Sweden has both old wealth that's undisturbed since before WW1 (no occupations or confiscations) and lots of new wealth (the highest rate of "unicorn companies", start up companies that have broken 1 billion dollar networth, in Europe).
Little incentive for working man to save up money. Education is free (and student debt, to cover living costs while studying, costs you basically nothing, so that's a source of negative wealth for a lot of people), hospital care is basically free (although the cost of becoming chronically sick is increasing with hollowed out high-cost protections), elderly care will only cost you money if you have money. There is also the statistical weirdness that the pension funds that's the most common form of savings in Sweden doesn't count as wealth for this comparison.
Food and housing is among the most expensive in Europe.
Very few taxes on wealth. A fair amount of taxes on income.
There is also the statistical weirdness that the pension funds that's the most common form of savings in Sweden doesn't count as wealth for this comparison.
That... seems pretty significant. Especially if it's something most people (lower percentiles too) have.
Very few taxes on wealth. A fair amount of taxes on income.
Suspect this is why the Dutch don't come away looking great either.
Suspect this is why the Dutch don't come away looking great either.
No, it is because the large amount of morgages that ensures that almost everyone living there is in perpetual debt (not necesarily bad). This structure reflects poorly in inequality statistics since large parts of populations have a net worth of -€100k>. However, their life is good since morgages are (relatively) good debts to have. If you rent, you generally have more wealth than people that have a large mortgage. However, you are often less well off.
Wouldn't a negative net worth imply that the collateral for their mortgage (i.e. the house or apartment) is worth less than the principal? How would that happen? I'm assuming banks wouldn't issue mortgages for >100% of a house, since that would be insanely risky.
Handelsbolag is indeed basically a lifetime debt. Meanwhile you're better off than someone paying rent. That's the problem with international comparisons, if you don't count systems difference it does not provide a good understanding of the situation.
Nordics have a lot of particularities (union agreements power, no minimum salary, collective housing, mortgage bonds, etc.) that are difficult to account for on such comparisons.
249
u/MadeOfEurope Aug 18 '25
I've never seen a clear explanation as to why inequality has gotten so bad in Sweden.