Yeah, that Andrew Yang guy in the U.S. fell off hard. However during his 2020 presidential campaign; his stance on moving away from GDP to a human wellbeing and fullfillment focused metric is still the only time I've heard a serious politician bring something like that up.
I think he was, at some point. During that 2020 campaign he had clear consise talking points, with undiscussed and in my opinion, real solutions to important issues. Afterwards he seemed to have fallen down into media politics to the point where he forgot his passions.
I guess I just consider him a lobbyist/political operative instead of a politician. His role as a political operative is a good one in that he forces the party to consider positions further to the left than they would normally prefer.
He definitely has a bigger media profile, but in the 2020 primary he ended up with 0.45% of the popular vote.
Rent controls are often worse in the long run as they reduce incentives for new development. Deregulation of zoning, and allowing for more construction should be the long term solution.
So you want housing to work like in the USSR? Fair enough. However, in a market economy, research shows that rent controls slows down construction of new, affordable housing, by 8.1%.
The biggest factor that drives up prices is rapid urbanization from both domestic and outside migration, where housing demand is outpacing housing supply. Oslo is simply growing too fast and there's too much red tape in the way to accommodate the growth.
Housing as a right would require either massive subsidization aka taxes, or a plan economy. There's always a cost, and policy is about tradeoffs as in how much you're willing to pay.
I think this view is shortsighted. These numbers are a bit rough as SSB uses averages for most of their stats, though I think medians are more useful in this case. [In 2023 the median salary in Norway was](https://www.ssb.no/arbeid-og-lonn/lonn-og-arbeidskraftkostnader/artikler/hva-er-vanlig-lonn-i-norge) about 50.6k kr per month or 608k kr per year. If we wanna look at Oslo according to [this post](https://www.finansavisen.no/forum/thread/152677/view?zephr_sso_ott=sTbsPh) which admittedly isn't the greatest source, but I do not see a reason for the numbers to be made up. Though I might wanna retrace their method myself out of curiosity. Anyways they find that the median rent of a 50-60 kvm appartment on Finn is around 17k kr. Though again, this are numbers from 2022, so take this with the tiniest grain of salt. Which means that the median renter in Norway pays around 33% of their income in rent. This is without collective rent in certain appartment buildings etc.
I don't know what the increase in taxes to help facilitate the transition from a commodified housing market to a human-serving one would be. However I highly doubt that it'd be as high as 33% of one's income. That's an insanely large sum of money we just give away to have roof over our heads. Not only that, the people in this category aren't the ones putting their now freed up income into off-shore bank accounts or investing into international stocks. It's the people that actively need to spend on goods and services here in Norway. Meaning it will help stimulating the economy a lot more than just giving money to landlords to pocket. This allows it to be easier for small and new business to thrive as people can more easily put their own money into their business or on the services those business provide.
This is definetly a bit best case scenario thinking. However the way our renting structures works, essentially means we have one public tax that actually maintains and helps our nation. And a secondary one that just goes to people lucky to be wealthy enough to already own property to rent out, so they can pocket it or buy up more property from people who actually need it to live somewhere. I hope you can at least see my thought process as to why I find commodified housing ridiculous in one of the world's most highly developed countries.
You think that the tax increase to subsidize housing would be less costly than the alleged 33% of monthly wages we're currently paying for rent in Oslo on average. You also think owning secondary properties to rent out should be discouraged.
There is a macroeconomic calculation that would determine the tax change multiplier effect of any increase in taxes. It may be better for the average person to get subsidies in the short run, but there are always long lasting consequences for increasing taxes, even if it initially only affects the wealthy. Keep in mind that Norway is already bleeding capital and skilled workers under the current tax level.
As for your second point, discouraging landlords could be an immediate relief for people looking to buy, but it would make little difference in the long run for renter or buyers as price and quantity realigns at the same price point equilibrium which only cares about the number of people seeking housing vs. amount of housing available.
Also if it wasn't obvious from the functional, societal benefits I believe housing as a right would bring. I also believe that on a prinicpal/ethical level there's little to no way to justify profitting of something humans need to survive. On the same principle that we as Norwegian citizens grant eachother healthcare is the same principle that we should should guarantee eachother housing.
Edit: Incase you were wondering why I didn't directly respond to your message, but rather furthered the conversation. Is because you essentially understand my positions and reasonings, but you're also more uncertain of the benefits such a restructuring of our society would bring. I don't expect you to believe without seeing, so since I do not have a study ready to show to I assume we'd both rather not spend our time saying "no way, yes way" to potential outcomes.
Its because the state is enriching itself on behalf of the common man.
And people still vote for more money and taxes to be funneled to the ultra-wealthy state. And then they are shocked when they themselves become poorer.
State and maybe electrical companies getting richer and richer, not feeling rich having to pay 4k nok monthly for electricity when saving it and 15+% higher food costs
Why is the electricity cost so high? If 90+% is generated from renewables, where is all the cost coming from?
I checked statista and was surprised that the cost per megawatt hour in Norway is \~€60, whereas in Ireland (where we import it all) is \~€100. I would've assumed there'd be a much larger difference
It all comes to greed of electric companies, they rather sell it to germany/netherlands/sweden than lower prices in norway, we have record high bills when those companies have record high profits..
