Me too, I don't see how something that assumes a lot of good faith is going to work when many countries have trouble with popular support for their current restrictive and measurably effective programs. The only way I see it happening is with some sort of sovereign wealth fund. But that usually requires control of a resource or technology. Which most countries don't have anymore and probably won't have for many decades.
I don't really find the law of jante very applicable to Scandinavia, at least not uniquely so. Scandinavia is in many ways one of the most individualistic places in the world, in terms of things like social values or religion.
It's seem like most people who mention the law either seem to describe things prevalent in many parts of the world, don't agree with egalitarianism or dislikes the fore mentioned individualism.
I think it's vital to keep in mind the setting of A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks when discussing it. The law is presented both as a result of, and a way of maintaining the large class divide in 1930s small towns like Jante: Calvinist work ethic and a lack of upward mobility festering into resentment for other working-class people.
This is why I'm a little skeptical of attempts to invoke it for modern Scandinavia (especially since it's become somewhat of a rhetorical bludgeon used in favor of tax cuts)
Yeah I think it is hard to explain scandinavia to people as it is both extremely indiviualistic and group oriented. The collectivism in Scandinavia is not quite like in asia, although there is some overlapping. My own experience with asian culture is that it is far more paternalistic and top down. Scandinavians tend to be extremely anti-elite and anti-hierarchy while at the same time placing a large trust in government.
I don't deny there is a certain consensus driven culture with a general fear of conflict. But I don't agree that Scandinavia in particular has, as people tend to argue, a dislike for successful people nor necessarily of people being different, as long as there is also substance. Especially with there being so many well liked successful Scandinavians. It seems to me like people most often mean:
A) That the grass is greener somewhere else. Which can be true in many cases, but is usually more down to individual circumstances.
B) That they like more appreciation for their social status. As in more egalitarian societies few things are by themselves impressive.
C) Or that they actually want more collectivism and people to be invested in their success, in contrast to the sometimes cold Scandinavian individualism.
In term more destructive collectivism I think the US/UK (who loves to hate celebrities), central Europe (where everyone have only themselves to blame) and Asia (with a lot of social pressure) is worse.
I'm not sure that's true. Sweden regularly feature quite far up on these "highest engineering salaries" lists [0]. I think Swedes have adopted sort of a strange outlook these days. Maybe because of avoiding the financial crisis, or at least thinking they did. People attend university for 5+ years, vacation three times a year, get into huge debt 'buying' an apartment or summer home, get a large brand name car and go on long parental leave. Preferably before hitting 30. The result being that private debt is larger than ever and the government has been selling assets like never before to keep the people happy. All great things of course, but unlikely to make one rich (at least by working).
There's no problem getting rich by working in Sweden if you keep your costs in check (which is hard to do these days), don't over educate yourself (also hard with high youth unemployment) and eschew some of the social benefits by working in less comfortable conditions (which is becoming the default anyways).
Doesn't mean you'll be super rich just by working of course, but that's not really true anywhere. At least not if your family isn't already. If it's really a priority one could of course leverage the competitiveness of most Swedes education, attitude and knowledge of languages by going to Zurich, London or (a large city in) the US for a few years.
I think that's true. But it's also that he Swedish concept of welfare has traditionally included the broader concept of "the welfare state". Meaning that welfare doesn't just apply to social security as such but the availability and quality of housing, education, care, transport and, as you say, even recreational activities.
It's not that sport organizations in Sweden are open to everyone out of the goodness of their hearts (though I think many people support it). It's because they are required to if they want to be registered as non-profits, receive government funding, rent subsidized facilities owned by the state etc.
Regarding sports there is nothing stopping anyone from starting an entirely profit driven club, like most gyms for example, as far as I know. I think it's mostly a matter of tradition. And the financial support you get for that type of broadly run organisation, not just sport. But that too speaks to the egalitarian traditions.
What's stopping them is of course that they can't compete with non-profits that are being subsidized by the state. (Which I don't disagree with). Sure, it is a tradition, but like many things it's enabled by the laws on the books.
For instance the school system isn't very egalitarian, at least not in Stockholm, these days (nor is the housing market for that matter). The school system is quite different compared to e.g. Finland. The laws changed and so did the quality of different school. "Grade inflation" is very common etc.
Ah, but they would be able to compete with the subsidised, volunteer run organisations if there was greater willingness to pay for a more professionally run club, with better facilities etc. This does happen for some sports, such as gyms where there is a market for upscale clubs, but not for football for example, to my knowledge. People would just feel weird about putting their children in a luxury football club.
Every year when it's time to sign the children up for ballet, football, gymnastics etc it's the same thing, extremely high pressure on all clubs, places fill up within hours. I'm sure that if it wasn't for Jante, there would be a huge market for more expensive clubs with shorter queues.
In what sense is the school system not egalitarian? It's not very good anymore, true, but that has other causes. I mean all schools cost the same, i.e. nothing, and anyone can apply to any school. It's even forbidden to charge for school lunch, or even ask children to bring fruits because "some people may not be able to afford that" (though this is going way too far in my opinion).
I agree that housing has changed, and prices are getting pretty crazy in places. But regardless of the price differentials between areas, which still are far from as extreme as in the US, my point is more that it doesn't matter as much which area you live in, your quality of life will be pretty similar. Building standards are extremely high in Sweden so even the cheapest places are pretty robustly made at least. And the houses on the most expensive addresses are still relatively modest, there are no doormen or valets or crazy things like that. The differences are more subtle, and there is less showing off.
I don't think so. It used to be like 10-15 years ago when many of these startups were created, but things have changed since then. Many people are in denial though since they already have their education, apartment and insurance.
It used to be possible (or at least not impossible) to rent an fairly cheap apartment close to the city and find a way to do something on your own. Conditions for getting a student loan, leave of absence or unemployment used to be more favorable.
Since 10 years ago the government have been actively trying to get more people to work. With the consequence that it is harder to do anything else. Studying, getting unemployment (risking your job) and living (housing costs have doubled) has all become harder to do. Most people these days would risk their job or apartment and do something on their own, because chances are will have a significant reduction in life quality if they fail.
Most startup activities these days seem to be running around cocktail parties trying to get (more) investors for you local clone of something else. Which is understandable, people need to pay their mortgage and attain social standing, but it's largely the opposite of what has made some Swedish startups successful in the first place.
One could try getting investments. But while Sweden is in generally has high degree of equality, it can also be very insular. Especially in recent times as social status matters a lot. You shouldn't expect to show up and compete based on your ideas. It's very much "who you know".
