Oulu is my favorite town in Finland. Its post Nokia prosperity is most certainly due to Finland's generous social security allowing its people the time and means to recover without having to abandon and emigrate, and also the significant stimulus the state put forward to new entrepreneurial initiatives in the region.
There's definitely lessons their for the rest of Europe.
The article also notes that Oulu has inexpensive housing. Inexpensive housing is a lesson many cities could use—from Berlin to London to San Francisco. Having affordable housing help everyone from people with high-paying tech jobs to have the time to find new work, to people with lower incomes.
I'm visiting a smallish town in the UK and working remote from here. It's perfect. I can get a 50% paycut and still be able to live a happy life here. I see lots of companies starting to accept remote and my company strongly supports it as well. I don't usually like working from home/remote but I'm thoroughly enjoying these past weeks.
I support building up (with ample green space) to bring down the cost. But that doesn't have to be the only solution. The attitude that everyone has to work from an office every day of every week is ridiculous to me. A week or two per quarter of travel and then a strong culture around remote work will distribute the prosperity as well. The future economy is knowledge based and we better prepare for it.
1. if you want inexpensive housing then you need to find enough voters that would take a X% haircut on their investment in their own home. good luck with that.
2. i don't think you realise just how small oulu actually is. mega-cities like tokyo, sydney, london or nyc are hugely complex machines.
Or enact laws that don't have a negative effect on most voters - e.g. block non-resident ownership like in NZ and give owner-occupiers the same tax breaks as landlords.
I would gladly see the value of my house drop by 60%, if it meant that all the bigger/nicer houses in the area also dropped by 60%.
For most homeowners, the absolute value of their house is broadly irrelevant. What matters most is the difference between their current house and the next one they want to move to.
People looking to stay put for the foreseeable future are unaffected by changes in house prices.
Empty nest downshifters benefit from prices remaining high and rising, as do flippers, landlords, and those with a very high LTV who wish to move.
People looking to move to a bigger/better house would benefit (e.g. renters saving up to buy, a young family currently outgrowing the house that was perfect when the parents were just a couple).
Is it not the case where you are / in most countries as it is in the US that most homeowners have loans out for most of the value of their property (sometimes even more!)? In which case, surely the value of the current home matters quite a lot?
Maybe you mean to say that what matters is the difference between the price of the desired future home and the amount of salable equity that they have in their current home?
I feel that's a bit naive: many people do not own their homes outright and are leveraged as a result of their mortgage loans.
Say I own 50% of the equity in a home valued at $1M today, and I want to move into a new home valued at $1.5M.
I sell my current home, and I realize enough cash ($0.5M) to cover a 33% down-payment on the new home. Assuming I have the cash flow to satisfy the lender I can pay the mortgage, I can make the move.
But assume all property decreases in value by half. Now when I come to sell my home I only get back enough to repay the mortgage and I have nothing to fund a down-payment on the new home.
Even though the difference in price between the homes halved, I can no longer afford the move.
Sort of. These things all have limits. People with negative equity cannot easily sell up. People close to negative equity will have a bit of a hard time.
Say I owe $400K on a $1M home, and I want a $1.5M home. I sell my home to make a 600K downpayment and have to borrow 900K in order to buy that new place.
Let's say all property decreases by half. My home is now 500K, the one I want is now 750K.
I sell up and have a 100K (13%) downpayment and have to borrow 650K to cover the rest.
My LTV has risen considerably, and if the market continues to fall, I might be stuck with negative equity, but I still owe less than I would at the higher prices.
Lenders might be less likely to lend in that scenario, but there will be a sweet spot somewhere where the price drop corresponds to something sufficiently below the majority of movers' LTVs to be beneficial for homebuyers in general.
Yes, this. Also if I’m in a low value area where “dropping by 60%” means going from $150k to 60k it has a totally different impact than $1.5m to $600k.
Only if you want to downshift to an even lower value area (or smaller place in the same area), or if the higher value properties maintain their value better than yours.
If you were trying to move from a 150K place to a 200K place, you are now moving from a 60K place to an 80K place.
You never had that 90K that you just "lost". Your net worth didn't really drop from 150K+savings to 60K+savings, it was always 1house+savings.
That's not how net worth works. Substitute "12 shares of GOOG" for "$150K house", and your statement remains remains true-but-unhelpful.
If you limit yourself solely to the utility value of the home (i.e. you can live in it), you could perhaps convince yourself of that, but for most people their home is the largest investment they'll ever make.
