November 17, 2007
Are the Swedes Good at Everything?
Kira Cochrane in New Statesman (via Political Theory Daily Review):
The Swedes seem to slide effortlessly into first place - or thereabouts - in bloody everything worth prizing, don't they? They are healthy - they have one of the longest life expectancies in the world. They are friendly - they have just been named the best country in Europe when it comes to welcoming immigrants and helping them to settle.
They are intelligent - they have the highest per capita ratio of Nobel laureates. They gave us Abba, the most karaoke-friendly pop group of all time. And last year the Daily Mail asked "Is Sweden the most boring country in the world?" before giving the country a right drubbing. Now, if there's anything that can establish something's innate coolness as quickly as a thorough slagging from the Daily Mail, I have yet to discover it.
And, if all that weren't enough, for the second year running Sweden has been named as the country that has done the most to reduce gender disparity. The Global Gender Gap Report 2007, put together by the World Economic Forum, surveyed 128 countries and considered four markers of equality - economic participation, educational attainment, political empowerment and health. They found that "while no country has yet achieved gender equality, Sweden, Norway and Finland have all closed over 80 per cent of the gender gap and thus serve as a useful benchmark for international comparisons". The UK didn't do too badly, although we dropped out of the top ten, to number 11, well behind our Nordic rivals. And the world's leading economy, the US, plummeted from 23rd to 31st - just one place ahead of Kazakhstan.
Which begs the question - what makes Sweden so good for women?
Posted by Robin Varghese at 11:49 AM | Permalink
Comments
Yes, an ideal society clearly. But their suicide rate is 31st in the world, while the US's is 46th.
Hmmm.
Posted by: LeCompte | Nov 17, 2007 3:08:00 PM
If the Swedish tax rate is extremely "progressive", it would tend to cram everybody towards the lower margin, thereby creating the illusion of gender income equality.
And we all know the tax rates are quite high there.
That said, I don't really see why men and women must have the exact same roles in an economy. We're different biologically, and we would expect that inate differences to be reflected in many ways, including income.
Posted by: J.M.M. | Nov 17, 2007 10:46:21 PM
Coincidentally I came across this research summary on the yahoo news page.
"And past research has established that women, on average, do in fact miss more work days than men."
Perhaps this could be because women have more babies than men. But I'm no doctor.
That means, if you were to find a zero gender difference, that would be sexist against men. (!) Because men (as a group) work more hours.
Ironically, the closed gap would mean male "unfairness".
Posted by: J.M.M. | Nov 18, 2007 12:40:27 AM
"Perhaps this could be because women have more babies than men. But I'm no doctor."
One wonders what Mr. "not a mathematician either" does . . . but as we, couples, have oh possibly 2 children in a lifetime and each represents about, well lets be generous to J.M.M. and say 9 months. A lifetime work of +/- 729 months then compared to this 18 month timeout, produces almost three percent "not working as hard as men." And well its obvious they aren't working as hard as men, because they kinda look like beer swilling louts during that time. And well the screaming reminds one of football games, its not work, its fun!
But the really ironic part of JMM's post, is that the same people that say: this "not working" is voluntary, and therefore, not even to be considered for support, are also the same people who bark and drip venom while letting women know "they must have that baby!!" ... see? irony!
Lastly, ironically, being fair to women on wages, not for a lifetimes work, but merely hours-actually-worked (which is always the demand) would make men-who-say-things-such-as -this, even less attractive to women, being much less at risk of poverty as the women will have become. This will make posters like J.M.M. even more obviously required to volunteer to do to themselves things many women are forced to do now, for his ilk, for money. Which I presume is why the British invented their terrible word for posters like this. Clever grrls!
Posted by: A.T.L. | Nov 21, 2007 1:32:47 AM
"If the Swedish tax rate is extremely "progressive", well I suppose this being the internet one could look it up. This is barely presenting an argument. He doesn't say it isn't progressive taxation. He just remembers a assumption from another 'debate' he's heard ----- "it would tend to cram everybody towards the lower margin, thereby creating the illusion of gender income equality." Higher taxes make everyone "seem" equal because everyone "would be" poor he is saying. He's not saying Swedes are poor, he cant, they're not, so he presents, in place of evidence, a posit, an assumption.
Assumptions are frequent interlopers in "economics theory" He cannot provide the actual outcome, that is, that Swedes are productive and well off, it would prove the original posters point."And we all know the tax rates are quite high there." Which means what? That its best not to be productive and well off and fair, because the method used to get there is progressive taxation?
This is known as circular logic, we cannot have fair progressive taxation because to do so would mean we would have progressive taxation. In some future post from J.M.M. we will learn of the "unacceptable" methods Swedes used to become unafraid, fair, kind and tolerant.
"That said, " what was?.
" I don't really see why men and women must have the exact same roles in an economy." I dont see the word 'role' in the Original Post, nor 'same role' and I most definitely dont see 'exact same role'. There is reference to "economic participation, educational attainment, political empowerment and health." If we pretend these four things mean suckling or Nascar driving, then J.M.M. is making sense, if not well then, J.M.M. is not. We're different biologically, and we would expect that inate(sic) differences to be reflected in many ways, including income. You have brown hair you "should" wash my car. Differences mean less money. Differences "from" J.M.M. one assumes.
Posted by: A.T.L. | Nov 21, 2007 2:27:25 AM
Post a comment