Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

m.inc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 167 posts

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#121

Post by uuilly »

andrewljohnson wrote: post #113
uuilly wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're comfortable pushing those costs onto healthy young men?

And you're comfortable with a system of laws that preempts women from doing start-ups? For one, that seems like it's not going to lead to good outcomes - it's in the country's and the world's best interest to have all capable young people able to be entrepreneurs. Second, of course I'm comfortable subsidizing women, young people, poor people, and other groups, because I view the world in a Rawlsian fashion. That is,…

I don't think founders should concern themselves with fixing the inequities of the world. And I think it's in society's interest to place as little burden as possible on people who make goods or provide services that improve productivity.

I also don't think that you should presume to know anything about what my future tune may be.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#122

Post by RK »

sbt wrote: post #96

My God, where to begin on this unnecessarily provocative link-bait fuckup of a story. "This is particularly surprising, because the prices Dalmo pays for government services are among the highest in the world." >Of course, the country has some of the highest wages in the world so nursing is naturally not as cheap as in Nepal. "The capitalist system functions well," Dalmo says. "But I'm a socialist in my bones." > Let…

"This is a place where entire cities smell of drying fish—an odor not unlike the smell of rotting fish" > What?

I think the author means that you're told that smell is "drying fish" (I assume for eating), but to an outsider it just smells like rotting fish. Sarcastic humor.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#123

Post by hellrich »

hmottestad wrote: post #99
nightlifelover wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have less to lose, you're more willing to take risks. Completely disagree, social security has rather a negative on the willingness of the population to take risks. In countries with high social securities, such as Switzerland or Germany there are less startups founded on average. People instead are in a kind of security thinking and take the most safe jobs, get an insurance for everything, etc..

As I recall Germany and Switzerland do not have particularly good social securities. They both differ from Norway (the country in the article) by having very, very, very limited base health insurance. Their system is pretty similar to the US.

Not true for Germany, nearly everything is covered by the Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#124

Post by jacoblyles »

blahedo wrote: post #82
ThomPete wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true if you look to the Scandinavian countries. Because you have less to loose you don't aspire as much thus you don't take risk. Furthermore it's much more expensive to fail in Scandinavia for those who venture into actually risking.

> thus you don't take risk. And yet, "Rates of start-up creation [in Norway] are among the highest in the developed world, and Norway has more entrepreneurs per capita than the United States." Did you read the article? > it's much more expensive to fail in Scandinavia for those who venture into actually risking. How so?

Norway's population is the size of a modest US city. It is not informative to compare a country of 5 million to a country of 307 million. This is always a flaw in the old argument that the United States should be more like Scandinavian country X, but I am yelling into the wind on this topic.

How does the rate of startups in Norway compare to Silicon Valley? I suspect it is much lower. If Silicon Valley's rate of startups were reduced to that of Norway, it would be a loss for the US and for the world.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#125

Post by michaelchisari »

hugh3 wrote: post #108
michaelchisari wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The base definition of socialism is "worker ownership of the means of production and distribution". Some interpret this to be state or public ownership, but others see worker co-operatives, collectives and federations to be socialist formations which can operate within a market. Syndicalists, market socialists, etc. would fall under this definition.

The base definition of socialism is "worker ownership of the means of production and distribution". So, any system where people who work are free to buy shares in companies then?

Not that simple, no. Profit-sharing is not the same as worker ownership, since if shares are available to non-workers, then it's not a socialist system. Also, if workers are required to "buy in" to shares, instead of collectively owning the results of their economic organization, then that is not socialism either.

What you're thinking of is still capitalism.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#126

Post by warrenwilkinson »

andrewljohnson wrote: post #113
uuilly wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're comfortable pushing those costs onto healthy young men?

And you're comfortable with a system of laws that preempts women from doing start-ups? For one, that seems like it's not going to lead to good outcomes - it's in the country's and the world's best interest to have all capable young people able to be entrepreneurs. Second, of course I'm comfortable subsidizing women, young people, poor people, and other groups, because I view the world in a Rawlsian fashion. That is,…

'will not pay for' is not the same as 'law preempting' and countries don't have 'best interests' only people do, so speak plainly: you see greater financial equality as a good thing.

