The immediate leap to discredit the success of others through assertion of privilege seems like it would discourage doing well.

A better solution imho would be to celebrate success but to also encourage the successful to share their insights with others so as to spread the fortune - much as the author of this post has done.

You even see in this thread how people within tech but unable to pull FAANG salaries see this story as impossible. It's one viewpoint to think that it's possible for everyone to become skilled enough to work at a FAANG-like job (including passing the interview); probably correct so some degree. It's another (less rational) to think that every software engineer can work at FAANG-like jobs simultaneously; there just aren't enough positions.

This gets even more dire outside of tech. What job are you going to switch to every 3 years that nets you a 30% salary increase? If that kind of opportunity was wide-spread, there would be a lot less income inequality (or at least more social mobility).

laughing my ass off ... I expect the successful first and formost to share their success through actually paying taxes - then we can talk about their advice which won't be useful for the majority anyway b/c success in monetary terms is always defined by being focused on a minority.

Ideally yes. Though IME often the advice isn't applicable, so beyond a few fundamentals they break down. For example I cannot un-have kids, and getting a master's or doing a startup on the side would basically require neglecting them for too long. (Or quiting my day job and burning through our savings.) Lifestyle advice like modest living or moving far away also requires buy in from an SO or a painful break up/divorce. It's also a risk since they may change their mind early in the plan. Or they may decide the outcome wasn't worth the sacrifice and want to (or you to) return to the grind.

Also LOL @ "insights"

The only difference between myself and my other friends (who also have advanced degrees from top universities in the bay area) is that I abandoned my field of study and jumped into tech.

After 10 years, we have vastly different financial outcomes now.

A lot of hard working, well educated, dedicated people struggle financially around here, because they happened to not choose tech.

Add in the teachers and other under-appreciated careers, I do feel guilty that I should have so much, and they so little.

It took me a long time to accept this as I was wedded to the idea that hard work and skill alone should be well compensated. But that hard work and skill needs to be pointed in a good direction in the first place.

The job market is not an efficient market. It doesn’t respond to offer and demand signals.

Nurses have been in short supply in most of the developed world for the past three decades yet are still paid peanuts. It’s all about your proximity to the handling of money and historical trend. That’s why even people doing menial jobs in banking are well compensated while people working in heavy industries are paid relatively little compared to the complexity of their jobs.

If you had an advanced degree in math or physics, hedge funds in NYC was always an option to maximize your talent in exchange for money. But one also had an option to choose something different and still make an upper middle class living.

It seems these days, only the finance/tech offer such living. NOT choosing tech is choosing barely middle class living, and everyone else is delegated to hand-to-mouth living.

Besides Fed Gov, Tech/finance are the probably the only sectors left with large work forces, great margins, a culture of rewarding talent (vs health care for example), AND rooted in the USA (vs manufacturing and heavy industry). These factors combine to create a super class of tech/finance labor.

I got a fantastic education at two of the best public universities in the US, mostly funded by public money. Do I feel guilty about it? No. But I acknowledge that it was only possible because of policy choices made by Americans who came before me.

"Good" education alone is not a meaningful predictor of anything, in Europe at least.

So the guilt is about receiving the correct credentials to be granted further access to jobs and opportunities. It seems in UK/USA, "good education" is used as a euphemism for "received privilege".

It's the pretense of the credentialing organizations to have a monopoly on education.

I feel guilty for neither, and acknowledging that particular privilege takes nothing away from how hard I worked anyway. The son of two very poor Russian Jewish immigrants, I worked extremely hard to get to where I am. I also feel privileged for growing up in a loving and non-abusive family.

Lots of people don’t have those things, and I’m thankful I did. That’s not guilt.

This is one of those fundamental misunderstandings I see when discussing things with folks of a particular political persuasion. It's the same folks that belueve we shouldn't consider outcomes when evaluating processes. There's just something different about the way they think, I guess.

When someone says "check your privilege", they're saying that you've done something wrong and should feel guilty.

