
You Can't Have Denmark Without Danes - DanAndersen
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-23/you-can-t-have-denmark-without-danes
======
mrweasel
The trust that Danes have towards other people is slowly eroding, and it is
making us increasingly xenophobic. It's not that there aren't criminal or
untrustworthy Danes, of cause there is, but it's easier to blame outsiders,
like immigrants and roaming eastern European gangs.

As the article points out, we're struggling to absorb outsiders. Teaching a
Romanian immigrant, or a refugee from the middle east that it's completely
safe to trust others is extremely hard. Likewise when an outsider break that
trust Danes become extremely upset and hostile.

We're also becoming increasingly distrusting of other Danes, as people seem to
become increasingly self-centred. This was a debate in a radio show a few
weeks ago, sadly the reason wasn't discussed, only the danger of losing trust.
Trust is hard to build, and our government is increasingly looking towards
control and surveillance to ensure safety instead. Stores are moving certain
items up to the register, because thieve simply walk out with entire boxes of
Nutella or instant coffee.

As a Dane this is extremely disheartening to watch. The feeling that the safe,
stable, equal and embracing society, you grew up in, is slowly evaporating
isn't a pleasant one.

~~~
mieseratte
So, here's what I don't understand? If it causes societal trouble why let all
these troublesome groups in? Does Denmark have some long history as a "nation
of immigrants" like the United States does or is this some sort of self-
inflicted punishment?

~~~
nextos
Denmark got a first wave of immigration in the 60s. Mostly Turkish people.
They are reasonably well integrated.

The problem comes from the recent wave and semi-open borders within EU that
make it easy for some mafias to move into the country to commit crime. It's a
tought problem.

~~~
rsync
"Denmark got a first wave of immigration in the 60s. Mostly Turkish people.
They are reasonably well integrated."

I met a group of young, liberal, well-educated Danes on a trip to Japan once
and later, accepted their invitation to visit Denmark, where I stayed for
about ten days.

Make no mistake - these were picture-perfect Copenhagen Danes with exactly the
liberal and progressive bent that you would expect and they were quite well
educated and relatively wealthy (one of them even had a car!).

These people did not beat around the bush: they can't stand "the turks", they
don't understand why they are there or why they behave the way they do and
they cannot believe that their society has been infiltrated in this way.

It wasn't hateful, or even racist _per se_ ... just a very pragmatic rejection
of events.

This was in 2004 - I can't imagine they feel any better now.

~~~
RobertoG
A few months ago I had a similar conversation with a Norwegian guy complaining
about the number of immigrants in Norway. The funny thing is that the guy was
living in my country.

Of course, in his eyes he was not an immigrant, but an expatriate.

A little of effort trying to understand others can make wonders. Most
immigrants behave, a few not. Of those, a few are just bad persons, but most
are just poor an uneducated and probably they would prefer to be in their home
countries.

If immigrants are so problematic, maybe we should be looking into what, in
many cases, our governments are doing (or not doing) in their native
countries.

------
joncrane
I've been a fan of the Scandinavian model for government for a while, and I
used to be one of those guys who would say something like "in NORWAY they blah
blah blah" when discussing some social/governmental in a small group.

But later on I realized more deeply that Norway is a tiny fraction of the
population of the USA as well as a very culturally (and let's face it,
racially) homogeneous population.

Similar arguments can be made about Denmark, of course.

~~~
0xcde4c3db
What arguments are those, exactly? What's the significance of a smaller
population or homogeneity? Has any such relation been rigorously studied, or
is it just speculation?

~~~
jeromegv
Americans always tend to use homogeneity as an argument when they compare
themselves with other countries, like it’s somehow a good argument not to be
as good as other countries in some aspects. Like you, I doubt that this is
actually relevant. Canada is nothing but diverse, in a very similar way to the
US and somehow it’s never used an excuse.

~~~
rayiner
> Canada is nothing but diverse, in a very similar way to the US and somehow
> it’s never used an excuse.

Less than 20% of Canada is a "visible minority." In the U.S., it's almost 40%.
Toronto recently became a majority minority city. Washington, D.C. became a
majority minority city sometime in the 1950s. In Chicago, it was sometime in
the 1980s. Canada has no majority-minority provinces. Ontario is still 67%
European (roughly on par with Connecticut). Our two largest states, California
and Texas, are both majority-minority states.

Recency matters too. Much of Canada's diversity is very recent. American
politics has in contrast been shaped by these conflicts for decades (really,
from inception--we fought a whole civil war over race!).

