
The American Dream Isn’t Alive in Denmark - monort
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/the-american-dream-isnt-alive-in-denmark/494141/?single_page=true
======
mrweasel
It's always somewhat weird to compare countries, because mentality in each
country is so very different.

For instance:

> But despite this far greater investment in young children and public
> colleges, Danish children of high-school graduates are still extremely
> unlikely to go onto college.

While that may be true, it's not the point. The point is you should have the
option to go to college, regardless of parents background or financial status.

This bit is also a little over the top:

>Based on this finding, the researchers conclude that welfare policies may
reduce college enrollment. Denmark makes it more comfortable to be poor and
less lucrative to be rich, so many young people decide to end their education
after high school.

The wording make it sound worse than it is. There's an extremely limited set
of job you can hold in Denmark, with just a high school education. While there
are certainly more "uneducated" young people in Denmark, than most of us
believe, it not really a career path. It will almost certainly put you on
unemployment benefits, which makes you poorer than most people care for.

It should be noted that there are also other option after high school than
just college.

~~~
coldtea
>>"Denmark makes it more comfortable to be poor and less lucrative to be rich,
so many young people decide to end their education after high school".

> _The wording make it sound worse than it is._

Absolutely, and it's BS...

As if most people that go into university in the US get "rich".

The Danish "poor" in the sense that the article mentions (e.g. working/middle
class people with no university education) make a much nicer living/lifestyle
that lots of US university graduates, and with much less debt as well.

~~~
lastyearman
In Finland it's almost common knowledge that university is a poor guarantee
for wealth. I think on average in a blue collar job you can earn more and have
easier time finding one (doctors being probably the only exception).

~~~
JoeAltmaier
In US its been true for a generation that doctor,lawyer,engineer are the only
good-payback educations

~~~
vibrato
It seems to me that at least law school has been a poor investment for nearly
a generation, and medical school is trending that way.

[http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib](http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib)

------
jernfrost
Claiming it is all about taxes and transfers is severely twisting the facts.
Look up the difference between the lowest paid workers and CEOs in nordic
countries compared to the US. It is a huge difference. Our engineers make
about the same as American engineers, our doctors and surgeons make
significantly less and so does the CEOs. However the McDonalds workers, shop
clerks etc make several times the hourly salary of an American McDonalds
worker.

So mobility from the bottom to the top might be no better, but the need to do
move is far less as people make decent wages across the whole spectrum. It
isn't purely about money either. The lower percentage of American have
significantly more problems in terms of education, knowledge, health,
government influence etc than their Nordic peers.

~~~
exelius
> Claiming it is all about taxes and transfers is severely twisting the facts.
> Look up the difference between the lowest paid workers and CEOs in nordic
> countries compared to the US. It is a huge difference.

But that's likely due to the system of taxes and transfers. The government
subsidizes low-end jobs in the form of minimum wage laws; and it makes far
less sense for a company to continue to hike the pay of its CEO when 75% of
that money goes directly to the government in the form of taxes.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
FYI there are no minimum wage laws in the Nordic countries [1], including
Denmark. But there are collective bargaining processes with unions which
effectively set a minimum floor for a lot of jobs.

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

------
sveme
Governments can only do so much to increase intergenerational social mobility.
When I look at my peers and myself, it is obvious that it is extremely
difficult to emancipate yourself from the role model that is your parents.
They are not necessarily role models you follow consciously, but they
determine the borders of your imagination. If your family comes from a
worker's background, it is extremely hard to imagine that there might be
another path in life for you - you simply follow what your kin has been doing
in their lifes.

The German society can be in principle classified into three social strata:
workers (factory, craftsmen etc.), office employees and academics. This comes
from the strong early selection into the three-parted school system, which
determines at age ten or twelve whether you have the cognitive abilities to
succeed in one of these three tracks. So at age ten or twelve, you are either
selected to join Hauptschule, Realschule or Gymnasium. The first school
prepares you to become a worker, car mechanic, hair dresser etc. The second
school prepares you to become an office employee, the third prepares you for a
life of an academic. Now the twist is, that it is generally your social
stratum that decides which school you attend and therefore which track you
will follow, thereby perpetuating this low intergenerational social mobility
for a long time. Your parents often decide that you will be going to
Realschule, which is what they themselves attended - or Gymnasium when your
parents are academics.

Escaping this track that was selected for you at a young age is much harder
than just following it. An example: my parents followed both the second track:
Realschule, then an _Ausbildung_ to become office workers. My sisters both
followed this track and had therefore lives nearly identical to that of our
parents. I was the only one to follow the track to become an academic, and
with the lack of role models in my vicinity, this was always accompanied by
self doubt and simply a lack of being self-confident in the academic
environment.

Getting rid of the influence your social environment has on the borders of
your imagination is the really hard part for any educational system.

