92% of Americans want to live in Sweden.

[Sibirsky]

Our higher gini is meaningless. Our poor, are still better off.

You're making the case that the poor are "better off" ... on the basis that stuff is cheap in the US.

So is it just different spending habits, greater use of credit services ... a difference in accounting* ... or what that accounts for the bottom 40% of US Americans having near zero net worth? They may be earning and spending but it would be a plain out lie to say that they are "well off" in the usual way of measuring wealth: assets minus liabilities.

*It is possible that the Swedish figure counts the content of obligatory pension plans as personal assets, while the US figure doesn't count that (Social Security) because they are structured differently.

Social Security is not an asset.

I'm talking about their standard of living. General income, disposable income, and tax levels.

[Faith Hope Charity]

Chalk me up as one of the 8% who doesn't.

[AiliailiA]

You're making the case that the poor are "better off" ... on the basis that stuff is cheap in the US.

So is it just different spending habits, greater use of credit services ... a difference in accounting* ... or what that accounts for the bottom 40% of US Americans having near zero net worth? They may be earning and spending but it would be a plain out lie to say that they are "well off" in the usual way of measuring wealth: assets minus liabilities.

*It is possible that the Swedish figure counts the content of obligatory pension plans as personal assets, while the US figure doesn't count that (Social Security) because they are structured differently.

Social Security is not an asset.

That's what I said. The Social Security Trust Fund performs the same function as a private retirement fund (though it might be more likely to crash and burn ...). I'm not sure, but it seems likely that the compulsory pension plans of Sweden are counted towards personal net worth. Both are government mandates but because they're structured differently one counts as an individual asset and the other doesn't.

I'm talking about their standard of living. General income, disposable income, and tax levels.

So everything but wealth (assets minus liabilities) which is the thread subject. OK.

[AiliailiA]

Chalk me up as one of the 8% who doesn't.

One of the most amazing results is that the people questioned had about equal preference for the Swedish wealth pie and the completely fictitious wealth pie where there is no top or bottom and everyone has the same amount of wealth. (Fig 1)

Apparently, it's a tossup between Swedish socialism and red-blooded Communism!

[Sibirsky]

Social Security is not an asset.

That's what I said. The Social Security Trust Fund performs the same function as a private retirement fund (though it might be more likely to crash and burn ...). I'm not sure, but it seems likely that the compulsory pension plans of Sweden are counted towards personal net worth. Both are government mandates but because they're structured differently one counts as an individual asset and the other doesn't.

I'm talking about their standard of living. General income, disposable income, and tax levels.

So everything but wealth (assets minus liabilities) which is the thread subject. OK.

There is no personal account that anyone has with Social Security. Also, the Americans, collectively, are owed $2.7 trillion by the most indebted entity that has ever existed. Theoretically, in finance, that would be booked as an asset. But, again because of the lack of personal accounts it isn't. And the fact that the most indebted entity has it as it's liability....

[Sibirsky]

Chalk me up as one of the 8% who doesn't.

One of the most amazing results is that the people questioned had about equal preference for the Swedish wealth pie and the completely fictitious wealth pie where there is no top or bottom and everyone has the same amount of wealth. (Fig 1)

Apparently, it's a tossup between Swedish socialism and red-blooded Communism!

Sweden is not socialist. Stop it.

[Sibirsky]

Chalk me up as one of the 8% who doesn't.

One of the most amazing results is that the people questioned had about equal preference for the Swedish wealth pie and the completely fictitious wealth pie where there is no top or bottom and everyone has the same amount of wealth. (Fig 1)

Apparently, it's a tossup between Swedish socialism and red-blooded Communism!

Source? Because online, Sweden leads by a considerable margin (57-35)

[AiliailiA]

That's what I said. The Social Security Trust Fund performs the same function as a private retirement fund (though it might be more likely to crash and burn ...). I'm not sure, but it seems likely that the compulsory pension plans of Sweden are counted towards personal net worth. Both are government mandates but because they're structured differently one counts as an individual asset and the other doesn't.



So everything but wealth (assets minus liabilities) which is the thread subject. OK.

