10

A Bloomberg article by the economist Tyler Cowen attributes the following claims to Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism by Nima Sanandaji:

Danish-Americans have a measured living standard about 55 percent higher than the Danes in Denmark. Swedish-Americans have a living standard 53 percent higher than the Swedes, and Finnish-Americans have a living standard 59 percent higher than those back in Finland.

Are these statistics accurate?

Jayson Virissimo
  • 3,155
  • 3
  • 20
  • 27
Dario
  • 119
  • 1
  • 3
  • We can't address a *whole book* in an answer. Also, please try to be neutral in your wording. You might not agree with the claim, which is perfectly fine, but coloring the question induces bias. Our questions need to be useful also for the *next person* coming through a search engine. – Sklivvz Aug 22 '16 at 12:44
  • 3
    I changed the link to go to the original article. This cites sources and explains then reasons why you might not want to rush to conclusions from the data. – DJClayworth Aug 22 '16 at 16:49
  • 17
    You'd expect this of any pair of first-world countries, because migration between first-world countries tends to be done by (and often, limited by law to) wealthier, higher educated people. In fact the article addresses this: "laborers were underrepresented [among Danes travelling to the US] and artisans and craftsmen were overrepresented by a factor of two. It is perhaps no wonder that the ethnic Danes in the U.S. are relatively high earners, because they are the results of a process of positive selection". You'd expect Americans in Scandinavia to be better off than average Americans, too – user56reinstatemonica8 Aug 23 '16 at 11:12

2 Answers2

6

It is very hard to do a comparison when priorities are this different. One of the central questions boils down to: How do you actually measure living standard?

Given that living standard is usually at least partially measured as a function of disposable income it becomes a bit problematic of a measure. The original article notes that there is a bias towards higher earners in the data set:

or one thing, Nordic immigrants to the United States probably came from the better trained, more literate and more ambitious segments of the population

and later

It is perhaps no wonder that the ethnic Danes in the U.S. are relatively high earners, because they are the results of a process of positive selection.

It is thus not very surprising that USA comes ahead as the data is biased. Especially since the median disposable income of after purchasing parity 30,616 in USA versus 27,304 in Denmark according to wikipedia compiled list. While this list is not entirely accurate it is already in favor of USA by about 10 percent. Since we can conclude that the migrants probably are higher earners its more likely that the difference is even bigger than median in a group that is biased to higher pay.

Second point is also noted by the article itself Denmark is a small country which leads to less wealth inequality:

Furthermore, larger countries tend to have higher levels of income inequality than do smaller countries

On top of this Nordic countries rank low in income inequality due to generic policy that actively strives for keeping the disparity low.

So in the end if you have a system that gains certain benefits from equalizing peoples income and somewhat aggressive progressive taxation. Then it is highly likely that the life earnings of your person is lower. On the other hand these priorities give a lot of intangible benefits that are hard to measure and the numbers are hardly fair, a person with lower income may be better of when other factors are considered. But this is hard to prove and in any case easy to hand wave the data as inaccurate in face of hard numeric evidence of simple measurements.

I personally expect USA to beat all Nordic countries with any easily measured index simply because USA is richer. Because I am from Finland I hardly think Nordic countries are a utopia, I can see flaws daily. But the point of the argument is that USA could probably be much better of with a bit softer social policy which the numbers do not measure very well. However this said moving from a low social cohesion to a higher one seems to be challenging, but if any country can reinvent itself in this way USA has the possibility to do so.

PS: I am aware that my citations are weak and i should dig a bit deeper into the subject so take this with a grain of salt if you may.