I know a lot of people (including myself) have "sell home, move to a lower cost-of-living area, roll excess cash into retirement funds" as part of their retirement plan.
> I know a lot of people (including myself) have "sell home, move to a lower cost-of-living area, roll excess cash into retirement funds" as part of their retirement plan.
Which is why almost any talk of trying to actually make systemic, long-term fixes to the housing market--to move it back towards something that provides housing for actual people instead of an investment vehicle for those (shrinking few) who are lucky enough to get on the property ladder--feels doomed to failure. That this situation sustains means that people who have spent many years in a place that is a high cost-of-living area will not be able to retire there unless, again, they got lucky on the property ladder.
On a macro level, people will say that they want fixes and that people should be able to find housing near jobs and all of that. But, at the individual level, rising housing prices that stay high over the long term are beneficial to so many people in a way that, were it to change, would fundamentally crash their post-work prospects. So everyone who owns property is scared to death of that being undermined, to the point that it is, intentional or not, an "I got mine don't touch it" situation.
I know that's a bluntly unfair way to put it because people are simply playing the game as it exists, but that it's unfair doesn't mean it's not also true.
If you need to either own or rent 12 shares of a tech company so you have somewhere to sleep, and if the value of each tech company stock rises and falls roughly in line with that of other tech companies in the region, then the comparison is fair.
It isn't about limiting yourself solely to the utility value, but about the difficulty in separating the utility from the investment.
You can sell your shares for market value at any time, and use the proceeds for whatever you want.
If you sell your only home, you usually then need to spend money on replacing it, whether in the form of rent, mortgage, or using the proceeds to buy outright.
Housing cannot be both 1) "a good investment" in that it grows more than the economy 2) and affordable.
Ideally, prices would be fairly stable, so that people can swap out of different housing depending on their needs at different stages of life without stressing too much about 'the market'.
One wonders how many voters in cities own any property, even their own house. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's at least less than half. Possibly much less, but I'd like to see data if its out there. Obviously the sort that own property are more likely to vote, but there are many many more people who rent.
The homeownership rate in the US as well as in the UK is 65%.
What it means is that 65% of homes are occupied by their owners. It doesn't mean that 65% of people live in their own homes, but I suspect it is not too far off the share of people living in their own home or in a home owned by a family member or partner.
I guess the difference is people renting a room in a house occupied by its owner. Did I forget anyone?
It may not be the same at all in big cities though. I know that homeownership rates in London have collapsed far below 50% in recent years.
Yeah the cities thing was what I was thinking about mostly - in the countryside home ownership is higher as prices are less, less apartments and there are less big property owners.
Theres also the question of what it means to own ones house. A lot of people have a mortgage for their house, but the relationship between this and benefitting from the value appreciating is different for different people.
I can't really spend a lot of time on this right now to figure out why, but your data seems to be in direct conflict with a sister comments figure about home ownership in london. I don't want to draw any conclusions for which figure is correct, perhaps you have more domain knowledge and can explain?
None of the links in the sister support home ownership being below 50% in London. The third link shows a difference between white and non-white British ownership levels but that's it.
> then you need to find enough voters that would take a X% haircut on their investment in their own home
Or build entire new cities. This is what the UK did after WW2 [0], building dozens of new cities of 100k to 250k people, most notably Milton Keynes, Peterborough and Northampton.
for the UK in particular that would not bring the housing costs down.
you can build as many houses as you want, the prices in the UK will still be high.
Not all demand comes from potential home owners. Real estate has been a magnet for institutional investors for years, particularly in Europe after ECB's quantitative easing policy.
Not just the homeowners, the banks / current mortgage holders.
Real estate is a backstop on equity.
Leveraged real estate is (as with homeowners) a tremendous risk to financing firms.
They will (and have) fought tooth and nail to resist any depreciation of assets.
This is one of the resistances to technological innovations that Bernhard J. Stern wrote of in 1937. The commonality with the other examples he gives is striking.
~200K residents... Same as most cities in Romania. Come to Romania, lol, there's gigabit fiber and good food everywhere, great all-round weather. Buy a house 5-10km from the city for ~60K.
City uses combination of zoning laws, right of pre-emption and expropriation to have good and affordable housing supply. Policy is that land is not zoned until it's acquired by the city, which will then sell and lease lots - old landowners can't get huge windfalls from city growth and lease contracts force to build in allotted time.
you know why Oulu has inexpensive housing? Because not many people want to live there. I probably wouldn't live there even if they paid me to live there.