~~~
wolfgke
To give a different view: My father was a working-class child (he is an
academic). He really can't understand what the problem is: Just be very
diligent in school and you will be good enough for the Gymnasium (this is the
road he and in a different way his brother took). On the other hand: If you
aren't very hardworking how can you even be considered as able for academic
studies? In his view the problem doesn't lie in the three tracks per se, but
in the fact that in many working-class families being very diligent and
hardworking in school isn't valued enough. Children from academic families
will much more often be drilled from childhood on to work very hard for
school. He claims he has yet to see a bright child from a working-class family
that works very hard for school and will not get a recommendation for
Gymnasium (and because of his former job he has seen lots of children).

I also know some people who just got bored of their worker or office job and
went to evening school to get their Abitur later. Again this requires being
diligent and hardworking, but it is quite possible.

So I don't see the problem in the three tracks per se. Instead it is a fact
that if you want to move up (or do academic studies) you better love to work
very hard. And this is a behaviour that is drilled much more into the minds of
children of academic families than children of working-class families.

~~~
sveme
It's not a different view, it's actually reinforcing my quintessentially banal
point that parents and social environment are factors that are hard to
influence by governmental policies. I'm, by the way, a similar example, having
become an academic despite having a non-academic family background.

The basic question is, where did your father get his wish to become an
academic from? How did he manage to maintain the belief in himself despite
having no academic role models?

"diligence and hard work" is just scratching the explanatory surface.

~~~
wolfgke
> The basic question is, where did your father get his wish to become an
> academic from?

I doubt whether he even explicitly had the wish to become an academic when he
was in school. I know what kind of person my grandfather was (very obsessed on
learning; also for himself) and this would answer the question. So let's
imagine that my grandfather was a quite different kind of person. But in this
case because he was so hardworkind (by his nurture) and sufficiently good in
school about any teacher would have persuaded my grandfather into letting my
father study because anything else would have been a waste.

Thus he would have given no other option. If not from my grandfather then from
his teachers. And because of the latter I still stand by the point that my
father made: He has yet to see a hardworking child from a working-class family
that will not get a recommendation letter for Gymnasium (or a hardworking
child from a working-class family that is very good in school for which the
teachers would not try very hard to convince the parents to let them study).

> How did he manage to maintain the belief in himself despite having no
> academic role models?

I can't even imagine why the US-Americans are so obsessed on role models (in
Germany this is a word that hardly anyone uses). I had no role model: I
studied mathematics and computer science and I know no person in the extended
family of which I claim that he or she has an above average talent in
empirical or structural sciences, is working in this area or has studied
something in this direction. I studied it since I was very good in mathematics
and computer science and loved these areas.

My father and my sister also had no role model (and particularly for my sister
I'm _very_ sure about it).

~~~
sveme
You misunderstand my point. I wasn't really criticizing the German school
system, I am fully aware that there are plenty of examples of people that did
not follow in their parent's footsteps. In both ways, by the way.

The experience of your father came from your grandfather's hardworking ethos.
What would have happened if your grandfather would not have instilled this in
your father? What would have happened if your father would not have instilled
this in you? Anyone's parent influences their kid's educational pathway in
myriads of ways: are there books at home? What kinds of books? Is it mostly
the TV that acts as a nanny? Are there computers, or are they computer-
illiterate? Do your parents make you believe that you can choose your own
path, or are they instilling you with the belief that what they have is good
enough for you as well?

You have experienced examples of the first kind: a family that creates a
learning environment, with the experience of your father that social strata
are permeable. I have a different experience which made it much harder for me.

Maybe role model is the wrong word - instead ask yourself what kind of mental,
imaginative boundaries have been nurtured by your family in you (few!) and
what kind of mental boundaries have been nurtured in others, that are living
the same lives as their parents despite maybe being pretty smart?

~~~
wolfgke
> What would have happened if your grandfather would not have instilled this
> in your father?

That you pose this question rather shows that you don't understand my
argument: I wanted to document that it is not that important from what class
you come, but rather that hardworking, intelligent children from any class can
move up.

In other words: In any class it is possible to live an acceptable life (#),
thus many parents from non-academic class don't consider it as so much
necessary for their child to move up in society (and (#) is actually quite
good news!) in opposite to the strict necessity that my fatherly grandfather
saw for his children to move up in society.

------
Broken_Hippo
The American Dream includes things like everyone having rights and
opportunities to move towards being happy and successful, not necessarily
whether or not they do better than their parents or not. It seems that it is
more that they do, indeed, have the opportunity to do so. Instead most folks
find themselves a victim of their circumstances which takes away from
opportunity. I find the entire framing of the article to be misguided. And as
a sidenote, I never felt that was possible living in the US.

