
csomar
Wait a second Morty

> 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.

~~~
alkonaut
Norway is a bit of an outlier because of natural resources. Most importantly,
the trust I put in the Swedish pension system (I.e I save next to nothing and
trust I will get a good pension) is a bit less safe than a young Norwegians
trust in _their_ state being able to do good on their pension promises. This
in turn means as mentioned in the article, a young person can earn $1700 and
put half towards bills and rent, and the rest is for entertainment. The trust
in the public safety nets is big (again you could argue we trust it too much
but it is what it is). A young person isn’t saving for unemployment, illness,
college, retirement. I think few low-30somethings in the Bay Area that has no
student debt, and has half their income as beer money after all savings,
insurance, rent, bills ... The hard part is comparing what money _is_ and what
it means in terms of quality of life. It’s _extremy_ difficult to do this (as
recurring discussions on HN prove). What does $56k mean? Depends on what you
need it for. What things cost.

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.