There is no personal account that anyone has with Social Security. Also, the Americans, collectively, are owed $2.7 trillion by the most indebted entity that has ever existed. Theoretically, in finance, that would be booked as an asset. But, again because of the lack of personal accounts it isn't. And the fact that the most indebted entity has it as it's liability....

I don't disagree. We probably even agree that individual accounts is a better way to go, because it's harder for government to plunder that fund and people should have a choice over how their money (retirement fund) is managed.

However, we probably have different views of the future of the US government. An unaccounted factor in "private assets" is that US people have access to assets (from roads to parks to sewage to defense) which they've paid for with their taxes. Those aren't counted as private assets of course ... and the debate in this thread is based on a very narrow subject really.

I doubt that even the inverse (8%) of Americans would agree with "everyone should have an equal income". But apparently they believe everyone should be able to accumulate roughly the same amount of assets? It's really very curious. And this basic misunderstanding is probably relevant to the housing bubble: people claiming assets on their future income not their current income, perhaps even seeing their mortgaged house as a future source of income.

You're thoughts on that?

[AiliailiA]

One of the most amazing results is that the people questioned had about equal preference for the Swedish wealth pie and the completely fictitious wealth pie where there is no top or bottom and everyone has the same amount of wealth. (Fig 1)

Apparently, it's a tossup between Swedish socialism and red-blooded Communism!

Source? Because online, Sweden leads by a considerable margin (57-35)

I said right in the OP that the online poll is totally bogus. The research depends on people not knowing which graph is which. If they have the opportunity to check before voting (by a quick google search, or by having seen the PBS Newshour show, or having read the other article on the Newshour website where it was actually more prominent than the quiz) they will of course choose the correct answer. Not to mention that visitors to the PBS site are not representative of the US population!

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean. The poll here. Yes indeed, NSG'ers from the US prefer the Swedish distribution by the margin you said.

You know we're a bunch of lefties, don't you?

Oh, source? pdf from Harvard Business School. It's nice how it's still available. Here's the Fig 1 I spoke of:

The pie charts were shown in pairs to the subjects (rotated by subject) and they gave their preference. Almost half preferred an even more equal distribution than Sweden's! Equal distribution, commie as all get out, which doesn't exist anywhere!

[Sibirsky]

Source? Because online, Sweden leads by a considerable margin (57-35)

I said right in the OP that the online poll is totally bogus. The research depends on people not knowing which graph is which. If they have the opportunity to check before voting (by a quick google search, or by having seen the PBS Newshour show, or having read the other article on the Newshour website where it was actually more prominent than the quiz) they will of course choose the correct answer. Not to mention that visitors to the PBS site are not representative of the US population!

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean. The poll here. Yes indeed, NSG'ers from the US prefer the Swedish distribution by the margin you said.

You know we're a bunch of lefties, don't you?

Oh, source? pdf from Harvard Business School. It's nice how it's still available. Here's the Fig 1 I spoke of:

The pie charts were shown in pairs to the subjects (rotated by subject) and they gave their preference. Almost half preferred an even more equal distribution than Sweden's! Equal distribution, commie as all get out, which doesn't exist anywhere!

I meant one of the polls you link to in the OP.

[Genivaria]

One of the most amazing results is that the people questioned had about equal preference for the Swedish wealth pie and the completely fictitious wealth pie where there is no top or bottom and everyone has the same amount of wealth. (Fig 1)

Apparently, it's a tossup between Swedish socialism and red-blooded Communism!

Sweden is not socialist. Stop it.

Its good enough for me.

[Salandriagado]

I said right in the OP that the online poll is totally bogus. The research depends on people not knowing which graph is which. If they have the opportunity to check before voting (by a quick google search, or by having seen the PBS Newshour show, or having read the other article on the Newshour website where it was actually more prominent than the quiz) they will of course choose the correct answer. Not to mention that visitors to the PBS site are not representative of the US population!

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean. The poll here. Yes indeed, NSG'ers from the US prefer the Swedish distribution by the margin you said.

You know we're a bunch of lefties, don't you?

Oh, source? pdf from Harvard Business School. It's nice how it's still available. Here's the Fig 1 I spoke of:

The pie charts were shown in pairs to the subjects (rotated by subject) and they gave their preference. Almost half preferred an even more equal distribution than Sweden's! Equal distribution, commie as all get out, which doesn't exist anywhere!