You want to make SF affordable? No problem, make it bad enough so that no one will want to live there
This is not something that can be decided by edict.
Prices are driven by supply and demand. Highly desirable locations with limited scope to increase supply have always been expensive, and will always be expensive.
Oulu is a small place almost literally in the middle of nowhere and extremely North, hardly a property hotspot.
Home prices are driven in large part by the ease of obtaining loans.
Interest rates and mortgage policies have a huge effect on housing prices.
Bizarre tax policies like the ability for Americans to write off interest on mortgages also certainly don't help.
There are governments that intervene directly to keep their housing market cool in order to maintain affordable housing stock for their workers. My understanding is the German state tries to do this, for example, in order to maintain its ability to be a relevant industrial exporter.
Obviously rates and mortgages amplify price increases but they are not the root cause, which is... supply and demand.
Prices are driven up because people compete to buy a limited stock.
Restrictions on mortgages and higher rates to not necessarily make desirable areas more affordable. The absolute prices might be lower, indeed, but fewer people will also be able to afford the mortgages.
For effective and sustainable affordability there is no alternative to balancing supply and demand.
I don't get the disconnect here. I _am_ talking about the demand curve. The demand for private ownership of housing is driven in many respects by the ability to take out a mortgage loan. This kind of low interest easy to get loan exists for no other type of asset, and is unique to housing, and is in large part a product of macroeconomic state policy. These types of loans are backed in many countries by government insurance. So they are in effect a kind of macroeconomic planning by the state.
So it should be no surprise that in countries where the state effectively encourages private home ownership through favourable loans that the demand for private homes is high enough to drive prices high.
Obviously there is the supply side to this. I think in some regions, especially the badly planned sprawl that is Silicon Valley, restrictions on density and supply are really a big part of the problem. But it doesn't explain it everywhere. There are regions where construction and density are not similarly restricted that still have high, unaffordable home prices, because demand for single family homes is effectively stimulated by economic policy.
> This kind of low interest easy to get loan exists for no other type of asset, and is unique to housing, and is in large part a product of macroeconomic state policy. These types of loans are backed in many countries by government insurance. So they are in effect a kind of macroeconomic planning by the state.
Not quite unique: this kind of loan is available for college tuition too!
Perhaps unsurprisingly, that’s another disaster zone...
An even worse kind of loan I'd say. No collateral, no underwriting, only requirements are a business willing to sell a product and a customer willing to buy it.
Private ownership vs. renting is quite irrelevant. In the end, affordability whether in terms of property price or rent level will be set by supply and demand.
The demand for private homes is driven by people wanting to live in a specific location. Prices are then set according to how that aligns with supply.
It is unrealistic to expect every locations to be affordable to everyone.
Apart from increasing supply, a remedy is to spread demand. Prices in e.g. London or Silicon Valley are high in part because these are very attractive locations and there are so in part because jobs are concentrated there.
In North America, there are few state level macroeconomic policies that encourage demand for rents, apart from the few places where rent control is still in place.
There are macroeconomic policies that underwrite and encourage private ownership of single family homes.
> Okay but what if we just let people build condos until people stopped buying them?
I guess the question is "let people build condos" ... where? What if there's a natural park? Or what if something is private property and the owner doesn't want you to build there?
Umm...many cities (SF, NYC, most of California, ...) have plenty of prohibitions on building condos that go far beyond “there’s a natural park there” and “the owner doesn’t want random people building condos on his property”.
Zoning laws basically prevent construction of condos even by the owners of the property in like 90% of the Bay Area, if not more...
>Prices are driven by supply and demand. Highly desirable locations with limited scope to increase supply will always be expensive.
You know it's possible to regulate prices with laws, do you? The thing you said is not a law of nature, just something we agreed on. And we can change our mind.
People can and do change their minds about where they want to live and how much they will pay, but they don't do it just because there are laws saying they should. You can legislate prices, but if they don't match what people want then someone will end up rationing desirable things in some other way.
You can't legislate what people value, but you can change things so they value them more or less. I think the most promising thing would be to convince companies to create jobs in places where the cost of housing is lower.
Sure, you can, but pricing laws won't change the fact that there is more demand than supply. If anything, it will make things worse.
There has to be some selection. With free market, the selection is about how much you can or are willing to pay. Cap the rents and other criteria will be used. In many cases, more or less legal froms of bribery will make up for the gap in value.