~~~
muninn_
Where immigrants come from matters too - family-based system vs points-based
system.

------
PhilipA
Being from Denmark, but living in the US now, I see the main problem with
Denmark that a lot of people are complacent. While the system works now, I
doubt it will be positive in the long run. We are not hungry enough, and for
too many people right now it isn't worth it to work (Too little difference
between working wage and welfare).

Again, this is just a few negative statements, there are lot of positive areas
(Free hospitals and education comes to mind). If we could just be less
complacent we would have a lot better future.

~~~
arghwhat
At the same time, being from Denmark, I also think we have a strong tendency
for never being satisfied.

I do have a negative mindset against I welfare system and its lack of work
incentive, though. I feel like it should be handled differently, such as
through not giving you money, but rather feeding you directly. A system that
ensures _health and survival_ , nothing more.

I still remember the voice of some people being interviewed when some welfare
rates fell: "I have to sell my car now!", "Why does my living standard have to
be reduced just because I don't have a job?", "I'm not going to accept a job
at Netto, I'm too well educated for that"...

(For outsiders not understanding the "sell my car thing": Denmark is very
bicycle oriented, and have very good public transportation. Cars are only a
necessity if you live in the middle of nowhere.)

~~~
KozmoNau7
_I do have a negative mindset against I welfare system and its lack of work
incentive, though. I feel like it should be handled differently, such as
through not giving you money, but rather feeding you directly. A system that
ensures health and survival, nothing more._

Why shouldn't unemployed people be allowed to live a comfortable life, not
just the bare minimum of subsistence?

~~~
arghwhat
The primary reason is that there needs to be a strong incentive to get back to
work.

I know quite a few that have been on the unemployment safety net for years
(which appears to be quite a normal duration), and while it seemed to care for
them very well, a growing depression appears to be standard once you end up
there, which kills motivation to get out. I would assume that this is due to
one likely already being very vulnerable and at least halfway depressed when
unemployment hits you.

I don't think providing a stable and independent, but unhealthy environment
helps those people. We have tried to ensure progress by forcing people to go
to a job center every day, but if they're not motivated for a job, they won't
get any. It becomes a chore that just contributes to a pointless living.

The secondary reason is that it is expensive, and paid by the employed.
Getting people employed fast means more money to support when there is need.

~~~
KozmoNau7
The whole job center/activation system is a Kafkaesque nightmare of
demotivation and denigration, according to people who've been through it.

Instead of making the stick bigger and more scary, why don't we focus on
making the carrot tastier instead?

Having a job is not a goal in itself, having a decent life is. A job is simply
a tool to that end (and not the only one).

~~~
arghwhat
Ah, but that is exactly my point: You can lead a decent albeit depressed life
on unemployment support. What's your motivation to improve, especially
considering that you are in a position where motivation comes about as often
as pigs fly?

I don't think there is much of a way to make the goal "nicer" (we can't demand
that the jobs get better, and there is already significant benefit: better
living standard, better mental health), so the only solution I can think of is
to ensure that the hell you're in isn't comfortable enough that you just might
end up staying.

Yes, having a decent life is the goal, but in Denmark, the _only_ practical
means to that end in this country is through financial income (I'm ignoring
the option of already being filthy rich). If you wish to live without
finances, you would have to find a country where that is possible—even full
self-sufficiency is not free in Denmark. Likewise, avoiding a job, and thereby
consuming the fruits of our taxes without contributing, is frowned upon.

~~~
KozmoNau7
You don't motivate people by making their already shitty situation even
shittier. That just drives them even further into depression and hopelessness.

What we should be doing is giving them more help, better educational options,
activation courses that actually benefit them, instead of wasting their time.
Offer them actual training for another your of job, if the one they used have
isn't viable anymore. And drop the stupid requirements to send so and so many
applications every week, which is just pointless busywork.

Make a positive change, rather than a negative one.