I meant one of the polls you link to in the OP.

Erm, that is linked in the OP.

[Sibirsky]

There is no personal account that anyone has with Social Security. Also, the Americans, collectively, are owed $2.7 trillion by the most indebted entity that has ever existed. Theoretically, in finance, that would be booked as an asset. But, again because of the lack of personal accounts it isn't. And the fact that the most indebted entity has it as it's liability....

I don't disagree. We probably even agree that individual accounts is a better way to go, because it's harder for government to plunder that fund and people should have a choice over how their money (retirement fund) is managed.

However, we probably have different views of the future of the US government. An unaccounted factor in "private assets" is that US people have access to assets (from roads to parks to sewage to defense) which they've paid for with their taxes. Those aren't counted as private assets of course ... and the debate in this thread is based on a very narrow subject really.

I doubt that even the inverse (8%) of Americans would agree with "everyone should have an equal income". But apparently they believe everyone should be able to accumulate roughly the same amount of assets? It's really very curious. And this basic misunderstanding is probably relevant to the housing bubble: people claiming assets on their future income not their current income, perhaps even seeing their mortgaged house as a future source of income.

You're thoughts on that?

Yes, individual accounts, with some basic rules as far as what can and cannot be done with them. This whole study is very curious.

[Sibirsky]

I meant one of the polls you link to in the OP.

Erm, that is linked in the OP.

That's what I said. Your point?

[DeusII]

I'm an American who has lived in Sweden for the past 8 years. I prefer the American system, not because of any particular "wealth-distribution", but because it does not have a system that promotes wealth-egalitarianism as much as Sweden does. A variation in wealth is fine for a society, especially when it is the result of economic freedom.

There's a large difference between having a variation in wealth and halving people control vast amounts of money and be 1000s% richer than other working people.

[AiliailiA]

I said right in the OP that the online poll is totally bogus. The research depends on people not knowing which graph is which. If they have the opportunity to check before voting (by a quick google search, or by having seen the PBS Newshour show, or having read the other article on the Newshour website where it was actually more prominent than the quiz) they will of course choose the correct answer. Not to mention that visitors to the PBS site are not representative of the US population!

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean. The poll here. Yes indeed, NSG'ers from the US prefer the Swedish distribution by the margin you said.

You know we're a bunch of lefties, don't you?

Oh, source? pdf from Harvard Business School. It's nice how it's still available. Here's the Fig 1 I spoke of:

The pie charts were shown in pairs to the subjects (rotated by subject) and they gave their preference. Almost half preferred an even more equal distribution than Sweden's! Equal distribution, commie as all get out, which doesn't exist anywhere!

I meant one of the polls you link to in the OP.

Sigh ... so you do mean PBS's totally bogus online poll?

Please can we use the source from their story, not their stupid television story? I never would have started this thread on the basis of the Newshour article, and I'm starting to regret that I gave "full disclosure" about where I heard this from.

I quoted the source you asked for. It was right there in the OP, and the other "sources" I linked to there, I made quite plain I was not relying on. Nine pages in, I have said this over and over again, and more than once to you directly. The primary source is

pdf from the site of Harvard Business School

If you can't understand it well enough to comment on it, I will be very disappointed in you Sibirsky.

[Josh Sinister]

FUCK FUCKING FUCK YEAS.

[AiliailiA]

I'm more and more coming around to the view that the "study" is itself quite bogus.

Suppose you are hungry. I offer you a choice between:

1. A fairy sandwich, made by volunteer fairies from 100% fairy-certified magical ingredients.
2. A fair-trade, government certified, wholemeal sandwich of bread and butter margarine, sorry but Sweden just banned cows.
3. A sandwich made with two slices of white bread and a filling of human shit.

You're going to go for (2) every time aren't you? Well, maybe the second or third time you get the offer you might try the fairy sandwich because hey, it might not exist, but you've played this game before and you know you can hold out without anything to eat until the next time you get an offer. You won't ever go for the shit sandwich. It will only make your hunger worse to look at those delicious slices of bread, all smeared with someone's shit. Fuck a fairy, you'd choose the probably-non-existent sandwich over that one, right?