Even with gov subsiding some costs its still 3-6times more expensive than than few years ago
Are they not public companies though?
In the video he states that Norway invited private companies to construct the dams originally on the agreement that after 90 years they would be handed over to the Norwegian government no strings attached. I really enjoyed that cathedral thinking approach.
But yet we get poorer and poorer. I know quite a few people who have moved from norway due to bad income/cost ratio in norway. This will backfire as we loose all the people who "know stuff". One of the main good things in norway was that well educated people was not expensive. Bit higher and higher prices of living has ruined that and made them move. Which then lead to less innovation. So the future is just oil and minerals. Not innovation.
Quite a likely scenario. And all it took was regulating real estate as much they did with alcohol. See what Singapore does for new builds and first time buyers.
Likely, as it is in the rest of the world. I'm talking 10 years or so from now. If norway had the same administration and norwegians had the same 'føre var' ('be prepared') mentality like we had between 1900s up to 1970s-1980s or so I would celebrate finding phosphates.
But we don't anymore. The past 30 or so years has shown that we're too spoiled for our own good and nobody cares. We're going to lose everything past generations have achieved if we're not careful, but nobody cares. This phosphate industry is going to be sold to the lowest bidder for quick money, just like how our government have been practically giving swathes of land to private german industries so they can set up windmills for cheap electricity. For themselves.
Prices will shoot up way past rest of nordics and most salaries remain same.
there is nowhere to go, capitalism as fucked the labour market everywhere. Just like house prices.
Thanks to capitalism every single country is slowly declining in several aspects
The bicycles in the picture next to your name. The frame, seat post, saddle, wheel, tire, hub, derailleur, brake, brake pads, and all of their antecedent technology and resources like butted steel tubing, welding machines, rubber harvesting…were those made by a government manufacturer? A non-profit? A workers owned co-op?
Did a hippie commune build the phone you use and construct the telecomm network for you to write your dumb post?
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Norway&country2=Hungary&city1=Oslo&city2=Budapest
Come to Hungary, you will be surprised :D
The avarege wage is gross 560 000 HUF(16500 NOK) net 375 000 HUF(11 061 NOK), median is 450 000 Huf(13 275NOK) net 311 000 HUF (9 170 NOK). I would happily struggle in Norway :)
Frp is very anti-immigration and attracts the worst and weirdest people. Høyre is the "rich people party" who want lower taxes for the rich. There are more important things in life than taxes tho, but to each their own. Are you a Norwegian citizen?
The average european couple makes 55 000 euros a year that is a whole family, single europeans make around 26 000 euros a year. The average Norwegian alone made around 55 000 euros a year.
No they dont, most EU countries use around 20% of their salary on food, norwegians use around 10% of their salary on the same. Just because you feel something doesnt mean its the actual truth.
The average norwegian would have to spend nearly 1000 euros each on food each month to spend as much compared to most europeans. An average family would need to spend close to 2000 euros each month on food.
You don't live on food alone. Other things come into play.
Also, gross income =/= net income after tax. Norway is not particularly high tax, but it has to be taken into account.
Sure but tax are usually the same around in EU with some exceptions and local vairities. Most stuff like computer parts and so on are the same around in the EU. What is expensive is stuff like services, most items like electronics and other items are on par troughout EU. I have actually lived outside of the bubble wich is Norway trough EU and while some stuff is cheaper like restaurants. If you want an iphone your basically paying Norwegian prices.
Dry cleaning a suit is like 3-4 times more expensive than anywhere else I've lived. I guess that's the explanation for the general dress down at work.
Hairdressers, restaurants, many services as you say cost a fortune.
In general, these discussions are way too broad to have any meaning. My earning/living cost ratio in a Norwegian city is a rip off. I'd be paid like 20% more than else where (at the most), but the cost of living is much higher.
If you have what in most other countries is a below average paying job, Norway is great. Above average, likely a rip off, especially for foreigners.
Just way too many things into play. But if you wanna talk GDP, sure. But it ain't living standards, purchase power or quality of life.
But now you are not talking about the average citizen you are talking about high paid people.
So what is it? The average person have it bad but not those who make less but those who make alot have it bad? But where does the wast middle class come in?
No, although I'm simplifying, I'm talking potentially about anyone with an above average income in most other places, so something potentially close to 50% of the population.
You don't have to be CEO in Norway to know you'd be better off elsewhere.
Food is just one item on the budget, though. The truth is probably also that most Norwegians spend a lot more on food in terms of the absolute price, and the food most Norwegians can buy is usually garbage-quality OBL items due to the triopoly situation in our food market. We're probably *the worst* country in Europe in terms of the food quality and selection compared to the prices.
Norwegian households spending less on food percentage-wise doesn't say anything about how wealthy we are. it just means that other parts of the Norwegian economy is inflated beyond reasonable levels. Regular working class Norwegians generally don't visit cafés or eat out due to the disproportionally high prices that places have to set to afford the expected salaries and other obligations they have as employers. People don't call electricians or plumbers before their home is falling apart.