Another common thing that happens when rents are capped is that landlords are going to make sure that they are only renting to the rich, because the rich are less likely to default. How are they going to know that you are rich? Obvious ones are to look at your bank account (privacy?), but unfair criteria like race can also be used.
You can also become communist, have the state take all housing and redistribute them "fairly". I think it is an area where communism actually works, but it probably won't be well received in the US...
Supply and demand is as close as a 'law of nature' as can be. It is natural human behaviour.
Price controls do not work and are actually damaging because instead of trying to balance supply and demand they make the imbalance even worse. They do not remove the pressure of supply and demand, which continues to be at play.
There are other ways of deciding who gets a valuable resource, like housing in an area that a lot of people want to be in, than giving it to the person with the most money. This defeatism always can drive me nuts.
How does a waiting list or lottery work in practice for housing though? Would people not be able to sell housing? Would they have to sell to the next person on the waiting list? Are children able to inherit it?
I'm not trying to be coy, I simply haven't seen a viable alternative with details. And since most of the world converged on using money to decide allocation of resources, I'm wondering if the alternatives have significant drawbacks.
I understand that wealth begetting wealth, especially for generations seems unfair. But the solution to that doesn't have to be lottery or waiting list of housing. If the goal is to spread the wealth around more evenly, then that can be accomplished with higher taxes.
For a senior software engineer it is way easier to find a job paying double the german average salary (around 3500€/month) than rent an apartment in an ok/good location that is not hugely overpriced. Ppl in low earning jobs are commonly spending 70 - 80% of their net salary to the rent.
one of those is not like the other. Berlin has recently passed a law capping rent at below 9 Euro per square meter (much less in many regions) all over the city.
It's the first time such a law was passed anywhere in Germany. [1]
Rent control is often seen as counterproductive -- a disincentive to creating more housing.
What if it's the reverse?
The supply of land is fixed. Its intensity of usage is not.
By imposing a per unit rent cap, what's effectively happening is that a rule is being established that no more rent than that cap can be extracted per unit. But there's no inherent restriction (zoning, construction laws, etc., being of course the exceptions) to more intensive development. Increasing the unit count.
A rent cap plus zoning restrictions is one form of death: there's no new housing supplied, and if the issue is rent control (limited rates of increase over tenancy), then the result is similar to what happens in San Francisco.
But with sane zoning and construction standards and a cap, you're inducing more intensive development -- an increase in housing supply -- by imposing an arbitrary per-unit revenue cap. And without nominally raising taxes, the bugbear of the land value tax approach.
I'm not aware this argument has ever been proposed, though I am fairly confident it has been.
> But with sane zoning and construction standards and a cap, you're inducing more intensive development
Your hypothesis assumes that increasing the potential revenue by square meter has no effect attracting Urban development projects.
It seems obvious that if it's possible to increase intensity then being able to generate more income per m² only helps put together a valid business plan that increases supply.
There are two ways to increase revenue per m^2. One is to intensify the construction. The other is to limit supply.
For numerous reasons, the latter approach ... seems to predominate. Rather than constructing denser residential, commercial, and (where appropriate) industrial space, the tendency is both to sprawl out, and to simply refuse to allow new construction. San Francisco is the pathalogical case, but hardly the only, and numerous other US growth areas (LA, Seattle, Austin) and elsewhere (Sydney, Vancouver, London) are to large degrees similar. There's new construction ... of large McMansions. But not of denser forms of housing.
By imposing an arbitrary constraint in one dimension (rent extraction per unit) but allowing intensification on another (density or height of construction), this should be addressable.
Keep in mind that most of SF is at best 2 storey construction. You don't have to airdrop Salesforce Towers all over the city, only allow construction to 4-5 storeys, to more than double effective density. Apply this more broadly over the SF Bay Area, and what's become a region-threatening blockage to housing availability (and incidental issues such as traffic congestion, hours-long commutes, access to schools and services, etc., etc.) would be lifted.
The fact that landlords (or banks, through mortgages) can extract arbitrarily high amounts of rent from a given area regardless of intensity of development, is the problem. The land value tax is one approach, and is probably a better one. I'm considering what the implications of a rents cap might be.
A usual objection to rent controls (increases on existing units) is that landlords are not incentivised to maintain or improve the quality of units. Whether that might also apply to a cap is a possible objection.