Well, I think that isn't a fair choice. And however good the professor from Harvard and the associate professor from Duke are at linear regression, it's foolish to try to extract data from a huge middle ground which wasn't tested (distributions between Sweden and the US, ie most of the countries on earth which could have been given as examples but weren't) and were little short of trolling by introducing a fictitious distribution. If they'd compared the real US distribution to "100% to the top quintile" they'd have shown that US people love the way it is! And duh, the Swedish situation would have fared a lot worse if it had been the extreme example, not the middle example.

You can't linear regress out of that. The study is full of shit.

It pains me to say. I liked it enough to start a thread about about it. Now I feel kind of silly.

[Sibirsky]

What surprises me is that Sweden only has a slight edge over perfect equality (51-49) considering how much better (while still not being the preferable choice) the US does against perfect equality, compared to Sweden (23-8).

And yes, as you point out the middle choice should always win out. The only legitimate data here, is that Americans underestimate the inequality in the US. But that's nothing new, and has been known for quite sometime.

Finally, as someone else has already pointed out, if it's desirable, how do we achieve it? An even more progressive income tax system? I have issues with that because of the cyclical nature of that beast. A higher inheritance tax? I have issues with that, because that wealth has already been taxed. Less barriers to entry? I would support that. But it would not achieve the desired equality (at least, based on this study).

[Salandriagado]

I'm more and more coming around to the view that the "study" is itself quite bogus.

Suppose you are hungry. I offer you a choice between:

1. A fairy sandwich, made by volunteer fairies from 100% fairy-certified magical ingredients.
2. A fair-trade, government certified, wholemeal sandwich of bread and butter margarine, sorry but Sweden just banned cows.
3. A sandwich made with two slices of white bread and a filling of human shit.

You're going to go for (2) every time aren't you? Well, maybe the second or third time you get the offer you might try the fairy sandwich because hey, it might not exist, but you've played this game before and you know you can hold out without anything to eat until the next time you get an offer. You won't ever go for the shit sandwich. It will only make your hunger worse to look at those delicious slices of bread, all smeared with someone's shit. Fuck a fairy, you'd choose the probably-non-existent sandwich over that one, right?

Well, I think that isn't a fair choice. And however good the professor from Harvard and the associate professor from Duke are at linear regression, it's foolish to try to extract data from a huge middle ground which wasn't tested (distributions between Sweden and the US, ie most of the countries on earth which could have been given as examples but weren't) and were little short of trolling by introducing a fictitious distribution. If they'd compared the real US distribution to "100% to the top quintile" they'd have shown that US people love the way it is! And duh, the Swedish situation would have fared a lot worse if it had been the extreme example, not the middle example.

You can't linear regress out of that. The study is full of shit.

It pains me to say. I liked it enough to start a thread about about it. Now I feel kind of silly.

They didn't linear regress out of it. They said "people in the US prefer what Sweden has to what the US has". The data holds that out entirely. They didn't say anything about "People in the US don't like the US" or "People in the US love more liberal income distributions". They also said "People in the US don't know what the income distribution in the US looks like", which again, is held out by the data.

[New England and The Maritimes]

What surprises me is that Sweden only has a slight edge over perfect equality (51-49) considering how much better (while still not being the preferable choice) the US does against perfect equality, compared to Sweden (23-8).

And yes, as you point out the middle choice should always win out. The only legitimate data here, is that Americans underestimate the inequality in the US. But that's nothing new, and has been known for quite sometime.

Finally, as someone else has already pointed out, if it's desirable, how do we achieve it? An even more progressive income tax system? I have issues with that because of the cyclical nature of that beast. A higher inheritance tax? I have issues with that, because that wealth has already been taxed. Less barriers to entry? I would support that. But it would not achieve the desired equality (at least, based on this study).

What I would recommend to even our wealth inequality would be simple; make it easier for anyone who wants to to become educated, to save money, to start their own business, and to not have to worry about massive medical bills, etc. It'd be pretty counterproductive cut the top off of our mountain, when we could raise the bottom up instead.