This shouldn't be downvoted. It's become a socially acceptable insult, in some circles (which basically means the receiver is less empathic / socially aware than thou) -- or at the very least, a thought-terminating cliché.

I know there's a bunch of nice and wholesome stuff it's supposed to mean (like the sibling commenter points out); but the way it's typically bandied about in modern discourse (as an STFU signal, more or less) -- it isn't what it really means.

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché

It has nothing at all to do with guilt.

Yes, they are. "Check your privilege" is often used to say "you didn't do that."

Even if you assume that "privilege" is a big reason why you had an opportunity, there are almost always many people with the same "privilege" who didn't do said thing.

Moreover, it's almost always some skin color argument. There are many "don't look white" people who had privileges that I didn't have but I'm supposed to "check my privilege."

The trope of “he’s black and rich, and I’m white and poor” is irrelevant, as there are different kinds of privilege. In rural Alabama, being white and poor is going to lend you a much closer set of relationships than being black and rich. In SF, it may be the other way around - the point is everyone should simply be aware of how various privilege has helped them.

And again: this takes nothing away from hard work. It simply acknowledges that another person who worked just as hard but had a different set of lived experiences and privileges may not have the same result. That’s not bad; just fact.

And again: it has nothing to do with guilt. You shouldn’t feel guilty about it; ~everyone has some kind of privilege. But ignoring it or pretending it doesn’t exist is the exact opposite of the point, which is, at the end of the day, an exercise in empathy.

It's telling that you really want to say that no black person has privilege. You'd certainly never tell one to "check your privilege."

How much time have you actually spent in rural Alabama?

I say that because the most racist places in the US are urban, the NE and the coasts, not the south. Yes, there are racists everywhere, but the only places where blacks and whites interact productively at scale are in the south.

Firstly, I never implied or said that no black person has privilege.

Second, my entire point that you seem to be missing is that everyone should recognize what privilege they do have and have benefited from.

I’ve spent plenty of time in the South; I am not implying there is no way for a black person to interact productively with white people in the South. I am suggesting that, generally, in a lot of rural areas of the South, being white lends you more “immediate credit” than being black.

And, to your point, that was but one example. I could have said “inner cities,” and made the same point. That does not, in any way, change the point; it only serves to reinforce it.

And, you've yet to explain what good comes from said "recognition". What, exactly, do you want me to do differently because I benefitted from succeeding in a situation that actually was available to many? (I'm pretty sure that you won't be satisfied with me just saying "hey, I built on stuff that had happened before.")

Yes, there are lots of places where being white lends you more credit than being black. Similarly, there are lots of places where being black lends you more credit. So what?

My point is that the south tends has more successful interaction than the north. That's actually more true in the rural areas.

But, for what it’s worth, I’m certainly not trying to be any kind of “knight.” I’m just trying to have a calm and open discussion.

You've repeatedly said that "check your privilege" is used in ways that it isn't used and denied that it is used the way it is used. My "ground" is reality.

> The good that comes from recognition is being able to place yourself in someone else’s shoes and empathize better with their lived experiences, thus enabling you to better understand their situation.

That's all well and good. The reality is that it has nothing to do with how "check your privilege" actually works.

I note that you didn't both to come up with anything other than your opinion to support your interpretation. Meanwhile, I've provided cites showing that you're wrong, by proponents of "check your privilege".

There's also the Atlantic article.

Can you point to ANYONE who interprets "check your privilege" the way that you do? (In fact, even you don't, as your refusal to use it with POC demonstrates.)

Guilt is too strong of term. But it is very much used as a kind of penalty box, or way of distancing the receiver from the speaker. And as far as enlightening those who supposedly need uplifting to the higher, more evolved plane that the speaker inhabits -- it just doesn't do much.

But it’s misuse shouldn’t change the meaning of its intent. At least I hope it doesn’t, because I believe there is still value in empathy.

The use is the intent. And it's used as a weapon.

Notice when it's used, and when it isn't. (You'd never say it to a black or brown person. Did I have "privilege" when I lived in a labor camp?)