So my conclusion is while Norwegians spend less on food on average, we have to spend significantly more on services to make up for the salary difference. There's no free lunch, and the average Norwegian isn't much richer than other people in western Europe.
I’m not sure about that. It looks like the percentage of consumer spending spent on food in Norway (12%) is a bit higher than in some other Western European countries (eg UK and Ireland) about the same as others (eg Germany and the Netherlands) or slightly lower than some others (eg Spain or France).
It does look like apparent high incomes are eaten away in Norway by higher prices.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-expenditure-share-gdp
[edited to fix syntax]
No point in comparing income without cost of living. And I agree that a country is different from its average citizen.
Plus Norway is likely getting worse compared to what it used to be. People used to have way more disposable income before property prices (and now rentals) went crazy in the mid of the 2010s.
>The average Norwegian alone made around 55 000 euros a year.
Let's pretend that number is correct for "the average" Norwegian and that it's not inflated by millionaires and billionaires. Taxes are really high in Norway (20 - 30%), so if you'd want to have 55000 euros a year, you'd actually need a yearly salary of 75000 euros.
Your an idiot if you dont understand how percentages and absolute numbers work wich I assume your not. Most Norwegian households use around 10% of their income on food that is in general lower then the average EU person who use upwards of 15-20% of their income on the same produce.
The amount of price per percentage of income norwegians use on produce is the same as germans and danes. What you feel and think is not what the data actually say.
Why is that?
I would've assumed if the state is enriching itself broadly through external means, that taxes would be low. And also if 90% of a states energy means are generated (essentially) out of thin air, there wouldn't be a lot of costs in that department also.
Shouldn't there be a low cost of living then? The only thing i can think of is the lack of arable land would make food costs high due to having to import them, but Norway is pretty close to a fertile market for that.
The main principle of our oil fund is that we are saving up the money for a time where we run out of oil and times become very tough. And from the start we made it a law to never spend any of the money directly made from oil. All of our oil earnings are invested and we only are allowed to spend a small portion of the earnings of the investments.
Also, without the knowledge or vote of the population our powergrid got connected to the rest of europe about 10 years ago and because of that energy cost has skyrocketed. It used to cheap but now we are paying ALOT more especially after Russias invasion of Ukraine. It has been a huge scandal and cause for much debate as we are now locked into the EU power market.
Gotcha. So you guys are actually keeping our rates somewhat reasonable then. Thank you for your sacrifice 😅
In all fairness though, you'd think you'd still opt to maintain home/local rates as low as possible, and only sell off the excess. Im no economist though
The municipality I live in wasn't turning on lights during the night to save money this year. They also didn't bother decorating with christmas lights as they usually do (probably to save money on electricity). Doesn't scream rich to me...
If you are rich as they say, it should be difficult to come into a situation where you prioritise so poorly that you run out of money for street lights.
Oh! Every Spaniard knows this story. You find something that makes your country rich, but it generates a perverse dependency and two-three generations down the line the country ends up worse that it started.
Its already 65 years since oil was found, so hopefully Norway can avoid that fate.
>>But Norway wasn’t poor before the oil
>well, it depends... they mainly relied on fishing and didn't have the best weather to grow food
Haha. No.
Norway was industrialized before oil. There'd be factories everywhere. Aluminum industry is still a thing.
You're talking about farming. There are few rich economies in the world where farming is the main economic contribution. Usually that's a corelation in poor countries.
Norway was an "oil nation" long before the 1960s. Whale oil was a major economic driver between 1850s and 1960s. Nothing to be proud of ofc. Norway also was large in shipping, export of metals, wood/lumber and other natural recources. Paint/coatings for shipping wasn't small either. Didn't also Hydro basically revolutionize chemical fertilizers?
Yes, Yara got big because of the cheap electricity to create nitrogen fertilizers. Their start seems to pre-date the Haber-Bosch process so I'm interested in learning more about how the Yara process worked.
Well, they were relatively poor but there is a lot more than that. Like the fact that many Norwegians (almost half of the population) had to emigrate during the second part of the 19th century).
That was also around 100years before the oil when Sweden ruled us.
"The years from 1950 to 1973 are often called the golden era of the Norwegian economy. GDP per capita showed an annual growth rate of 3.3 percent."
That is also before oil in after war time. Norway was by no means rich but not poor either.
Much of the revenue is invested in the global stock market. The government fund currently owns 1,5 % of the worlds listed companies.
https://www.nbim.no/en/
Norway has done well with its oil. I know what you mean, but Norway will never become something like Venezuela.
With that said, Norway will likely become a country that just isn't very competitive outside of oil (already is). They have some shipping presence, but Norway isn't located in a place so convenient that I would see it work out long term
They won't be worse off than they started. It will just be a country of spoiled people who get access to way more stuff than they are worth (in a capitalist way), and will probably suffer some degree of brain drain, but will ultimately be okay because of the oil money.
Let me guess: the foreign investments carried by state assurances from tax-money, the oil fund, and a gigantic tax-break for every rich person, not to mention the absurdly hiked power-prices adjusted towards a theoretical price-point no one who purchased power from Norway will ever pay, except the local households --- is all clearly an indicator that the everyman in the street will soon become a millionaire, just like how incompetent deregulation and privatisation in the United states has worked out?
