[ludvig_tech_v1]

Im from Sweden, and let me tell you, the average swede is working less than 168, probably more like 140 hours a month taking into account all the vacation and other generous days off. Finland aint very different. And people are living well. So im wondering what is the purpose of the 200+h number? It feels wrong or manipulated/molded into existence.

Something doesnt pass the smell test.

I mean, just look at your colored map. Its like the reverse of where people live good lives.

[mickeymounds]

Quick clarification (re Sweden/Nordics): The 200+ hours isn’t “hours you actually work”; it’s hours of pay needed for a single renter on a new lease to cover a minimal basket (1-BR rent, basic utilities, staple groceries, local transit). It’s a price ÷ (typical net hourly pay) ratio.

Why it can look high in Sweden/Finland:

New-lease market rent vs. your rent. Many Swedes have regulated/legacy rents or own; our basket uses current market 1-BR (costlier), so it’s an upper-bound for a solo entrant. Households commonly share or pool incomes, which cuts hours per person a lot.

Paid vacation/leave. If the wage source is hourly, paid leave is already priced in. If a dataset forced us to derive hourly from monthly pay ÷ 160–168h, that would overstate hours for Sweden’s effective ~140h months. That alone trims the ratio ~15%.

Not a welfare map. It ignores public services/quality; it’s a cash-flow affordability snapshot for a specific living setup, not “where life is good.”