Danon lists the REAL reasons why Greenland is still Danish

[-]

FremanBloodglaive@reddit

Denmark has a monoethnic population of 6 million, it has no minimum wage, and about 60% of its economy is based in industrial production.

It's a technologically based economy, with a well educated workforce. Of course it's going to have a higher average wage that the entirety of the United States with its 350 million melting pot.

It's comparing apples with oranges. If you picked out 6 million of the subset of the American job market engaged in the same kind of industry, I suspect the wages would be similar.

[-]

ParticularConcept548@reddit

The only reason they are more rich because they don't spent trillions to defend "europe". Goyyyimmmm!!

[-]

It's not a US thing, that's just human nature. That's why you need competing incentives that force people to keep each other in check. In the US, workers have little incentive to join unions as we have a very competitive labor market within a very competitive business market. The main problem with unions going bad happens when state governments use this dwindling unionization as a political reason to enforce mandatory unions which have little incentive to do anything but help their own in-group at the expense of everyone else. The government removes the accountability factor of free association so the unions behave badly. Teachers' unions are public sector unions.

[-]

RashmaDu@reddit

Lots, if not most workers in Denmark are covered by unions, even in the public sector. There's nothing inherently bad about them, just demand better.

In the US, workers have little incentive to join unions as we have a very competitive labor market within a very competitive business market

I'm not sure what the link is? If you had a (good) union they would still fight to offer you better conditions? Denmark also famously has a very competitive labour market

[-]

cplusequals@reddit

No, public sector unions are inherently corrupt. You have a relationship where there are no competing interests between the bargaining parties. You end up with an ouroboros of public money where the unions support politicians who once elected turn around and support the unions with taxpayer dollars. There is no "other side" of the bargaining table like you see with private unions where the employees and the employer both need to find a compromise where the company can stay solvent and the employees are satisfied with their compensation.

In the US, many areas force membership into unions and prevent businesses in certain areas from hiring non-union workers. The labor market here is quite competitive so there isn't much need to pay a sizable portion of your salary in dues to a non-productive union. Additionally, unless you're forcing people into a union, unionizing isn't likely to net you any better pay since you're already able to hop jobs and get market rate for your skills quite easily here in the US. Private unions in free association states still exist in very niche labor markets still. But they're just not very common and they're highly specialized since the purpose of the union was largely filled by federal regulations and modern technology.

[-]

RashmaDu@reddit

You have a relationship where there are no competing interests between the bargaining parties. You end up with an ouroboros of public money where the unions support politicians who once elected turn around and support the unions with taxpayer dollars

But that's simply not how it works. The union fights for the rights of public workers, because just like any other workers, their employer can and will often try to stiff them. This could be something as mundane as not indexing salaries to inflation, or something like what has happened in the US under DOGE. The other side is quite literally the government and us as taxpayers, I don't know what you are on about.

In the US, many areas force membership into unions and prevent businesses in certain areas from hiring non-union workers. The labor market here is quite competitive so there isn't much need to pay a sizable portion of your salary in dues to a non-productive union. Additionally, unless you're forcing people into a union, unionizing isn't likely to net you any better pay since you're already able to hop jobs and get market rate for your skills quite easily here in the US

That's a very long winded way to say that according to you, unions in the US are often shit and not worth the effort. I don't know enough about it to come with an informed opinion. But I do know that that doesn't mean that unions are necessarily a bad idea or can't change to become better - demand better!

[-]

cplusequals@reddit

This could be something as mundane as not indexing salaries to inflation

Salaries are never indexed to inflation. They're indexed to supply and demand exactly the same as everything else. But no, you didn't even address my point. Public sector unions are literally corrupt in the most basic definition of corruption. Unions campaign for politicians that they're supposed to "negotiate against." These politicians have zero incentive whatsoever to not hand over exorbitantly sweet deals with taxpayer dollars. You can't just say "that's not how that works" when that's literally how it works.

unions in the US are often shit and not worth the effort

No, not according to me. According to the choices of millions of individuals making their own choices. Collectively there is little demand for unions in most positions. Self-evidently so or else there would be more unions. It's not illegal to make a union and it's actually quite common. They're just very niche and small and don't work very well outside of super niche labor markets.

If you want grocery baggers to unionize, you either need working conditions to be so shit literally all the baggers want to join up or you need to use the power of government to force people into them. If you don't force them, other people will take the jobs and there'd be no reason to hire a union bagger.

I'm just saying, trust the collective. If it were necessary there would be demand for it without the force of law necessitating it. In the absence of these laws, almost nobody unionizes.

[-]

RashmaDu@reddit

Salaries are never indexed to inflation. They're indexed to supply and demand exactly the same as everything else

Yes, I meant adjusted for inflation. And since we are looking at public sector jobs, the wage for those is quite literaly not set by supply and demand, but by government policy. Which workers filling those positions want to provide a decent living standard.

Again, I am not saying unions can’t be shit and can’t be corrupt. I’m saying they do not have to be. For instance, in Denmark, unions for public employees do have a lot of power, but also know that if push comes to shove the government can suspend them. The two work to find a mutually beneficial and acceptable bargain. If you keep wanting to make economic arguments, you might want to look up Coase.

According to the choices of millions of individuals making their own choices. Collectively there is little demand for unions in most positions. Self-evidently so or else there would be more unions

So, just to be clear: you claim unions in the US have been shit for decades, and then point to the fact that no one wants to be a member of a union today as evidence that unions are universally shit? Great circular reasoning. I’ll point you to Denmark, where the opposite is true.