Then I moved to Norway. Similar to Denmark, with a lot of shared values and
history, but of course there are differences. Even as an immigrant, if I work
at it, I have the opportunity to become successful. The definition of success
is a bit different, and it seems at the higher rungs it can take a bit more
work to mirror what Americans found 'successful'. The term is very different.
I most definitely have the opportunity for happiness, despite the monetary
"success". It might be less important for everyone to go to college proper,
even, due to some specialized training happening before folks reach 18.
College depends more on if you do the work to meet the entry requirements, and
if you didn't, there are still ways for you to go later on. It isn't a bad
thing to work retail for the rest of your life - and you won't be as poor
working such a job. A lot of this "socialism" folks complain about make it
easier to reach a version of the American Dream even if you aren't
'successful' by american standards.

~~~
digi_owl
Best i recall, the by the time the concept was formulated, the condition for
its existence was already on the way out of US society. At its core, it was
reliant on the ability for anything to travel somewhere, build a house, farm
the land, and then claim it as their own after a few years.

This in contrast to the situation in Europe for the same time period, where
most farmers rented the land they worked, and paid either in produce or by
assisting the landowner during harvest etc.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
I believe you are correct. Conditions weren't great in Europe, and the states
gave away land in some areas. Some meaning started to change during the 50's,
I believe.

Oddly enough, the American Dream and land of opportunity sort of thing still
lives in the mind of some folks that have never visited, and it would seem so
in comparison to their home country.

------
gaius
Any discussion of economics or social mobility in Denmark that doesn't mention
Janteloven is missing the mark
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante)

~~~
fsloth
HN ftw once again - I live in Finland have never heard this articulated this
clearly before. It's very much alive here as well (based on purely anecdotal
evidence).

------
jonlandrum
_" Denmark’s economic philosophy seems to be that the market is an unfortunate
socioeconomic lottery system"_

Exactly this. People born to wealthy families have literally won the
socioeconomic lottery without trying.

~~~
thisisbad
Good looking, tall people have literally won the genetic lottery without
trying.

Look at inheritance as a payment for providing happiness and support. If a
wealthy man has a wife that makes him happy and supports him, then why would
it be a problem if he leaves her 50% of his wealth?

Children, especially your own, are a great source of happiness and motivation.
Some people work mainly to leave wealth to their children and other family
members - it's their main motivation.

I don't understand people who have problems with other people giving their
money to those they love (children, spouse, relatives, friends etc.).

It's kinda funny - people who are for forced redistribution at a gunpoint,
want to give people money just for existing. But, if someone wants to give
their own children money for existing and making them happy, then it's a
problem.

~~~
pjc50
There's a difference between leaving a modest family house/farm to your kids
versus someone inheriting a business empire worth millions. Especially if that
means the inheritor refuses to acknowledge that not everyone has it that easy.
It's not so much the giving that's objected to as the receiving.

Especially when there are other children suffering the effects of poverty in
childhood that will give them lifelong disadvantages.

~~~
thisisbad

      There's a difference between leaving a modest family house/farm to your kids versus someone inheriting a business empire worth millions.
    

What difference? Inheritance = payment for providing happiness and support in
life. The amount can be whatever you want - millions, billions or nothing at
all.

If someone has a business worth millions and decides to leave it to his wife
or children, then that would be a financial compensation for making his life
better. It's up to them to decide what to do with the money they've made.

    
    
      It's not so much the giving that's objected to as the receiving.
    

Who is objecting to other people receiving money from someone who wants to
give it to them voluntarily? It's crazy what envy does to people.

Beautiful people receive more positive attention and get compliments all the
time. Should they mutilate themselves, so they don't receive attention
anymore?

    
    
      Especially when there are other children suffering the effects of poverty in childhood that will give them lifelong disadvantages.
    

So what? Why would wealthy people have an obligation to help poor people?
There are ugly people, which doesn't mean beautiful people should mutilate
themselves and make previously ugly people look better in comparison.

~~~
pjc50
There's no need to make the _Harrison Bergeron_ argument. It all comes down
to:

> Why would wealthy people have an obligation to help poor people?