> At least I hope it doesn’t, because I believe there is still value in empathy.

There is value in empathy, but "check your privilege" isn't empathy.

You know nothing about my "privilege". You have no basis for telling me to "check my privilege" and saying that only proves that you not only have no empathy for me, you have no interest in me except to accomplish your political goals.

I didn’t say anything about your privilege. Were I to, I would be asking. There is nothing here to be defensive about.

I have no political goals here. We’re having a non-political discussion.

"This is not a political discussion" when in fact it's about one of the most hot-button political topics ever devised?

I'm lost.

Use whatever phrasing you want, and it doesn’t have to be politicized. But when describing an experience, and particularly when trying to provide advice to others to do similarly, or when trying to glean information from your experiences that might be applicable to others… yes, check your privilege to see how said privilege may not apply to others’ lives.

That is all. What we’re discussing isn’t, at its core, a “hot-button political topic.” You are making it that.

The phrase was invented as a political tool. Disagree? Provide cites.

I'll start - https://checkyourprivilege.co/ , https://www.amazon.com/Check-Your-Privilege-Live-into/dp/099... , and https://www.amazon.com/Check-Your-Privilege-Lean-discomfort/... .

Actually we were specifically discussing the "check your ..." phrase in current usage, expressed as an imperative. Not privilege as a general concept.

And yes, the "phrasing of phrase" is the whole point of the phrase. Along with of course, who is saying it and to whom. Especially when the recipient most likely wasn't asking you to "provide advice" to them in the first place, now were they.

BTW here's what seems to be the definitive article on its origin:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/what-th...

You are making it that.

It wouldn't hurt you to check the button-pushy, "you're the problem" vibe on that statement. If you don't mind a bit of advice.

I teach people how to do things and "privilege" doesn't come into it. It is neither necessary nor sufficient.

There are always lots of folks with "privilege" yet the only thing that actually matters is whether you can do the work and actually do.

It is rare, extremely rare, to meet someone with absolutely no privilege, and that isn’t a place to aspire to.

This is what happens when there is a lack of religion and belief in God. In Islam, we know we're going to be asked about the blessings that were bestowed on us, no matter how small, so it's always in the back of our mind that we should be grateful to God, and to use those blessings in the ways of good, not evil.

* https://quran.com/102/8 (the worldly pleasures include: health, wealth, free time, food and drink, safety, housing, etc.)

* https://quran.com/90/8-18

* https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:407

Or we could notice that merit is still a useful concept, that good decisionmaking is a skill regardless of whether everyone is in a position to use it, and that the previous poster's parents made decisions that were highly beneficial to their child, above and beyond what other parents in comparable situations might have, and that the poster is quite right to be thankful for that. Which funnily enough is the only opinion they voiced, so it's rather a mystery what your needlessly nasty comment is replying to.

I think the point of privilege discourse is to undermine the notion of moral "desert," not to encourage guilt over something beyond your control.

I don't personally believe in reparations as commonly framed, but saying that reparations ought to be paid is also not the same thing as saying people should feel guilty for actions they didn't take.

> It’s important for progressives to acknowledge and counter the people who wave the progressive flag but espouse the opposite of progressive ideals.

I think this can be taken too far. Disavowal can be important at times, but I find there is often a trend among the Right to highlight random views held by an extremely small minority of people (ie. a single tweeting American among 315 million Americans) and demand a disavowal of that rhetoric. I think this is in bad faith.

This comment thread, in my view, is emblematic of this in that simply by using the word "privilege" we are now being asked to disavow something that some nebulous "lots of people" attach to that word, even though the word was clearly not being used in that context here.

> but I find there is often a trend among the Right to highlight random views held by an extremely small minority of people (ie. a single tweeting American among 315 million Americans) and demand a disavowal of that rhetoric. I think this is in bad faith.

Agreed. Where I disagree is that the left doesn’t do this exact same thing, or that these views are held by “a single tweet” and not, say, entire online communities.

