Sweden's way of dealing with the poor

[ribozyme]

I like how Sweden deals with the poor and unemployed.

"The unfortunate in Sweden often don’t roam the streets aimlessly, in fact, few are often found. That’s because the state subsidizes them to live in optimal conditions and to provide little work - and if they are put into labor, it’s in a public enterprise run by the government, to help reduce the official share of unemployed people. Workers can earn up to 570 paid days off a year (that’s no typo - we know there are only 365 days a year - Swedes can earn more paid days off than days they actually work). So where are the poor, crazy, reckless people of Sweden? Living off Swedish tax money and taking up their inequitable residence in Swedish neighborhoods, and growing in numbers since the financial prosperity of the cradle-to-grave system doesn’t discourage their lacklazy habits. "

namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/index.php?sw=Sweden

I really love that, the nanny state protects them from homelessness.

Here’s how the poor live in Sweden.

“The poor are well-off absolutely, not just relatively. Critics of high taxes and generous government benefits sometimes imagine that these destroy economic growth, so that countries like Sweden have low inequality but also low absolute living standards. In fact, the incomes of those at the bottom of the distribution in Sweden are similar to those of their American counterparts. And Swedes work far fewer days and hours to get those incomes. They also enjoy more plentiful and higher-quality public services, from schools to child care to health care to public transportation to roads and parks.”

lanekenworthy.net/2008/05/26/sweden-image-and-reality/

And let’s not forget the benefits of being relatively well-off too. I also do not see what is so bad about putting people away like they do in Sweden. If those people weren’t put away, they would drive down wages by being in the labor force and they would be in service jobs. They would not be hedge fund managers or cancer researchers so there is little opportunity cost by putting those people away.

Here’s how Sweden deals with its unemployed.

As for unemployment, the seemingly low numbers in Denmark reflect in fact the same kind of manipulation of statistics that the Swedish government have been using. While official unemployment in Denmark was only 133,500 or 4.8% in March 2006, there were in the fourth quarter (latest available number in Denmark’s statistical data bank )some 117,600 people or 4.2% in so-called “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger(=“labor market political activities”, what in Sweden is refered to as “AMS-åtgärder”)”. This means that Denmark have even more hidden unemployment in that respect than even Sweden, where “only” 3.2% (144,000) were put away in “labor market political activities” .

…

The headline unemployment rate in Sweden is only 5-5.5%, but this number is extremely misleading as it only includes a small number of the people who the government pays not to work. Many unemployed are sent to so-called “labor market political activities” who have no meaningful purpose then to reduce the headline unemployment number. Including them, unemployment is 8%.

stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2006/05/denmarks-overrated-flexicurity.html
stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2005/11/does-sweden-defy-economic-logic.html

So what do you think of Sweden’s way of dealing with the poor?

 

[elliejanba]

i’m moving to sweden!

 

[RobbyS]

I like how Sweden deals with the poor and unemployed.

namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/index.php?sw=Sweden

I really love that, the nanny state protects them from homelessness.

Here’s how the poor live in Sweden.

lanekenworthy.net/2008/05/26/sweden-image-and-reality/

And let’s not forget the benefits of being relatively well-off too. I also do not see what is so bad about putting people away like they do in Sweden. If those people weren’t put away, they would drive down wages by being in the labor force and they would be in service jobs. They would not be hedge fund managers or cancer researchers so there is little opportunity cost by putting those people away.

Here’s how Sweden deals with its unemployed.

stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2006/05/denmarks-overrated-flexicurity.html
stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2005/11/does-sweden-defy-economic-logic.html

So what do you think of Sweden’s way of dealing with the poor?

Hard to tell, since we are noit hold how this affects individual persons. How do they feel about it? Does it, for instance, isolate them from the better off? Does it help them stop being poor? etc.

 

[ribozyme]

Hard to tell, since we are noit hold how this affects individual persons. How do they feel about it? Does it, for instance, isolate them from the better off? Does it help them stop being poor? etc.

They are materially well-off and that is all that matters. They are protected from adversity. If they weren’t put away, they might be homeless or begging. I like this paradigm of putting people away and protecting them. (As in Sweden, this is not the same as putting them in an institution.) It is quite similar in Japan with their hikikomori population.

So what is your way of dealing with them instead of putting them away?

 

[wabrams]

They are materially well-off and that is all that matters. They are protected from adversity. If they weren’t put away, they might be homeless or begging. I like this paradigm of putting people away and protecting them. (As in Sweden, this is not the same as putting them in an institution.) It is quite similar in Japan with their hikikomori population.

So what is your way of dealing with them instead of putting them away?

Yeah, lets get those dirty homeless people out of our sight.

 

[ribozyme]

Yeah, lets get those dirty homeless people out of our sight.

So what is your suggestion then?

I thought putting them away AND making them comfortable is a good idea. Why do people hate this idea so much?

 

[faithfulone]

So what is your suggestion then?

I thought putting them away AND making them comfortable is a good idea. Why do people hate this idea so much?

why “put them away”?
are they contagious? are they unfit to mingle with the masses?

 

[wabrams]

So what is your suggestion then?

I thought putting them away AND making them comfortable is a good idea. Why do people hate this idea so much?

How about job training to make them fruitful.

The problem with putting them away is that it sounds like you are sweeping dirt under the rug. Second, at what point does putting them away AND making them comfortable become something more sinister?

 

[ribozyme]

How about job training to make them fruitful.