I've heard so many tales of Finland's wonderful social programs. Aren't they supposed to have some of the best education quality in Europe as well? [1]
It's fascinating that a country with such a harsh climate and constant jokes about its peoples' coldness toward one another makes so much room for social security and actually caring for its people.
I'm not so sure this model would work for cases that don't involve IT giants. I mean the problem that used to be widespread in the USA - factories closing down and laying off workers. Establishing another factory might simply not be regionally viable so the town gets abandoned, losing population and resources. A bit easier with the IT sector, we can all move around if the pay's right and it's not like the company itself needs some strict local conditions to fit their needs.
It's useful in as much as it provides a basis for comparison between differences in the base standard of living between equivalent gdp/capita societies, like Finland and the US, which is what the parent was doing.
It's not, however, useful as the sole metric for evaluating the economic condition of a society.
This is the standard right wing excuses why social programms like they are assumed elsewhere, can't be implemented in the US. But I haven't seen a good explanation how one thing prevents the other yet.
When conservatives say that they think the US is too "diverse" for such policies to work, take them at their word. They think that social democracy is fine as long as the benefits don't go to black or brown people. In fact, this was the essence the "grand bargain" that FDR struck to get the New Deal passed with reluctant support from southern Democrats - FDR was allowed to create redistributive programs so long minorities were systematically excluded from them (see Richard Rothstein's "The Color of Law" for examples on how this was achieved through federal housing policy). It's also the reason why the woman Reagan chose as the canonical example of the "welfare queen" (who herself is a fascinating character, see https://pictorial.jezebel.com/the-long-shadow-of-the-welfare...) was black.
I figure when the USA is capable of providing proper health care and social programs to the tribes it has treaties with, then it can be trusted to provide those same service to its other citizens.
i had no idea about this being a "right wing excuse".
for me it's just a fact that in a high population, high wage, highly regulated society it's much harder to overhaul things radically than in a similar tiny nation. without some sort of a disaster (think WW2), it would be very hard to force everyone to switch from an entrenched system to a different one.
It isn't about "caring". The US system is actually more caring because it guarantees access to social programs regardless of contributions. In the US, social programs are something you have a right to if you are a citizen. In Europe, they are something that is earned through contributions. In continental Europe, you pay high taxes but you receive a lot of those benefits back in the form of benefits. Unemployment insurance is literally insurance that is just provided by the state. That term makes no sense in a redistributive system like the US.
It is fine to suggest that this system is better but there is a reason it only exists in some countries and not others. If you have a high level of business creation/destruction, it is a huge risk (Denmark is an example of a country with this system but very low regulations on business/labour, 2008 nearly killed this system). If you have a very mobile population, it doesn't work either. If you have a heterogeneous population, it doesn't work.
The simpler solution is to take the parts that will work i.e. investment in retraining.
I'm not sure there's a bright line between insurance and redistribution. What is insurance other than a way to redistribute money from people who don't need the money to people who do?
That is 100% not the case. In addition to being factually wrong, it suggests a totally ahistorical view of social policy development. Social policy in the EU and US/UK are nothing alike, they have completely different aims because the history/context is just totally different.
To be totally clear: I have studied this topic (I studied econ/policy at PG level) and no research I have ever read has suggested this. Google comparative social policy research.
I understand that if you get your knowledge from misinformed politicians who haven't studied the issue but believe it will solve all their country's problems...yes, that distinction is not clear. If you actually read books though, it is quite wrong.
I'm thinking more conceptually and financially. Fire insurance means people whose house never burns down lose money and people whose house did burn down get money. It is literally a redistribution of money as you don't get out what you put in. They do this willingly, of course, because financial security is valuable. But it is in essence a collective scheme.
There are big differences between the US and EU though, not disputing that. But maybe there's a way of describing this difference that makes the distinction clearer?
Yes, the principle of European social policy is that you get out what you put in. The principle of UK/US social policy is that you have an entitlement to a small amount of money because you are a citizen (univeralism).
Because you seem to not understand some part of this: in Europe, if you make $100k/year and you lose your job the state will pay you a percentage of your previous income for a fixed period of time (and you then get nothing or put onto a long-term unemployed program). For example, 75% so you will get pro rata $75k/year. In the UK/US, if you lose your job you will get $x/year, regardless of your previous job and what you contributed to the system (i.e. it is redistributive...some people pay a lot into the system and get nothing, people who pay nothing in get the most...insurance doesn't work this way).