For the record, I generally agree with you, but to the same extent that avowal can go too far, it is very easy to go too far in assuming all ridiculous positions on our side are strawmen. A lot of people do think that way. Nothing wrong with acknowledging privilege — but you don’t need to feel personally guilty over things out of your control like your inherited wealth or your skin color. I think we can all agree on that.

Except I don't see anyone in this comment thread actully expousing that belief. I _do_ however see a lot of people strawmanning it.

That said it sucks to work in Sweden because it's all about making money through inheritance, housing, stocks or contacts. But I guess that is how it is in many places these days.

However, a world-class DJ and the fact that some people are richer than others doesn't really contradict the claim that Sweden is much more egalitarian, and my previous points need to be examined within the broader culture of Sweden and Scandinavia in general. (Many Swedes commute daily into Denmark.) Having a car is convenient, but thanks to a world-class public transportation network in Stockholm, rather unnecessary. Car ownership is thus less of a deal compared to much of the US. While the privileged in Silicon Valley are trying to get "fuck you" money (more eloquently expressed as Financial Indpendence / Retiring Early - FIRE), the older Swedes I met still work, and are most proud of the days or week off their job affords and middle-class people are able to travel more than I see Americans (though a lot of that is cultural, but time off work and plane tickets+hotel is expensive).

The USA really makes it easy for people to win. It can be hard to notice it if you've been there all life(or at least most of it), but people like me who have spent our whole lives outside USA(Indian Citizen) and then stayed in the USA for a couple of years(for work) and returned to our home countries can absolutely relate to this.

The difference is like night and day, and it's not even like remotely comparable, being born in the USA even in under privileged conditions gives you lots of edge compared to your peer group.

I live in Belgium with similar high income tax rates to Sweden, but I know quite a few people that I grew up with who have done very well. Better than his story. All mid 30s and all came from nothing. Even as an employee. No excuses, man.

These stories might not be listed in the newspapers, but that does not mean there are none.

In Sweden you can incorporate and work as a consultant. That lets you accumulate capital on the corporate side of the tax barrier so to speak. But the tax authorities can show up at any time, claim that your one man company is “overcapitalized” and force you to pay income taxes on your earnings.

That said, I know self employed developers making 150-200k (EUR) gross per year as contractors. But I also know employees that get allocated a few 100k/year in stock options as part of their compensation.

Yes, you do need to be exceptional. And you need to be smart in the choices you make. I thought that was a given, since millions of dollars don't just come falling from the sky.

There’s nothing unusual about that. I was making that kind of money 15 years ago.

But one problem is, that’s about what I can make today as well. There is no upward mobility in pay. And it has nothing to do with ability. It’s a cultural thing.

(Also, the deal is typically that you sell your social career progression. So you’ll be doing the same kind of job endlessly.)

> You can't just work your way to wealth. You need to reinvest what you make into other assets and let them compound...

This however is where the real problem starts: there is no way to accumulate and reinvest capital (legally), without paying massive (70-80%) taxes.

I agree income taxes are high throughout most of Western Europe, but the way to grow wealth is by acquiring assets that can grow without having to sell them and pay taxes.

An investment fund (or a property) can often grow for a long time and throw off cashflows that are taxed more efficiently. So can a business where you build up value in the equity. Cashflow keeps the lights on, but equity (even in a small business) builds wealth.

No, there are special tax rules for small companies (the so-called 3:12 rules). You can pay yourself a small dividend ($15k or so), but above that you’re taxed as if it was regular income.

> Income taxes are higher but still not 70-80%?

Payroll tax is 31% and then you pay around 55% marginal tax on what’s left.

It’s debatable how you should count VAT in this context. Your consultant invoices will have 25% VAT on them that you have to pay the government. Your customers can get that back from the government, but will have to pay VAT on any value your services create. Since the name of the tax is value added tax I think it’s fair to say you are adding the value with your labor and are in fact the one paying the tax, but others may disagree.

Swedish tax rates on income makes this two to three times as difficult (approaches 60% plus 30% social paid by the employer this includes RSUs as well, plus 25% VAT) but it’s nonsense to claim this doesn’t happen. I am Swedish and have made significantly more in tech than the author. So has many of my friends.