Insurers who share your philosophy would drive men away. So you advocate market-meddling as the solution. Which adds regulation, compliance, bureaucracy, etc, costs that are pushed onto everybody.

OR realize that women marry men (and thus buy share insurance). OR charities exist to support single mothers. OR they can use contraceptives --- unless you're arguing that women have a right to take risky business ventures while pregnant on other peoples dime.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#127

Post by barry-cotter »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #111
smokey_the_bear wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know your point was specifically about young men, but this is one of the things that keeps women from doing startups. I'm young, healthy, female, and doing a startup, but one of my major concerns was finding a health care plan that would eventually cover maternity. Prior to the health reform law, if I'd developed any kind of condition I wouldn't have been able to switch plans, and even if I did, they often don't co…

Maternity is a ridiculous thing for insurance to cover, since it's an event entirely under the control of the insured. Similarly, you can't buy life insurance which covers suicide or fire insurance which covers arson committed by you. Extremely expensive pregnancies are an insurable risk, but standard pregnancy is not.

Similarly, you can't buy life insurance which covers suicide

In the US your life insurance will pay out in the event of suicide after two years but not before.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#128

Post by tankenmate »

davidwparker wrote: post #50
zdw wrote: post #7

If you have less to lose, you're more willing to take risks. Thus having the government take care of basic welfare and health care benefits frees people to be entrepreneurial, in a sense. Compare to the US, where people are tied to a job based on the benefits they have through that job, and before the health care legislation's removal of preexisting conditions clauses, if you had a medical condition and lost your job…

I agree, it would be nice if the government could help alleviate things such as basic welfare and health care benefits. Unfortunately for the USA, we are in such a massive amount of debt that it would be impossible* for the government to do such a thing. And between health care and the military spending, we're pretty much diving deeper and deeper. * We could do it, but I doubt that any legislators would go for such a…

I think you would find that if the Govt. took over healthcare in the US it would probably save the country as a whole money. The US pays more for healthcare per capita than any other OECD nation, and still doesn't manage to cover all its citizens. A minor increase in the corporate tax rate would mean that the state could cover the cost of health cover and then companies wouldn't need to pay stupid money to cover their employees. An all round win-win.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#129

Post by tankenmate »

rick888 wrote: post #69
michael_dorfman wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That last part makes me think that you aren't really making that much and justifying it by saying: "we're not really in it for the money, are we?". Bad guess. My first startup had a successful exit; I'm not at liberty to discuss the numbers, but let's just say that it was for a satisfying amount with the appropriate number of zeroes. Everyone is in it for the money. Money means freedom. Freedom from governments and y…

"Bad guess. My first startup had a successful exit; I'm not at liberty to discuss the numbers, but let's just say that it was for a satisfying amount with the appropriate number of zeroes." ok. So why say "we all aren't in it for the money", when that is obviously not the case for you. "I'm not purely in it for the money; I'm in it for the quality of life." So you are interested in running a lifestyle business ( http…

The point he was making is the marginal gain from $1,000,000 to $1,100,000 is very different from the marginal gain from $0 to $100,000.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#130

Post by loewenskind »

davidwparker wrote: post #50
zdw wrote: post #7

If you have less to lose, you're more willing to take risks. Thus having the government take care of basic welfare and health care benefits frees people to be entrepreneurial, in a sense. Compare to the US, where people are tied to a job based on the benefits they have through that job, and before the health care legislation's removal of preexisting conditions clauses, if you had a medical condition and lost your job…

I agree, it would be nice if the government could help alleviate things such as basic welfare and health care benefits. Unfortunately for the USA, we are in such a massive amount of debt that it would be impossible* for the government to do such a thing. And between health care and the military spending, we're pretty much diving deeper and deeper. * We could do it, but I doubt that any legislators would go for such a…

The US spends over 700 billion dollars a year on the military. It wouldn't take that much to fully cover everyone.
Post reply on HN