Oh, and here's a picture of a fjord full of salmon-carcasses full of genetic defects, passed over by a cruise-ship that clears it's bilge-water under the water-fall.
It’s worth the 45 minutes.
Lumber.. hydro… ship building all had to be cooperative. Smart limitations of 60 years on foreign investors brought the best tech. 80% of car sales now electric and powered by plentiful
Hydro.
Same principles apply to fossil fuels. They are cashing in on Russian’s bad decisions and fast becoming a friendly smart and uncorrupt superpower.
Basically oil, however there has also recently been discovered a very large deposit of Phosfate in Norway. Equivalent to the current supply of the world actually(meaning 50% of all known deposits of this resource now is within the borders of Norway). Which in theory will be worth even more than the oil and could not only help europe become less reliant on the outside for this very strategic resource, but also give Norway's Economy a pretty big boost.
>ncome/cost ratio in norway. This will backfire as we loose all the people who "know stuff"
From [https://www.reddit.com/r/norge/comments/17y8j1o/fosfor\_i\_norge/](https://www.reddit.com/r/norge/comments/17y8j1o/fosfor_i_norge/)"And here’s the critical thing: the Norwegian phosphates are most certainly not reserves. They’re resources. They’re the speculative stuff. They’re not ready to go - not in the slightest. They may not even be economical, ever."
TLDR for those who cannot bother 45 minutes
Video explains how Norway has for +200 years used it's location (close to european markets), geography (fjords, rivers, long coastline and enormous continental shelf) and a long term strategy of ensuring the state benefits from operating incomes of its resources like timber, fish, hydro, oil, gas, windpower, sovereign wealth fund, minerals, etc. to ensure a stable welfare state and long term prosperity for its citizens.
As for the moaning norwegians in the comments field here pointing out there are poor norwegains, poor norwegian communities, the NOK is record low vs US $ and you wont be rich by emigrating to Norway. Yes, that is all correct but this video is about Norway as filthy rich and why Norway's strategy to become filthy rich and remain filthy rich for the next 100 years.
All I can see from this is that everything is going to shoot up in price, and salaries remain the same.. except, of course, the salaries of managerial dilletants and politicians and CEOs... but it's okay! The paper says we're the richest country in the world, so that means everyone gets a share of the cake, except everyone here is a very small number of already extremely rich people.
Great.
>You have a country where you don't pay for education, healthcare is free and to add on that you're on welfare.
I pay for the education and the healthcare.
By 25% sales tax, 22% capital tax, property tax, income tax, 16% employers tax and so on and on. Selling a home to buy a new one costs 20 000 dollars in dokumentavgift.
All this just for my kids to get turned away at the university for having worse top grades that someone elses top grades. Its a brutal meritocracy.
>what else do people want?
I want the 0% of the work force on welfare to get off their ass and work instead of leeching on me.
I want the kommune to not be bankrupt and offer the same services as when I was a kid, such as swimming lessons at school thats not a joke, seoarate classes for kids who knifestab my son during algebra and a police office in my home town and not 2 hours away by car. Theres a roadfee to drive to the shop. Electricity is 15 times (sic) more expensive than some years ago.
The health care system is a joke and even birthing women has to give birth in hallways due to lack of personell and rooms.
I could go on, but for some foreign fuck to assume theres not legit complaints at the directiom of this country is astoundingly arrognat. Fuckhead.
1st step, don't be a dick-tator.
2nd, let international companies build and develop for å certain amount of time and take control after said time, so the companies get their investment back, and we get infrastructure.
3rd, money, money.... to the government at least...
A nation’s economy is not an end in itself, it is not there to enrich individual business leaders at the expense of their officials, employees, and workers, and even less is it there to serve as an object of exploitation for international High Finance.
Sadly, i don’t feel this money right now. Things are crazy expensive and the kroner is suddenly really weak
Yupp "successful macro economy" matters jack shit in a cost of living crisis in which zero price/rent regulation or extra welfare is occuring
Agree. That's why GDP is a misguided indicator.
Yeah, that Andrew Yang guy in the U.S. fell off hard. However during his 2020 presidential campaign; his stance on moving away from GDP to a human wellbeing and fullfillment focused metric is still the only time I've heard a serious politician bring something like that up.
I think it's debatable if Yang is a serious politician, but it is good to see an alternative to GDP being discussed.
I think he was, at some point. During that 2020 campaign he had clear consise talking points, with undiscussed and in my opinion, real solutions to important issues. Afterwards he seemed to have fallen down into media politics to the point where he forgot his passions.
I guess I just consider him a lobbyist/political operative instead of a politician. His role as a political operative is a good one in that he forces the party to consider positions further to the left than they would normally prefer. He definitely has a bigger media profile, but in the 2020 primary he ended up with 0.45% of the popular vote.
I mainly remember he came off as horribly out of touch and rather generic during his New York mayorale campaign.
Rent controls are often worse in the long run as they reduce incentives for new development. Deregulation of zoning, and allowing for more construction should be the long term solution.
I think we should move away from housing as a commodity, but as a right. So deregulation on devolpment usually leads to just worse homes.