With that said, the only reason I’m still in Sweden is family. The public sentiment about the future is uncomfortably racist and increasingly hostile about fortune making. If you have the mobility my advice is to move. Good luck.

I’m not saying there is no path to financial independence in Sweden, I’m just saying that the path the author has taken / is advocating is not one.

I too know people who’ve made significantly more than the author. I’ve come close myself. But that generally involves starting a company and having other people work for you.

You state further down that you made this money from RSUs.

I’m not sure which bubble you/friends live in, but the absolute majority of tech workers do NOT get RSUs, even less often in the EU.

If you're comfortable with sharing, was it through a company exit or IPO?

I don’t know what your seniority is and what you’ve seen but I can assure you it exists, and it’s not unique exceptions. Maybe a good opportunity to interview if you’re feels it’s unattainable where you are now. Plenty of US companies hiring remotely too…

You pay hella more tax on them though, but I mean the reason I left the US was also like.. related to all this. I want the things those taxes pay for, it feels incredible to be back somewhere with functioning healthcare, functioning child care systems.

I bring this up because I don't think taxation has much to do with this. In NYC I was paying around 50% of my income towards taxes (federal, state, and local); when you factor in what I was paying towards things that the Swedish social system provides, I'm sure it amounted to very close to 60% (maybe even more!). But NYC is full of plenty of engineers or similarly well-paid professionals who've achieved financial independence. And, well, at least per Glassdoor (caveat emptor), the average software engineer gets paid literally twice as much in NYC than in Stockholm. IMO that probably has more to do with it.

What is important to the remember which most Swedes tend to forget is the payroll tax at 31.42% on the employer side.

To see how it evolves across incomes see this page (in Swedish)

https://www.ekonomifakta.se/fakta/skatter/skatt-pa-arbete/ma...

It's all very equal, just don't look behind the curtain. We all earn our 50000SEK here.

The CEO? Oh, just ignore him

>In a similar vein as above, I hear that it is almost impossible for talented software developers to earn similar amounts in any country besides USA. If early financial independence is a priority for you, strongly consider moving here. The easiest way to do this is probably to take a 1-year hiatus from work, and enroll in a Master’s degree in USA. Though I have also met others who moved here on a work-visa

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpainFIRE/

Roughly speaking, for similarly qualified folks applying in the EB2 category in 2021, Indian immigrants (worst case), approval can take 15+ years, while immigrants from Sweden will take 2-3 years at most (was less than a year pre-COVID).

If you are talented and enjoy slacking off then you can have a pretty nice lifestyle in Sweden. Most of the exceptionally talented engineers I know work part time as consultants.

Of course you could also come as a student and finish your education within EU. In some countries you can even do it for free.

Several of them ended up going to Canada because it was significantly easier and had a reasonable tech scene in the Toronto area

Edit: I guess the down voters here hate facts. The US scores lower on social mobility than the majority of European countries https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index

Most of the population spend the majority of their income on rent, commuting, and essentials. Students also have lots of debt over the past decade (15k on average). Owning a car is expensive, but so is public transport (esp. for a family). Renting is expensive, but so is buying a house.

Income tax brackets range from ~40-50%, while corporate and dividend taxes are minimal - 15-20%. VAT is regressive and applies on almost all goods incl. groceries, ranging from 5-21%. There is no capital gains taxes, so this obviously benefits the economically active upper/elite classes who have assets/savings to invest - while middle class families do not own much at all.

Since the Mobility Index rankings focus on lower -> middle class mobility, it shows the Netherlands in a positive light. However, the income divide between the two classes is actually not as pronounced as the USA, while the gap between middle to upper is incredibly massive (like most of the world).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that despite the expected policy differences and rankings, NL is quite strongly divided economically. In my experience, the average Dutch don't mix with the poor, nor show off their riches, nor think too deeply about the elite classes. This mindset is essentially ignorance - neglecting poorness, brushing off government corruption, and assisting the funneling of taxes & wealth.