Well, this is a whole question of what a "society" is and the nature of mutual
obligation towards both other members of our society and other humans in
general. If one day I should find you collapsed in the street, remind me that
we don't have any obligations towards each other.

~~~
thisisbad

      There's no need to make the Harrison Bergeron argument
    

If there is no need, then why are you writing about inheritance (paying
someone who made you happy) in a negative way? Why are you focusing on money,
but not on beauty, fame, intelligence etc. ?

    
    
      It all comes down to: > Why would wealthy people have an obligation to help poor people?
    

It doesn't.

It also comes down to:

> _Why would beautiful people have an obligation to help ugly people?_

Nobody is making the argument that beautiful people should mutilate themselves
to make ugly people look better in comparison, right? But, why not? Beauty,
wealth, fame, intelligence etc. are all examples of privilege. So, why focus
on money? Why does it all come down to money?

    
    
      Well, this is a whole question of what a "society" is and the nature of mutual obligation towards both other members of our society and other humans in general.
    

What is your answer to that and why should I accept it? It seems that society
is different things to different people. If you're envious and bitter, then
society is about helping losers. If you're healthy and wealthy, then society
is about stability.

    
    
      If one day I should find you collapsed in the street, remind me that we don't have any obligations towards each other.
    

Of course we don't. You might help someone because it makes you feel good or
your social status will increase (which in turn makes you feel good). Not
because of some vague, abstract concept like obligation/duty that you have
towards members of homo sapiens species.

~~~
pjc50
People need money to live, not any of the other things.

~~~
thisisbad
That's false, since money is a recent invention. It's like saying "Cats need
Whiskas to live".

Even if it were true, so what? If someone needs money to live, how does that
imply that money should be taken from those who have it and be given to those
who don't?

You might need positive attention to feel good about yourself (since you're
ugly). Does that mean that the attention beautiful people receive should be
directed towards ugly people (by mutilating beautiful people)?

~~~
lastyearman
Because those who have it did not create it in a vacuum. And after all, there
is nothing but a mutual agreement that those who do not have won't take it
from those who have, and that agreement includes whatever welfare said society
has.

------
InclinedPlane
I'll just butt in here to add a huge caveat that almost never gets brought up
in these sorts of articles: Denmark is small, really small.

It has a population of only 5.7 million, if it were part of the US it would
fit in between the 11th and 12th largest cities (Atlanta and Detroit).

So imagine, for example, reading an article about the state of things in
Detroit, Atlanta, or Houston, and imagine the author attempting to make big,
sweeping conclusions based on that data. I suspect you'd likely take any such
conclusions with a grain of salt much more than you would when you hear about
what's going on in Denmark, because we all know Denmark is a huge and
important country. Denmark is neat and all, with plenty of reasons to justify
people who don't live there finding it interesting, but it isn't necessarily a
land that one can directly map onto the entire nation of America (across a
gulf of about two orders of magnitude in population alone) and expect them to
be comparable.

~~~
drabiega
I've heard this argument quite a bit but never quite understood what the
problem was supposed to be. Could you articulate why you think the comparison
is troublesome?

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Culture, shared history.

In a country of 5.7 million people where the capital has a metro population of
around 2 million people I imagine it's a lot easier for people to want to care
for each other.

I imagine that the Danish fit the notion of 'nation'[1] much more closely than
people from the US.

Or at least, I think that's how the argument is supposed to go.

Like another comment said, perhaps it's just an excuse. A case could be made
that went something like "Look, if the Danish can do it so can we", or "Let's
look at what the best in the world are doing then model and copy their
behaviour where it makes senses for us to do so."

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

------
aedron
It may be that social heritage is a big factor in determining a person's life
path, but that doesn't mean economic factors aren't. The fact remains that in
Denmark, any kid, no matter how poor, who has talent and puts in the effort,
has nothing stopping him from getting a degree from the top universities in
the country. Tuition is free and s/he will even get paid a stipend to attend.

Perhaps most working class kids will stay working class, but others, e.g.
immigrants, or children of substance abusers, who have the talent but not the
resources, can go straight to the top if they just do their homework. And it
works. Examples are all over the place.

------
flexie
Yesterday I saw the same study mentioned in Washington Post and I got really
bummed about how journalists always seem to miss the point or at least chose
an angle that twists everything (1).

This article from The Atlantic gives a more nuanced description of the study's
findings.

1:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/03/there...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/03/theres-
only-one-way-to-save-the-american-dream/?tid=sm_fb)

------
nerdponx
> But Denmark’s economic philosophy seems to be that the market is an
> unfortunate socioeconomic lottery system, and so the country compensates the
> poor with generous transfers paid by high taxes on the rich.

This to me is the heart of the Sanders economic philosophy as well. Everything
else is an attempt to convince people that it's a _better_ philosophy.

------
timwaagh
they didn't mention where pretax social mobility is highest. that's something
I'm interested in. Perhaps the american dream is most alive in a place we
don't expect.

~~~
jackcosgrove
Not sure about mobility across generations, but pre-tax income inequality is
lowest in Taiwan and Poland.

[https://ourworldindata.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/ourwor...](https://ourworldindata.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/ourworldindata_income-inequality-before-and-after-
taxes-and-transfers-–-max-roser.png)

------
IOT_Apprentice
Wow. What titlegore. A different country has different culture?

