[qeternity]

They don’t have poor the way other countries do. And that’s down to culture. I don’t think people appreciate just how homogenous Scandinavia is. (Although this is changing, especially in Sweden)

I also don’t think most people realize how small these countries are. Sweden is as big as Michigan, and Norway is as big as South Carolina.

Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland combined have about half the population of California. And California has about 1/10th of the US population.

[jampekka]

> They don’t have poor the way other countries do. And that’s down to culture. I don’t think people appreciate just how homogenous Scandinavia is.

The good old dog whistle.

It's down to politics. Nordic countries had estate systems (codified social classes) until the late 19th to early 20th century, with high class separation still until the enormous socialist reforms in the mid 20th century.

Finland in particular was a true "shithole country" until after massive reforms (that were partially mandated by the Soviet Union) after WW2. Finland had a massive famine in 1866-1868 where around 10% of the population perished. The government refused to distribute food out of fears it would make the working class lazy, and continued food exports while the people were literally starving. There was a semi-serfdom system until after the 1918 civil war.

> Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland combined have about half the population of California. And California has about 1/10th of the US population.

So they managed it even without the economics of scale.

[bitshiftfaced]

> So they managed it even without the economics of scale.

You're also more likely to see extreme outcomes with small sample sizes. For example, if we were looking at a list of countries ordered by GDP per capital, statistically we should expect to see more smaller countries in the top and bottom of the list. It doesn't necessarily mean it's due to underlying causes like policy.