However, it’s equally ineffective - there are multitudes of ways to avoid paying it, as the wealthy here continuously do. Further, the percentage itself is quite small:

- 0.58% for 30k-100k

- 1.34% till ~1MM

- 1.68% afterwards.

It is hilarious to me, that 30k is considered “wealth”. This means saving for your children’s studying expenses (rent, food, etc), would require exceeding 30k and paying taxes.

The wealthy are wealthy. It doesn’t seem to affect them at all. Instead, people like you and I have to think about the arbitrary amount of money the gov wants to extricate from our small savings.

> Income tax brackets range from ~40-50%, while corporate and dividend taxes are minimal - 15-20%. VAT is regressive and applies on almost all goods incl. groceries, ranging from 5-21%. There is no capital gains taxes, so this obviously benefits the economically active upper/elite classes who have assets/savings to invest - while middle class families do not own much at all.

I hate to tell you, but the US practically invented all those issues. Average Americans pay a far larger percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthiest Americans or corporations do. You say VAT, we say "sales tax," and, yes, it's still just as regressive. Rent, student loans, etc.... yeah, that's all bad here, too.

https://smartasset.com/data-studies/income-needed-to-pay-ren...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/09/us-student-l...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/23/americas-richest-400-familie...

I don’t believe that the Netherlands has inherited these ideas from the USA. In fact, NL invented capitalism and stock markets.

Every Dutchie I speak to about the inequality here, loves comparing themselves to the USA memes. It’s that whataboutism and the ignorance that bothers me.

Of course, I'm aware that NL invented stock markets and pioneered a lot of ideas behind modern capitalism. That wasn't where I was going with it.

Not to turn this into some weird anti-pissing contest of "my country is worse than yours," but, if you look at the numbers, the US fares worse than NL on:

Gini coefficient [0]: US 41.4 vs NL 28.1

Global social mobility index [1]: US 70.4 vs NL 82.4

Human development index [2]: US 0.92 vs NL 0.944

Now, I don't think capitalism is the best system for maximizing any of the above, but, if you look at the tables, it's pretty clear that the Nordic model of capitalism is basically as good as capitalism gets. When you look at some of the things that go into these indices, other than stuff like "GDP per capita," it's pretty clear why: having a strong safety net and other social programs for workers makes people better off.

If nothing else, reducing the consequences of failure from "total personal and financial ruin" to something more manageable is more likely to encourage people to take chances that may or may not pay off. That's what economic freedom really is. That's also the part of capitalism the US didn't pick up, so, that's what I was getting at when I was saying that the US invented those issues. Again, not to get into an anti-pissing contest, but, that's why the US recently got compared to Jurassic Park [3] on here. I don't see anybody comparing NL to a land where dinosaurs will eat you if you're not always vigilant.

> Every Dutchie I speak to about the inequality here, loves comparing themselves to the USA memes. It’s that whataboutism and the ignorance that bothers me.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'd like to know. Are you just saying that people you talk to are saying what I said, but without the facts and figures?

---

[0]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coef...

[1]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/social-mo...

[2]: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/hdi-by-co...

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29656668

Fair enough, though I wasn’t trying to imply that either.

> it's pretty clear that the Nordic model of capitalism is basically as good as capitalism gets

I can agree from the data and personal experience, that the QoL for the lower/middle classes in the EU is better than most of the world.

However, I don’t think that it’s as pronounced as the local EU politicians would have you believe, when they advocate for higher taxes every year.

That’s essentially the divide I’m talking about in my comments - the broken capitalist dystopia of it all. They set the benchmark somewhere in between the USA and the post-colonial world, and act like they’ve solved everything.

> reducing the consequences of failure from "total personal and financial ruin" to something more manageable is more likely to encourage people to take chances that may or may not pay off. That's what economic freedom really is.

Yes, I agree that this sounds intuitive. Unfortunately, the EU has one of the least risk-taking people I’ve ever seen. People don’t startup nor attempt businesses.

> Are you just saying that people you talk to are saying what I said, but without the facts and figures?

