Scandinavian social norms responsible for low poverty, not welfare state

[Toni]

Oh, how do I know whether my incredible affluence is the result of my English half or my Scandinavian half?

Don't forget how the Vikings raped and pillaged what is now England. Really, you probably just got a double dose of superior genes.

 

[ronburgundy]

Completely invalid inference that in no way follows from the premise. To reach this conclusion you must make another completely unsupported and almost certainly false assumption that the tiny sub-sample of Scandanavian-Americans and Scandavians as a whole are identical in every single aspect of their ideas, knowledge, reasoning capacity, goals, emotions, personality, and biology that could have any impact (no matter how indirect) upon their distribution of income relative to the poverty level.

See my above post for more on why this paper and all your claims related to it are pure pseudo-science.

You are actually making my point and you don't even realize it. It's the left that claims the low levels of poverty in Scandanavia are an acheivement of the welfare state. Yet they compare their rates of poverty to other countries as if the two populations are identical in every way.

No, your point was that a different causal conclusion can be validly inferred, not just that the left's conclusion is on shakey ground.

At least this comparison between these two groups is much closer to what the left compares to.

No, it is a much much farther a comparison. Two large geographic populations (e.g., US and Scandanavians) whose members are the member by historical accident and not choice will be far more similar to each other, than either group is to a tiny self-selected sub-set of either group that due to the many conditions that must be met to want to and succeed in making such a migratory transfer must be highly non-representative of either group.

Furthermore, the argumemt of the right is that individual characteristics are an important part of staying out of poverty. The very characteristics which you describe.

No, every theory across the spectrum allows a role for "individual characteristics", the difference is what is the source of those characteristics, how does context matter, and how big a role does each play compared to other factors. IOW, every theory could account for the results via allowing for "individual characteristics".


The right says that a combo of genetics and "good parenting" related to valid factors like talent and effort determine virtual all economic status. But left (or just not right) arguments say that many non-valid traits determine economic outcomes from skin color, to gender, height, attractiveness, sexuality, etc.. Also, such arguments often acknowledge the role of contextual factors that moderates how a trait impacts an outcome. For example, the characteristics of being tall, white, and a particular kind of good-looking are things which Scandinavians have in spades (racist pun intended). In Scandanavia those are not distinguishing traits so they don't impact relative outcomes, but in the US they are, especially with are high levels of racism, thus they give an advantage to Scandanavians living in the US. IOW, US racism could be the the key factor responsible for all the "data" in that paper. But even if it isn't, there are countless other factors that would account for it, without supporting rightist notions of factors tied to meritorious skill and effort.


The source of the "characteristics" matters too. Rightist (i.e., racists) presume that any characteristics that differ between ethnic groups are genetic or just some magical fairy that makes blacks less motivated. Rational people think that 500 years of slavery and state-sponsored discrimination which lasted in very formal explicit ways right up until a few decades ago probably is a major factor in determining whatever differences in "characteristics" that exist and impact wealth, education, crime rates, etc.. As to the present issue, it is quite plausible that random and systematically biased factors outside their or their parents control impacted the characteristics of the people that were more likely to migrate to the US and within the context of the US those characteristics increased income.

 

[ksen]

Hey ron, would you mind putting a space between your paragraphs? It would make your posts a lot easier to read.

Note, this is not a hit at the content of your posts. For the most part I like your posts and would just like to see them a little more readable.

Thanks buddy! :hug:

 

[laughing dog]

Since poverty among Scandanvian decendents in the US is equal or lower than those in Scandanavia, Scandanavian style welfare state isn't required to acheive such low levels of poverty (unless you consider the US a Scandanavian style welfare state).

I am curious - who has argued the position that it is REQUIRED?

 

[PyramidHead]

Since poverty among Scandanvian decendents in the US is equal or lower than those in Scandanavia, Scandanavian style welfare state isn't required to acheive such low levels of poverty (unless you consider the US a Scandanavian style welfare state).

I am curious - who has argued the position that it is REQUIRED?

Me too. I think bilby nailed it in the first response to the thread; more often, it's the right who says a robust welfare state is incompatible with a good economy, or at least a drag on the economy, all else being equal. Pointing to places in Scandinavia etc. that have both a robust welfare state AND low poverty is simply providing a counterexample to the stronger of those claims.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Prosperity comes first (the cause), and then the welfare state (effect).

more often, it's the right who says a robust welfare state is incompatible with a good economy, or at least a drag on the economy, all else being equal.

But they're partly right, if by "robust welfare state" is meant the Soviet Union or Cuba etc. Those "welfare states" were/are certainly more "robust" than some of the W. European welfare states, in terms of asserting the right of the poor to be taken care of and making inequality illegal and guaranteeing a "job" to everyone and putting people before profits etc.

Pointing to places in Scandinavia etc. that have both a robust welfare state AND low poverty . . .

The rule that explains this is: It's prosperity that creates socialist welfare states, not socialist welfare states that create prosperity. Low poverty came first, producing the welfare state, and the two then existed together.

This probably also explains why Minnesota has become more of a welfare state -- prosperous Scandinavians settled there (or rather, soon-to-become prosperous), raising the standard of living, and this higher level of prosperity led to the current welfare-state policies.

California used to be near the top of the list in prosperity, leading to a welfare state, but now its living standard is declining relative to other states. So there's no causal link of welfare state > prosperity.

But the causal link of prosperity > welfare state is without exception.

I.e., there's no prosperous state/nation that has not become a welfare state, and no welfare state (i.e., one that really takes care of the poor) that wasn't first prosperous.

 

[Sarpedon]

I'm still waiting to hear what these cultural norms actually are.

Does it have something to do with Lefse? Men stoically holding their feelings inside them, in contrast with those girly mediterraneans?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm still waiting to hear what these cultural norms actually are.

I think it's all about not talking with your hands. Put Mediterraneans' hands in restraint and they can never communicate. A Scandinavian talking on the phone conveys as much information as if you could see them.