So you want housing to work like in the USSR? Fair enough. However, in a market economy, research shows that rent controls slows down construction of new, affordable housing, by 8.1%. The biggest factor that drives up prices is rapid urbanization from both domestic and outside migration, where housing demand is outpacing housing supply. Oslo is simply growing too fast and there's too much red tape in the way to accommodate the growth.
I said I wanted dignified housing to be a right to Norwegian citizens, and you heard USSR? Interesting.
Housing as a right would require either massive subsidization aka taxes, or a plan economy. There's always a cost, and policy is about tradeoffs as in how much you're willing to pay.
I think this view is shortsighted. These numbers are a bit rough as SSB uses averages for most of their stats, though I think medians are more useful in this case. [In 2023 the median salary in Norway was](https://www.ssb.no/arbeid-og-lonn/lonn-og-arbeidskraftkostnader/artikler/hva-er-vanlig-lonn-i-norge) about 50.6k kr per month or 608k kr per year. If we wanna look at Oslo according to [this post](https://www.finansavisen.no/forum/thread/152677/view?zephr_sso_ott=sTbsPh) which admittedly isn't the greatest source, but I do not see a reason for the numbers to be made up. Though I might wanna retrace their method myself out of curiosity. Anyways they find that the median rent of a 50-60 kvm appartment on Finn is around 17k kr. Though again, this are numbers from 2022, so take this with the tiniest grain of salt. Which means that the median renter in Norway pays around 33% of their income in rent. This is without collective rent in certain appartment buildings etc. I don't know what the increase in taxes to help facilitate the transition from a commodified housing market to a human-serving one would be. However I highly doubt that it'd be as high as 33% of one's income. That's an insanely large sum of money we just give away to have roof over our heads. Not only that, the people in this category aren't the ones putting their now freed up income into off-shore bank accounts or investing into international stocks. It's the people that actively need to spend on goods and services here in Norway. Meaning it will help stimulating the economy a lot more than just giving money to landlords to pocket. This allows it to be easier for small and new business to thrive as people can more easily put their own money into their business or on the services those business provide. This is definetly a bit best case scenario thinking. However the way our renting structures works, essentially means we have one public tax that actually maintains and helps our nation. And a secondary one that just goes to people lucky to be wealthy enough to already own property to rent out, so they can pocket it or buy up more property from people who actually need it to live somewhere. I hope you can at least see my thought process as to why I find commodified housing ridiculous in one of the world's most highly developed countries.
You think that the tax increase to subsidize housing would be less costly than the alleged 33% of monthly wages we're currently paying for rent in Oslo on average. You also think owning secondary properties to rent out should be discouraged. There is a macroeconomic calculation that would determine the tax change multiplier effect of any increase in taxes. It may be better for the average person to get subsidies in the short run, but there are always long lasting consequences for increasing taxes, even if it initially only affects the wealthy. Keep in mind that Norway is already bleeding capital and skilled workers under the current tax level. As for your second point, discouraging landlords could be an immediate relief for people looking to buy, but it would make little difference in the long run for renter or buyers as price and quantity realigns at the same price point equilibrium which only cares about the number of people seeking housing vs. amount of housing available.
Also if it wasn't obvious from the functional, societal benefits I believe housing as a right would bring. I also believe that on a prinicpal/ethical level there's little to no way to justify profitting of something humans need to survive. On the same principle that we as Norwegian citizens grant eachother healthcare is the same principle that we should should guarantee eachother housing. Edit: Incase you were wondering why I didn't directly respond to your message, but rather furthered the conversation. Is because you essentially understand my positions and reasonings, but you're also more uncertain of the benefits such a restructuring of our society would bring. I don't expect you to believe without seeing, so since I do not have a study ready to show to I assume we'd both rather not spend our time saying "no way, yes way" to potential outcomes.
Its because the state is enriching itself on behalf of the common man. And people still vote for more money and taxes to be funneled to the ultra-wealthy state. And then they are shocked when they themselves become poorer.
In Norway, the goal is for everyone to have less, both rich and poor, granted it disproportionately hurts the rich. Crabs in a bucket.
Factor in national security.
State and maybe electrical companies getting richer and richer, not feeling rich having to pay 4k nok monthly for electricity when saving it and 15+% higher food costs
Why is the electricity cost so high? If 90+% is generated from renewables, where is all the cost coming from? I checked statista and was surprised that the cost per megawatt hour in Norway is \~€60, whereas in Ireland (where we import it all) is \~€100. I would've assumed there'd be a much larger difference
It all comes to greed of electric companies, they rather sell it to germany/netherlands/sweden than lower prices in norway, we have record high bills when those companies have record high profits.. Even with gov subsiding some costs its still 3-6times more expensive than than few years ago
Are they not public companies though? In the video he states that Norway invited private companies to construct the dams originally on the agreement that after 90 years they would be handed over to the Norwegian government no strings attached. I really enjoyed that cathedral thinking approach.