I say let the couple hundred or so deliberately workshy persons be. You're
never going to convince them to work, and if you force them, they'll do a
shitty no-effort job of it, probably reducing other people's productivity in
the process. Just let them be, let them be artists or whatever. It's the least
costly option.

~~~
arghwhat
There are plenty of educational options. Most of the educational system is
free, you get financial support while using it, and some paid vocational
courses are free to the unemployed.

But it entirely misses the point: Those stuck are too depressed to help
themselves. Depression is very difficult to work with.

Furthermore, the stand-by situation of being stuck in unemployment is just as
good as a low-end job. In other words, _nothing_ about the situation provides
incentive to change it, especially not considering that those there have no
motivation to help themselves.

The workshy is an entirely different case. Those can't be helped as long as
the safety net is in place. They would probably help cure themselves if the
safety net wasn't there, but removing it would harm others.

~~~
KozmoNau7
_> Those stuck are too depressed to help themselves. Depression is very
difficult to work with._

And that is exactly why we need to _help_ them, instead of just beating them
with a bigger stick by making their situations even more hopeless.

 _> The workshy is an entirely different case. Those can't be helped as long
as the safety net is in place._

"Helped", as if not enjoying having to work is some kind of illness or
disability. It's perfectly natural, some people just don't enjoy work or being
bossed around, they have other impulses instead.

Why should they not be entitled to a comfortable life, simply because they
don't prioritize work?

Work is universally shit and a massive burden on one's private life and spare
time. Those claiming to enjoy their work are simply deluding themselves (or
they're basic simpletons). I know, because I've been there myself until I
realized what time-wasting grind it is. Since then I have only given exactly
what's needed, there is no incentive to go above and beyond , it simply isn't
valued anymore. The scales have tipped way too far, and these days loyalty
only goes one way, the wrong way. Everyone would be happier if we all worked a
bit less.

------
rdiddly
I notice the absorption of outsiders is portrayed as a goal, implying that
it's an unalloyed good, beyond question. Is there some good reason to think
that? I mean America prides itself on it, but is there any good reason to
think that (for example) Danes should be responsible for non-Danes? Or on a
basic level, what's wrong with having places exist in the world where the
people there are mostly from there? Isn't that what a nation is? And wouldn't
the people of such a place tend to exercise their sovereignty to decide, based
on whatever criteria they want to use, how many and which people they allow to
join the club? I dunno... Sure wish we could have a rational discussion about
it, without it degenerating into nationalist race-baiting on the one side and
jumping to conclusions and cries of xenophobia on the other.

~~~
rayiner
_If_ you're going to accept outsiders, you need to integrate them. That's
always been one of America's strengths--putting together a somewhat governable
country out of ethnic groups that had long been at war with each other in
their home countries (German, English, Irish, etc.), oh, and had enslaved each
other's ancestors (African Americans).

You don't need to accept outside immigration. Japan and Korea are very nice
countries that are almost completely ethnically homogenous. They're not good
at integrating foreigners, but they don't accept them anyway so it's moot. But
on the flip side, that probably dooms you to dying out as a civilization as
your birth rate falls below replacement levels...

~~~
pcwalton
> You don't need to accept outside immigration. Japan and Korea are very nice
> countries that are almost completely ethnically homogeneous.

You need to accept immigration if you want your economy to grow and be
sustainable. Japan is an example of what happens if you don't--just look at
the Nikkei 225 after 1990.

------
torpfactory
I think you see these effects in microcosm throughout the US as well. I grew
up in Wisconsin and there were definitely many similarities:

* Campfire wood for sale next to the highway with an unlocked mailbox for your payment (everyone else's payment just sitting there...). * Car stuck in the snowbank? Every time it happened to me, the very first car to come along has stopped to help dig it out. * At least in rural areas: many people did not lock their doors. Why would they? No need to.

Definitely the best piece of writing I have seen in some time about one of the
Scandinavian countries that American liberals (of which I count myself a
member) always hold up as ideals. The model only works in the context of a
society that doesn't _need_ as much assistance, regulation, or policing. The
author makes a persuasive argument that high levels of trust are an important,
or maybe the defining feature of this society.

~~~
DanAndersen
A couple summers back, I went to a state park in rural Indiana, where there
was a working farm set up to resemble historical 1920s Midwestern life. The
farm and its farmhouse were almost completely deserted except for myself, and
I remember being struck by the fact that there was a large amount of homegrown
produce for sale in the house completely on an honor system. Just a pile of
squash on a kitchen table with a sign indicating price and a glass jar with
money in it. It was a small thing, but it was great to see that that was
possible, and it felt good for me to join in.

------
rsync
You can have perfect trains and bicycles everywhere or you can invent jazz and
snowboarding. You can't do both.

As someone who lives in the US but does business, and travels, in Europe
frequently, I would prefer that the immigrants come to the melting pot (the
US) and that the European countries retain their distinctiveness.