The history isn't worth going into but the European welfare state was invented by Conservatives. The US/UK welfare state was invented by Socialists. Practically, what most people think about the European system is almost 100% wrong: the US/UK welfare system is intended to intervene in the market, the European welfare system is not (and the Nordic countries are usually most strident about not interfering in the market, particularly Denmark which has very high rates of job creation/destruction).
Just to be totally clear: what most Americans are being sold by Democrats is a total fiction. There is no alternative to the market. Every country that has had politicians that tried to outsmart the market has failed (the Nordic countries did this in the 80s, they were bankrupt by the early 90s). The US already has the most heavily redistributive social policy anywhere. If it isn't working, that doesn't mean you need to go further.
And yes, that is why I suggested you read about it yourself. This is seminal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Worlds_of_Welfare_Ca... - but social policy is perhaps one of the biggest areas in comparative politics (because the importance of context/history is so evident).
Strange, I know several in Sweden who receive social money from the state and can live a decent life and they haven't worked a single hour in their life. How is that possible if "you only get what you put in"? Unemployment is different of course, but that is capped at a very low level so in most cases it is essentially fixed unless you have a private employment insurance.
Totally agree. Short-ish term unemployment is (beside pensions) the only social program I can think of that pays out depending on what you payed in. Thus I also have a real problem with the sentiment of "you have contribute to get taken care of" in GPs original comment.
Social programs take care of you based on needs, regardless what you payed in. Healthcare (the public program) gives the same service to everyone while having you to pay a % of income. You won't get neither more housing nor child benefit by having payed in more.
Yes, unemployment is a bit of a special case since its goal is to minimize disruption on peoples live in case of sudden job loss. Not just being a basic safety net... those are available to everyone.
Right, and the thing that you have chosen as the "only" example is probably the most important aspect of the Nordic system, relatively, within European social policy.
Yes, I explained that above. Again: in most European countries you will usually get put into a long-term unemployment program. More information: this benefit can and does get removed totally (if you refuse work, it stops), and in most European countries you will be required to essentially perform work in these programs (i.e. retraining). The only way to obtain money without performing work is to be disabled. That is it.
Why I have to tell you this is unclear? Just look on the internet. Too much like hard work, amirite comrade? Also, you are not only reasoning from your sample size of "people I know" but that is limited to one country...at least try to be serious.
I'm from Sweden so that is what I'm aware of, and I have a hard time finding anything aspect with more benefits in the US than in Sweden. For example our unemployment benefits works almost exactly like USA (up to $550 a week in USA but not higher than you earned, up to 20000kr a month in Sweden but not higher than you earned). So I don't see how the American system is special, it seems kinda standard to me.
> The only way to obtain money without performing work is to be disabled. That is it.
Right, but getting a diagnosis from a psychologist that you are depressed or similar and can't work is not very hard. I've also received this kind of aid before I got a job so I know.
They mention it one time on that page. It's a government owned company[0], one of the largest in Finland by revenue but not particularly large. Tried finding the oil refining revenue in Finland but seems miniscule enough to not be easily searchable, and going from a quarterly report this spring most of their profit generating operations are outside of Finland. [1]
It's not that. It's a culture of cohesion and taking caring for one another. Compared to US which seems terribly individualistic, which further amplifies these traits in people producing selfish assholes whose selfishness is net-negative to everyone, Finnish people are more concerned with the common good which permeates through the whole society. The social programs, low-crime rate (police in Finland are well-liked) and good education for everyone are by-products of this mindset which strengthen it even more.
It's difficult or even impossible to translate that into different country, but I'd argue each bit has an effect over long period of time. US has become so antagonistic over the years it's hard to see it ever growing out of it. And in smaller scale of course, US must have similar kind of environments. But the cultural norms are such that it's not really a joint goal of the people to have it for everyone. It's a behavioural dilemma since in order to create such culture it has to reciprocated and seen as the "better way", but that takes generations to happen. By believing it can't be done it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Our egos are too fixated on our own habits that learning to look life at different perspective is made impossible. And when happiness can be directly measured in how many dollars you have, who could convince people otherwise.
It is a country of about 5.5 million people. Most of the people are of same race and culturally quite similar. With enough government income they can certainly do and in fact doing a lot of societal good.
This is not possible for either countries with low income or large cultural or racial diversity because there is big difference of opinion on what is good for society
This description matches better many countries in Africa than Finland. Finland is not that rich in natural resources, they have no coal, no oil. Have a lot of wood and some minerals.
There's definitely lessons their for the rest of Europe.