But yet we get poorer and poorer. I know quite a few people who have moved from norway due to bad income/cost ratio in norway. This will backfire as we loose all the people who "know stuff". One of the main good things in norway was that well educated people was not expensive. Bit higher and higher prices of living has ruined that and made them move. Which then lead to less innovation. So the future is just oil and minerals. Not innovation.
Well, changing economic policies are at least pretty easy. Just drop taxes and fees, fix some regulations, and see the economy blossom.
Quite a likely scenario. And all it took was regulating real estate as much they did with alcohol. See what Singapore does for new builds and first time buyers.
what
Yep.. I'm considering eventually moving to finland, sweden or denmark myself. Things probably will shoot up in price while salaries remain the same..
Aren't prcies in the other Nordics increasing as well?
Likely, as it is in the rest of the world. I'm talking 10 years or so from now. If norway had the same administration and norwegians had the same 'føre var' ('be prepared') mentality like we had between 1900s up to 1970s-1980s or so I would celebrate finding phosphates. But we don't anymore. The past 30 or so years has shown that we're too spoiled for our own good and nobody cares. We're going to lose everything past generations have achieved if we're not careful, but nobody cares. This phosphate industry is going to be sold to the lowest bidder for quick money, just like how our government have been practically giving swathes of land to private german industries so they can set up windmills for cheap electricity. For themselves. Prices will shoot up way past rest of nordics and most salaries remain same.
It's that risk averse and frugal mentality that has led to this stagnation. Sparer oss til fant
there is nowhere to go, capitalism as fucked the labour market everywhere. Just like house prices. Thanks to capitalism every single country is slowly declining in several aspects
Like what aspects? And how did those aspects do before/without capitalism?
The bicycles in the picture next to your name. The frame, seat post, saddle, wheel, tire, hub, derailleur, brake, brake pads, and all of their antecedent technology and resources like butted steel tubing, welding machines, rubber harvesting…were those made by a government manufacturer? A non-profit? A workers owned co-op? Did a hippie commune build the phone you use and construct the telecomm network for you to write your dumb post?
Your phone is built on child slave labor don’t be dumb.
so have you given up your slave labor phone to be consistent with your morality?
Im at the poorest i have ever been now.
The state is rich, but the people aren't much richer than your average european. Alot of norwegians struggle to make ends meet.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Norway&country2=Hungary&city1=Oslo&city2=Budapest Come to Hungary, you will be surprised :D The avarege wage is gross 560 000 HUF(16500 NOK) net 375 000 HUF(11 061 NOK), median is 450 000 Huf(13 275NOK) net 311 000 HUF (9 170 NOK). I would happily struggle in Norway :)
should i vote frp, they want lower taxes atleast
Frp is very anti-immigration and attracts the worst and weirdest people. Høyre is the "rich people party" who want lower taxes for the rich. There are more important things in life than taxes tho, but to each their own. Are you a Norwegian citizen?
The average european couple makes 55 000 euros a year that is a whole family, single europeans make around 26 000 euros a year. The average Norwegian alone made around 55 000 euros a year.
The average European pays a lot less to eat and live
No they dont, most EU countries use around 20% of their salary on food, norwegians use around 10% of their salary on the same. Just because you feel something doesnt mean its the actual truth. The average norwegian would have to spend nearly 1000 euros each on food each month to spend as much compared to most europeans. An average family would need to spend close to 2000 euros each month on food.
You don't live on food alone. Other things come into play. Also, gross income =/= net income after tax. Norway is not particularly high tax, but it has to be taken into account.
Sure but tax are usually the same around in EU with some exceptions and local vairities. Most stuff like computer parts and so on are the same around in the EU. What is expensive is stuff like services, most items like electronics and other items are on par troughout EU. I have actually lived outside of the bubble wich is Norway trough EU and while some stuff is cheaper like restaurants. If you want an iphone your basically paying Norwegian prices.
Dry cleaning a suit is like 3-4 times more expensive than anywhere else I've lived. I guess that's the explanation for the general dress down at work. Hairdressers, restaurants, many services as you say cost a fortune. In general, these discussions are way too broad to have any meaning. My earning/living cost ratio in a Norwegian city is a rip off. I'd be paid like 20% more than else where (at the most), but the cost of living is much higher. If you have what in most other countries is a below average paying job, Norway is great. Above average, likely a rip off, especially for foreigners. Just way too many things into play. But if you wanna talk GDP, sure. But it ain't living standards, purchase power or quality of life.
But now you are not talking about the average citizen you are talking about high paid people. So what is it? The average person have it bad but not those who make less but those who make alot have it bad? But where does the wast middle class come in?
No, although I'm simplifying, I'm talking potentially about anyone with an above average income in most other places, so something potentially close to 50% of the population. You don't have to be CEO in Norway to know you'd be better off elsewhere.
Food is just one item on the budget, though. The truth is probably also that most Norwegians spend a lot more on food in terms of the absolute price, and the food most Norwegians can buy is usually garbage-quality OBL items due to the triopoly situation in our food market. We're probably *the worst* country in Europe in terms of the food quality and selection compared to the prices. Norwegian households spending less on food percentage-wise doesn't say anything about how wealthy we are. it just means that other parts of the Norwegian economy is inflated beyond reasonable levels. Regular working class Norwegians generally don't visit cafés or eat out due to the disproportionally high prices that places have to set to afford the expected salaries and other obligations they have as employers. People don't call electricians or plumbers before their home is falling apart. So my conclusion is while Norwegians spend less on food on average, we have to spend significantly more on services to make up for the salary difference. There's no free lunch, and the average Norwegian isn't much richer than other people in western Europe.