The problem with putting them away is that it sounds like you are sweeping dirt under the rug. Second, at what point does putting them away AND making them comfortable become something more sinister?

So what jobs could you train them to do? It is unlikely to will be able to do something significant such as working in a hedge fund, being a cancer research, designing innovative semiconductors, etc. And the jobs that are might to in their range probably would not pay much.

I thought putting them away is a nice solution as it protects them from adversity and poverty. (And yes, it is like sweeping dirt under the rug; that is one reason why it is so appealing, although it is more expensive to provide them people housing than to allow them to be homeless.) It appeals to me as a negative utilitarian.

 

[steveandersen]

so the Swedes shelter the homless, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, etc etc

 

[wabrams]

So what jobs could you train them to do? It is unlikely to will be able to do something significant such as working in a hedge fund, being a cancer research, designing innovative semiconductors, etc. And the jobs that are might to in their range probably would not pay much.

Oh, so they are too stupid to be trained to do what you deem valuable and worthy in life? So who cleans the floors in your dorm and the classrooms in your school? Who builds the vehicles you drive and ride in? Maybe the ones who don’t work hedge funds, cancer research, etc.

I thought putting them away is a nice solution as it protects them from adversity and poverty. (And yes, it is like sweeping dirt under the rug; that is one reason why it is so appealing, although it is more expensive to provide them people housing than to allow them to be homeless.) It appeals to me as a negative utilitarian.

Negative utilitarian this semester, something snazzy next semester. I find your views amusing since you don’t work for a living.

 

[wabrams]

so the Swedes shelter the homless, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, etc etc

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

 

[ribozyme]

Oh, so they are too stupid to be trained to do what you deem valuable and worthy in life? So who cleans the floors in your dorm and the classrooms in your school? Who builds the vehicles you drive and ride in? Maybe the ones who don’t work hedge funds, cancer research, etc.

Negative utilitarian this semester, something snazzy next semester. I find your views amusing since you don’t work for a living.

There can be *too many *people in a given labor market to do those things. Too many people in a labor market can drive down wages which is a very bad effect.

 

[elliejanba]

Swedish gov’t does train people who are willing, i read. but for those who aren’t they do continually live comfortable lives.

 

[wabrams]

There can be *too many *people in a given labor market to do those things. Too many people in a labor market can drive down wages which is a very bad effect.

What is your experience with economics and the labor market?

 

[ribozyme]

What is your experience with economics and the labor market?

Isn’t it the law of supply and demand. A large supply of labor would make labor cheap, right?

 

[wabrams]

Isn’t it the law of supply and demand. A large supply of labor would make labor cheap, right?

Answer my question, please.

 

[TLDenmark]

The Scandinavian countries have been suffering from an increase in social problem for years, the welfare states are more and more about serving the middle class and less about helping those with true needs. The handicapped, those with psychological problems, single mothers, those that have been unemployed for a long time, drug addicts, etc., they are slowly loosing the benefits they had only 10 or 15 years ago. I never used to see homeless persons when I grew up in the 80’s, now I notice them every time I go to Copenhagen (even thou the government tries to remove them from train stations, and other places where they might “inconvenience” the middle class).

So what happened. It is not that Scandinavia is getting poor (it is one of the richest regions in the world, and have been for some time), but rather the problem is the fact that a lot of voters are selfish creatures wanting to milk the welfare state for their own benefits. So the end result, is that the politicians cater to the middle class while those needing help end up being forgotten and neglected. Mind you it is still a great deal better than in the US or most other countries, but I doubt it will stay that way 10-20 years from now.

Also we are suffering from a shortage in the labor pool, so at least in Denmark the government tries to make it difficult to stay unemployed. It is not a sheltered life.

 

[ribozyme]

The Scandinavian countries have been suffering from an increase in social problem for years, the welfare states are more and more about serving the middle class and less about helping those with true needs. The handicapped, those with psychological problems, single mothers, those that have been unemployed for a long time, drug addicts, etc., they are slowly loosing the benefits they had only 10 or 15 years ago. I never used to see homeless persons when I grew up in the 80’s, now I notice them every time I go to Copenhagen (even thou the government tries to remove them from train stations, and other places where they might “inconvenience” the middle class).

So what happened. It is not that Scandinavia is getting poor (it is one of the richest regions in the world, and have been for some time), but rather the problem is the fact that a lot of voters are selfish creatures wanting to milk the welfare state for their own benefits. So the end result, is that the politicians cater to the middle class while those needing help end up being forgotten and neglected. Mind you it is still a great deal better than in the US or most other countries, but I doubt it will stay that way 10-20 years from now.

Also we are suffering from a shortage in the labor pool, so at least in Denmark the government tries to make it difficult to stay unemployed. It is not a sheltered life.

What do you think about the Moderate Party and the Social Democratic Party in Sweden? Which policies do you prefer?

 

[TLDenmark]

What do you think about the Moderate Party and the Social Democratic Party in Sweden? Which policies do you prefer?

Dear ribozyme

From a Scandinavian point of view I am a right-leaning centrist on economical issues, left leaning to moderate on some social issues (helping those truly in need, immigration, and to some degree law and order) and very conservative when it comes to a number of value issues (abortion, euthanasia, education, religion, etc.). From what I understand of Swedish politics, neither the Moderate Party nor the Social Democratic Party would be the place for me. If I had to choose between them, it is my guess that the Moderate Party would come closest to my own viewpoints. During the last Danish election, I hesitantly gave my vote to our version of the Christian Democrats.

God bless you
Tim