~~~
justin66
> You can have perfect trains and bicycles everywhere or you can invent jazz
> and snowboarding. You can't do both.

Baffling.

------
giovannicarruba
I wonder why five islamic terrorist attacks didn't seem to have any impact on
Denmark, while France and Germany have escalated their police states to
incredible levels. Is it also because of all the trust? Do people in Denmark
maybe trust that the police will catch the perpetrators, while we in Germany
know that the Police no longer even tries to catch petty thieves and could
never be trusted to avoid a terrorist plot?

~~~
scarlac
Dane here. I live 500 meters from one of the attacks. I've been happy with how
the police has handled the terrorist situations. I do not fear going past the
place of the attack - it's not a trend. We have no guns allowed, no large
knives, no pepper spray, etc. In terms of effective anti-terrorist means, I
don't see what I could ask of politicians. What usually happens is terrorist
attacks put immigration on the political agenda. In that sense I don't see
Denmark reacting much differently than USA, France, or others, where
immigrants are sometimes directly accused of being terrorists, stealing jobs,
stealing the women, stealing welfare, etc.

------
DanAndersen
A tangential concept that might be of interest to the commenters is the Arabic
term "asabiyyah" [0]:

>`Asabiyya or asabiyyah (Arabic: عصبيّة) refers to social solidarity with an
emphasis on unity, group consciousness and sense of shared purpose, and social
cohesion,[1] originally in a context of "tribalism" and "clanism".

The 14th-century Arab historian Ibn Khaldun talked about it in a cyclical
sense, related to rise and fall of civilizations, and had dire descriptions
about when societies lost asabiyyah.

In general, it's a sort of group feeling or solidarity, a sense that you and
those around you are on the same side and have each other's backs -- as
opposed to a society where you don't know your neighbors and you just happen
to live among a bunch of other people who have no aligned interests or goals.
Even the so-called "rugged individualism" mythos of early pioneer/settler
American colonists still was embedded in nested layers of communal structure,
layers that can seem invisible when you're constantly immersed in it.

What I think makes this and the Denmark article interesting is that they're
trying to point at a concept that is inherently fuzzy and qualitative (how do
you measure units of social cohesion?), and yet seems to play an important
role in how a social system works. Tweaking a policy knob here or adjusting a
legislative knob there may have influences on this, but the possible effects
are constrained and filtered through the ever-present culture. Everything is
part of the system (think about the laws we have in which implicit expectation
of selective enforcement is what makes it even functional, like speeding).
People are both code (their DNA) and its expression in the environment
(epigenetics). Programming teams are both the tools they use (IDEs, source
control, Agile, etc) and the fuzzy culture that makes it work well in Company
A and fail utterly when trying to apply it to Company B.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asabiyyah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asabiyyah)

------
hirundo
The internet is trumping geography. As we live progressively more of our lives
online, we interact with progressively more different people. It becomes
progressively less important how much trust we have for our meatspace
neighbors. Most of us have had oodles of conversations and economic
transactions with people on other continents while the people next door remain
strangers.

With all of that online interacting, global interpersonal trust may rise, but
won't approach Danish levels in our lifetimes. We cannot base our social
systems on trust. But we can base them on transparency, which, eventually,
builds trust.

------
sprash
High trust societies are the way they are because of genetic traits of its
citizens. Especially in Scandinavian and other northern countries for tens of
thousands of years the individual was only able to survive the long winter
when it was able to think ahead and to cooperate in large groups. Like the
skin color that fact must have some evolutionary impact for behavior. However
those are things of the past. Bringing in migrants from low trust societies
will once and for all destroy this culture of trust. Every integration measure
so far has failed the past and will fail in the future as long as people
ignore the fact that it takes certain strictly inheritable traits to be part
of those communities.

------
namlem
Denmark is not the only country we should be comparing to. What about Canada
and New Zealand? Both Anglosphere countries with pretty diverse populations.

~~~
JonnyNova
Is we referring to the United States?