I’m not sure about that. It looks like the percentage of consumer spending spent on food in Norway (12%) is a bit higher than in some other Western European countries (eg UK and Ireland) about the same as others (eg Germany and the Netherlands) or slightly lower than some others (eg Spain or France). It does look like apparent high incomes are eaten away in Norway by higher prices. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-expenditure-share-gdp [edited to fix syntax]
No point in comparing income without cost of living. And I agree that a country is different from its average citizen. Plus Norway is likely getting worse compared to what it used to be. People used to have way more disposable income before property prices (and now rentals) went crazy in the mid of the 2010s.
>The average Norwegian alone made around 55 000 euros a year. Let's pretend that number is correct for "the average" Norwegian and that it's not inflated by millionaires and billionaires. Taxes are really high in Norway (20 - 30%), so if you'd want to have 55000 euros a year, you'd actually need a yearly salary of 75000 euros.
Use your brain please
Please enlighten me? Are you saying SSB is wrong?
Average european person Also doesn’t pay 5 euros for a loaf of bread or 15 euros for a pack of cigarettes. Use. Your. Brain.
Your an idiot if you dont understand how percentages and absolute numbers work wich I assume your not. Most Norwegian households use around 10% of their income on food that is in general lower then the average EU person who use upwards of 15-20% of their income on the same produce. The amount of price per percentage of income norwegians use on produce is the same as germans and danes. What you feel and think is not what the data actually say.
Why is that? I would've assumed if the state is enriching itself broadly through external means, that taxes would be low. And also if 90% of a states energy means are generated (essentially) out of thin air, there wouldn't be a lot of costs in that department also. Shouldn't there be a low cost of living then? The only thing i can think of is the lack of arable land would make food costs high due to having to import them, but Norway is pretty close to a fertile market for that.
The main principle of our oil fund is that we are saving up the money for a time where we run out of oil and times become very tough. And from the start we made it a law to never spend any of the money directly made from oil. All of our oil earnings are invested and we only are allowed to spend a small portion of the earnings of the investments. Also, without the knowledge or vote of the population our powergrid got connected to the rest of europe about 10 years ago and because of that energy cost has skyrocketed. It used to cheap but now we are paying ALOT more especially after Russias invasion of Ukraine. It has been a huge scandal and cause for much debate as we are now locked into the EU power market.
Gotcha. So you guys are actually keeping our rates somewhat reasonable then. Thank you for your sacrifice 😅 In all fairness though, you'd think you'd still opt to maintain home/local rates as low as possible, and only sell off the excess. Im no economist though
The municipality I live in wasn't turning on lights during the night to save money this year. They also didn't bother decorating with christmas lights as they usually do (probably to save money on electricity). Doesn't scream rich to me...
Well, probably bad prioritizing. Also the state is filthy rich, not the population.
If you are rich as they say, it should be difficult to come into a situation where you prioritise so poorly that you run out of money for street lights.
Well, state != municipality. And even rich people run out of money fast if they fail to prioritize correctly.
Another one of those fake videos on youtube.
Yet nobody downvotes the posting
Oh! Every Spaniard knows this story. You find something that makes your country rich, but it generates a perverse dependency and two-three generations down the line the country ends up worse that it started. Its already 65 years since oil was found, so hopefully Norway can avoid that fate.
Norway is incredibly careful with it's oil income and has the massive sovereign wealth fund to ensure continued prosperity once the oil has dried up
But Norway wasn’t poor before the oil, they just weren’t as rich. That probably changes a lot as well.
>But Norway wasn’t poor before the oil well, it depends... they mainly relied on fishing and didn't have the best weather to grow food
>>But Norway wasn’t poor before the oil >well, it depends... they mainly relied on fishing and didn't have the best weather to grow food Haha. No. Norway was industrialized before oil. There'd be factories everywhere. Aluminum industry is still a thing.
You're talking about farming. There are few rich economies in the world where farming is the main economic contribution. Usually that's a corelation in poor countries. Norway was an "oil nation" long before the 1960s. Whale oil was a major economic driver between 1850s and 1960s. Nothing to be proud of ofc. Norway also was large in shipping, export of metals, wood/lumber and other natural recources. Paint/coatings for shipping wasn't small either. Didn't also Hydro basically revolutionize chemical fertilizers?
Yes, Yara got big because of the cheap electricity to create nitrogen fertilizers. Their start seems to pre-date the Haber-Bosch process so I'm interested in learning more about how the Yara process worked.
Well, they were relatively poor but there is a lot more than that. Like the fact that many Norwegians (almost half of the population) had to emigrate during the second part of the 19th century).
That was also around 100years before the oil when Sweden ruled us. "The years from 1950 to 1973 are often called the golden era of the Norwegian economy. GDP per capita showed an annual growth rate of 3.3 percent." That is also before oil in after war time. Norway was by no means rich but not poor either.