joojaa
  • 177
  • 1
  • 6
  • 3
    "Nordic immigrants to the United States probably came from the better trained, more literate and more ambitious segments of the population" That would count more if they weren't also dead (for the most part). The typical emigrant arrived in the US between 1850 and 1930 and would be at least eighty-six now. The cited statistics don't compare emigrants to current citizens. They compare the living descendants of emigrants to current citizens. – Brythan Aug 26 '16 at 15:09
  • Good point @Brythan Money tends to pay for the next generations education. So higher educated parents are most likely to have better educated children. In either case Most of the social policies of nordic countries also did not come to play untill after that. But yes the article says this is part of the bias. – joojaa Aug 26 '16 at 15:12
  • "Especially since the median disposable income of after purchasing parity 30,616 in USA versus 27,304 in Denmark according to wikipedia compiled list." I'm not sure that you understand what the claim is. Bernie Sanders (and others) claim that Sweden, Norway, and Denmark currently have higher living standards than the USA. The claimed statistics in this question are counters to that. This is an example of another counter (specific to Denmark), although they would point out that the USA uses disposable income to pay for things that are provided by the government in Denmark. – Brythan Aug 26 '16 at 15:16
  • "On the other hand these priorities give a lot of intangible benefits that are hard to measure and the numbers are hardly fair, a person with lower income may be better of when other factors are considered." And the specific statistic that you picked reduces that measurement, as it subtracts out spending on government (taxes). But you provide no evidence that the original source used the same statistic you did. So it is a bit disingenuous to use that statistic without recalculating their statistic using that statistic. Since that statistic favors the USA more than similar statistics. – Brythan Aug 26 '16 at 15:23
  • @Brythan My point is that since living standard is such a diffuse concept you can claim what you want. Since its up to the person compiling the data to decide how much weight they put intangible functions. So you can always say that the standard is wherever you want. Yes i should really look up the sources of the statistics but they were not very well resented. – joojaa Aug 26 '16 at 15:24
  • "I personally expect USA to beat all Nordic countries with any easily measured index simply because USA is richer." But most statistics don't show that. Most statistics show the reverse, that the Nordic countries are higher. The USA is bigger and has more GDP overall. If you normalize per capita, the statistics show something different. Unless you subtract out government spending, and that only changes Denmark. Sweden and Norway have higher disposable incomes. Only Finland is consistently lower income. Finland is often included because of the excellence of its educational statistics. – Brythan Aug 26 '16 at 15:30
  • @Brythan That is simply not true GNI per capita, as well as gdp per capita is lower in of denmark and sweden than USA. Norway is a special case. Norway has oil and is in general one of the richest nations on the globe because of this and and very abundant dam energy. And they have thorium an uranium. The fact that USA can generate money internally by doing feats others can not is part of their income. – joojaa Aug 26 '16 at 18:22
  • To look at my country - Norway - it certainly weren't the "better trained, more literate" who emigrated to the USA... and I doubt the level om ambition too. Most emigrated because Norway was very poor, with lot of small hard-to-run-farms and small plots rented from large farms in exchange for working, and many children with little prospect (my grandfather was one of 12 kids). There were also occasional famine. So they left in the hope for a better chance in the USA - more out of lack of other choices than ambition. – Baard Kopperud Nov 22 '16 at 08:36
  • Difficult question... The Scandinavian countries have high taxes, on the other hand the Government provides lots of services - healthcare, unemployment benefits, sick pay, child care, care for the elderly, health care, free medicine (for necessary medicine after you've paid up to a "roof" - about $200 per year), free higher education (well, you must buy the books - but the State provide loans and stipends). The gap between the poor and the wealthy aren't that large, and most people live quite similarly. You won't find many private pools, but neither will you find many living on the street. – Baard Kopperud Nov 22 '16 at 08:44
  • @joojaa But how is this wealth distributed? How far is it between the riches and the poorest? How many percent of the population are considered rich? How many percent are considered poor? Sure the USA have higher GDP both absolute and relative... But the figure you get when you divide GDP with the population, is not exactly the amount the average person actually earn. – Baard Kopperud Nov 22 '16 at 08:50
  • @BaardKopperud Actually GDP and average income are really close toe ach other in many cases EG GDP/per capita in USA 56084. average income 58714 and in Finland GDP/capita 41109 average income 40731(source wikipedia). So in USA average income is ~95% of GDP/per capita while in Finland it is ~101%. Thats is really close to each other. – joojaa Nov 22 '16 at 10:35
  • @BaardKopperud On income difference same countries as before, [according to statistics Finland](http://www.stat.fi/til/vtutk/2013/vtutk_2013_2015-04-01_tie_001_en.html) the 10% wealthiest own 45% of all the wealth in Finland while in USA that same 10% owns 73% of all the income in 2015 accoring to [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States). Thats a huge difference. According to same sources the lowest 60% owns 13.6% in finland white only ~6% in the USA. Quite a big difference. – joojaa Nov 22 '16 at 10:40
0

Yes, if you measure "living standards" in monetary terms only.

However, this is a faulty comparison. You are slicing out a segment of the US population characterized by long-term advantages, and comparing it to the entire spectrum of another countrys population.

American-Scandinavians are 99% people descended from 19th century emigration.

They don’t include a lot of Black, Latino, Asian, or Native Americans, nor if we go back a bit do they include members of other groups that were previously given the stink-eye, such as Irish or Italians. So when you use “Scandinavian-Americans” as a comparison group, this is a group of the American population where every member has enough family stability to follow their families back for 100 + years, and whose families have been part of the top ethnic demographic for that time.

I do not know of any Scandinavian nations that keep track of groups by criteria such as ability to track their family back in the country, or long-term presence in an advantage ethnic group. The nearest would probably be the Swedish and Danish aristocracy.

You can look at comparisons across the entire country for some definitions of "standard of living" at the Human Development Index or Legatums Prosperity Index.

Adam Irae
  • 29
  • 2
  • You need to answer based on evidence: "If you were to compare..." probably should be "Here's a comparison of... and these are the results". – Sklivvz Aug 29 '16 at 14:39
  • Perhaps I misunderstood? Answering the question "is this comparison accuracte" with "the numbers are correct but the comparison selection is heavily skewed to advantage one group" seems accurate to me. As far as I know, Scandinavians do not see much use in tracking a group on the basis of how far back they can follow their ancestry, so an apples to apples comparison would seem hard to obtain, unless someone wants to do a paper on it. – Adam Irae Aug 30 '16 at 09:16
  • Answers on this site are expected to be wholly based on evidence from reputable sources. As it stands, your answer reads like an intelligent, yet completely subjective answer to the question. This is the reason people are down voting it, why it has the yellow banner and why it will be removed if not fixed. HTH. – Sklivvz Aug 30 '16 at 09:21
  • So if I understand you right, I should not point out that the original comparison referred to in the question is a faulty comparison, since there does not at the moment exist any non-faulty comparisons to refer to? Simply say that the numbers are correct? To me, this appears to be perpetuating an incorrect conclusion. – Adam Irae Aug 30 '16 at 10:46
  • You make a lot of assertions (for example "Yes, if you measure...", "a segment of US population characterized by...", "American-Scandinavians are 99% people descended...", "this is a group of the American population where every member has...", etcetera). *All of these need to be supported by evidence*. Can you provide evidence that if you measure 'living standards' such-and-such the answer is yes? Can you provide evidence that the segment of the population is biased? And so on. Investigate the facts and report them, this site is not the place to give your personal opinion. – Sklivvz Aug 30 '16 at 13:38