Not exactly, but rather, they are unaware of the situation outside their social bubble in NL. And see memes about the USA and think they’re doing great.

Found it really hard to explain to my wife that:

Salary will decrease, cost of living will go up, income taxes will go up, VAT will also go up, QOL will stay roughly the same.

The only thing that I think is significantly better (and cheaper!) is the education.

Edit: And the beer.

Out of curiosity, how many millions of dollars-equivalent does it cost to buy heath insurance in retirement?

Isn’t that more attractive than what you need in the states?

I can’t speak for the OP, but usually QoL refers to essential things like housing, food, education, etc. Outside of that, the average Dutchie has very little disposable income.

This means that the extra money they make in the USA, is still quite useful since you can spend it on all the other stuff that gives you joy in life.

Those are amateur numbers. -USA

I think the worst part is that most of the loan is used to pay rent - so it’s essentially tax-payer funded wealth transfer to real estate.

Sure, moving from lower working class to upper middle class is probably easier in Sweden than in many other countries. But the thing is: it doesn’t make much of a difference.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Nordic welfare state kind of games the social mobility score in this way, by having such a compressed income distribution. If you go from $20k after taxes to $35k after taxes you’ve moved through more or less the whole income distribution, but your life is pretty much the same.

So any country that optimizes for improving that, kind of by definition, improves the average happiness of its citizens.

> "Despite scoring high on the Work Opportunities (83.0) pillar—because of its low unemployment rate—as well as on the Technology Access pillar (90.2), it has the lowest score in the region on the Fair Wages pillar (43.8 against an average of 64.6 for the region). With an incidence of low pay (less than two-thirds of median wages) at 24.9, it has one of the shares of low-paid workers among OECD countries. The lack of effective social protection in the United States also translates into a low score on the Social Protection pillar (61.7). The minimum guaranteed income benefits for a family with two children (where one partner is out of work) is only 20% of median income. The United States could also improve on the Health pillar, where it performs quite poorly compared to peers in its region (75.8) due to a low healthy life expectancy at birth (66.6 years)."

When you average things down to a single number, you lose a lot of nuance.

For the US, the data the report collected generally supports something like 'You have the opportunity to succeed greatly, and be rewarded extremely well, but this requires financial resources at birth.' While also being true that 'If you are less successful, there are few and poor support nets for you, and serious pitfalls to avoid (f.ex. health care costs).'

[0] https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report....

This is the opposite of financial mobility.

Which wasn't what I (or the report) said: the idea is that it takes some level of financial resources as a prerequisite for a chance at top-level success.

100% agreed - my sibling comment about NL also implies the same.

https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/1-5%20generations.png

1. My intuition is wrong

2. There are lots of people in low income groups where there is little i regeneration along mobility for structural reasons, or maybe immigrants children who often see the biggest improvements are excluded for some reason.

3. The chart talks about reaching mean income. Particularly in the US, mean income is higher than median income so even if achieving the latter is easier, achieving the former could be harder. To some extent the metric may disadvantage countries where the highest-earning few percent of the population earn a lot more than the median person.

Let's take a typical profile that HN users would be interested in, a top10% engineer working for a big company. This person would never become rich in NL, but almost always become rich in the US.

Same in Germany why I assumed the diagram would be appropriate. But you are 100% correct and I agree with

> This person would never become rich in NL, but almost always become rich in the US.

I have friends who started out in middle-class families and sunk lower. I also have friends who started out middle-class and rose.

IMHO, the biggest factors seem to be raw intellingence, willingness to move & chase money, and some 'luck' factors. But I can't imagine a world where nobody could change fortunes given reasonably common circumstances.

https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-social-mobility-among-poorest...

>In Germany, it would take a child whose parents' earnings are in the bottom 10 percent of the population six generations or 180 years to reach the average national income.

>The average across the entire OECD, a group of 37 industrialized countries, is five generations. Children in low-income families in Denmark would need two generations, while children in the United States would need five generations.

And people in the middle are squeezed from the both sides.