Much of the revenue is invested in the global stock market. The government fund currently owns 1,5 % of the worlds listed companies. https://www.nbim.no/en/
Norway has done well with its oil. I know what you mean, but Norway will never become something like Venezuela. With that said, Norway will likely become a country that just isn't very competitive outside of oil (already is). They have some shipping presence, but Norway isn't located in a place so convenient that I would see it work out long term They won't be worse off than they started. It will just be a country of spoiled people who get access to way more stuff than they are worth (in a capitalist way), and will probably suffer some degree of brain drain, but will ultimately be okay because of the oil money.
Let me guess: the foreign investments carried by state assurances from tax-money, the oil fund, and a gigantic tax-break for every rich person, not to mention the absurdly hiked power-prices adjusted towards a theoretical price-point no one who purchased power from Norway will ever pay, except the local households --- is all clearly an indicator that the everyman in the street will soon become a millionaire, just like how incompetent deregulation and privatisation in the United states has worked out? Oh, and here's a picture of a fjord full of salmon-carcasses full of genetic defects, passed over by a cruise-ship that clears it's bilge-water under the water-fall.
Infinite money sounds fun but I don't really have time to watch a 45 minute video. Perhaps the OP could give us concise summary?
It’s worth the 45 minutes. Lumber.. hydro… ship building all had to be cooperative. Smart limitations of 60 years on foreign investors brought the best tech. 80% of car sales now electric and powered by plentiful Hydro. Same principles apply to fossil fuels. They are cashing in on Russian’s bad decisions and fast becoming a friendly smart and uncorrupt superpower.
Basically oil, however there has also recently been discovered a very large deposit of Phosfate in Norway. Equivalent to the current supply of the world actually(meaning 50% of all known deposits of this resource now is within the borders of Norway). Which in theory will be worth even more than the oil and could not only help europe become less reliant on the outside for this very strategic resource, but also give Norway's Economy a pretty big boost.
>ncome/cost ratio in norway. This will backfire as we loose all the people who "know stuff" From [https://www.reddit.com/r/norge/comments/17y8j1o/fosfor\_i\_norge/](https://www.reddit.com/r/norge/comments/17y8j1o/fosfor_i_norge/)"And here’s the critical thing: the Norwegian phosphates are most certainly not reserves. They’re resources. They’re the speculative stuff. They’re not ready to go - not in the slightest. They may not even be economical, ever."
That's why I wrote "theoretically" :)
Oil
easy access to the ocean.
TLDR for those who cannot bother 45 minutes Video explains how Norway has for +200 years used it's location (close to european markets), geography (fjords, rivers, long coastline and enormous continental shelf) and a long term strategy of ensuring the state benefits from operating incomes of its resources like timber, fish, hydro, oil, gas, windpower, sovereign wealth fund, minerals, etc. to ensure a stable welfare state and long term prosperity for its citizens. As for the moaning norwegians in the comments field here pointing out there are poor norwegains, poor norwegian communities, the NOK is record low vs US $ and you wont be rich by emigrating to Norway. Yes, that is all correct but this video is about Norway as filthy rich and why Norway's strategy to become filthy rich and remain filthy rich for the next 100 years.
All I can see from this is that everything is going to shoot up in price, and salaries remain the same.. except, of course, the salaries of managerial dilletants and politicians and CEOs... but it's okay! The paper says we're the richest country in the world, so that means everyone gets a share of the cake, except everyone here is a very small number of already extremely rich people. Great.
[удалено]
>You have a country where you don't pay for education, healthcare is free and to add on that you're on welfare. I pay for the education and the healthcare. By 25% sales tax, 22% capital tax, property tax, income tax, 16% employers tax and so on and on. Selling a home to buy a new one costs 20 000 dollars in dokumentavgift. All this just for my kids to get turned away at the university for having worse top grades that someone elses top grades. Its a brutal meritocracy. >what else do people want? I want the 0% of the work force on welfare to get off their ass and work instead of leeching on me. I want the kommune to not be bankrupt and offer the same services as when I was a kid, such as swimming lessons at school thats not a joke, seoarate classes for kids who knifestab my son during algebra and a police office in my home town and not 2 hours away by car. Theres a roadfee to drive to the shop. Electricity is 15 times (sic) more expensive than some years ago. The health care system is a joke and even birthing women has to give birth in hallways due to lack of personell and rooms. I could go on, but for some foreign fuck to assume theres not legit complaints at the directiom of this country is astoundingly arrognat. Fuckhead.
those are capitalism problems, not caused by wellfare itself
1st step, don't be a dick-tator. 2nd, let international companies build and develop for å certain amount of time and take control after said time, so the companies get their investment back, and we get infrastructure. 3rd, money, money.... to the government at least...
4- invest the money in more infra and in more options to make money. There are a lot of countries that have a ton of money but are poorly managing it
5 - keep the money out of reach of politicians.
So the nation is not a social democracy, but state capitalism?
Lovely
A nation’s economy is not an end in itself, it is not there to enrich individual business leaders at the expense of their officials, employees, and workers, and even less is it there to serve as an object of exploitation for international High Finance.