If it were necessary there would be demand for it without the force of law necessitating it. In the absence of these laws, almost nobody unionizes

If you had studied basic economics you’d know that there are lot of very general cases where the government should “force” people to do something for their own benefit, because people don’t internalise the externalities of their decision: public schooling, vaccines, environmental regulation, driving licences…

[-]

cplusequals@reddit

Public sector jobs 100000% should be based on the market rate and not on inflation. The further away from market prices the less efficient the government is at doing what it does. That's just an economic fact. We want to minimize this.

Public sector unions might be different in Denmark, but in the US they're essentially like private unions for public positions. The government cannot just appoint anyone to lead a public sector union. But generally speaking, if the union is part of the government it's not really a union by the regular definition. It's more of a regulator.

I've studied far more than just basic economics, thanks. But if you actually understood economics, you'd realize that if the government is using coercion to get people to do things, there simply wasn't any incentive for it in the first place. Public schooling is considerably less successful than charter schools and private schools in the US. Vaccinations are largely adopted without any government coercion. Only recently when the government tried to force people universally to take a COVID shot was there any pushback outside of wine moms in CA, so that's self-refuting. People generally did not need to take that vaccine and those that did need to do so disproportionately did so. The only one of these that is even remotely close to reasonable is environmental regulations, but even this is just a subset of civil property claims. You can see how environmental regulation has poisoned the EU's ability to withstand energy shocks and shackled them to Russia's teat. To use this as an example that you need to force people against their will to unionize? I'm sorry, it's a solution in search of a problem. It makes no sense.

[-]

RashmaDu@reddit

Public sector jobs 100000% should be based on the market rate and not on inflation. The further away from market prices the less efficient the government is at doing what it does. That's just an economic fact. We want to minimize this.

This is absolutely not an "economic fact". Economists have very clearly established the exact opposite, in fact: unless you are in the very specific and unrealistic case of a perfect competition world with no externalities, then a free market is not always more efficient than a world with government interventions.

And in any case, we care about both efficiency and welfare. There's a trade-off between the two, and government provided jobs balance distortions to efficiency with socially valued welfare improvements.

Public sector unions might be different in Denmark, but in the US they're essentially like private unions for public positions. The government cannot just appoint anyone to lead a public sector union. But generally speaking, if the union is part of the government it's not really a union by the regular definition. It's more of a regulator.

The union is not a part of the government, it's an independent entity that negotiates with the government on behalf of its workers.

I've studied far more than just basic economics, thanks. But if you actually understood economics, you'd realize that if the government is using coercion to get people to do things, there simply wasn't any incentive for it in the first place.

This is hilariously ignorant. Please, feel free to ignore the 100+ years of economists studying why externalities results in public goods problems where individuals don't participate even though the collective has the incentive for them to do so. Hm, I wonder what the solution might be. Maybe something like a collective intervention? One we could all vote to do because we realise we as a society might benefit from it?

Public schooling is considerably less successful than charter schools and private schools.

According to what metric? Success of the students? Sure, that's not the point. The point is that without free public schooling the only kids going to school are the ones who can afford to, which is far less than those we as a society would like to because an educated population benefits everyone.

Vaccinations are largely adopted without any government coercion. Only recently when the government tried to force people universally to take a COVID shot was there any pushback outside of wine moms in CA, so that's self-refuting. People generally did not need to take that vaccine and those that did need to do so disproportionately did so. The attempt to force it completely backfired and ended up making people far more skeptical of it.

This is so ignorant it's hilarious. You really think the reason why the US was uniquely so antivaxx was because of mandates, rather than the fact that the US president himself being basically antivaxx and not taking the crisis seriously? Absolutely ludicrous. You also once again ignore externalities: if only the people that "need it" take it, then the virus spreads and mutates in the (as you say, large part of the) population that doesn't, in turn making the vaccine useless. But my fault for arguing with an antivaxxer and expecting logic.

To use this as an example that you need to force people against their will to unionize? I'm sorry, it's a solution in search of a problem. It makes no sense.

I'm not using it as an example of unionisation, I'm using it as an example of externalities resulting in the need for government intervention to achieve a better equilibrium you absolute buffoon.

[-]

aghastamok@reddit

> Reagan destroys PATCO
> Union-busting becomes corporate policy
> Dealing with retaliation becomes a sustainable alternative to actually sitting at the table with a union

National penis size data comes from the schools. It’s just one of many reasons penis inspection day is so important and an essential institution of any high developed society.

[-]

Nostop22@reddit

How tf are we getting large enough sample sizes of penis size to create accurate statistics lol

[-]

FannyFiasco@reddit

because they have a higher total GDP

[-]

JohnBGaming@reddit

Then at that point it doesn't make sense to compare America as a whole to anyone because we're completely unique and not a monoculture like other countries

[-]

WeTheNinjas@reddit

Yeah exactly dude what’s the point of comparing countries at all then because they’re all unique and culturally different

/s

[-]

JohnBGaming@reddit

Not really though. Other countries have the benefit of mostly having the same types of people and/or having small populations of <100m. We have too many different cultures and a much larger population than most countries we're compared to. It would be a more reasonable comparison to say "Denmark vs California" for example

[-]

WeTheNinjas@reddit

Ok you can do that but make sure to exclude the Californian Latinos and African Americans from the data because they’re make it look worse. But I’d wager you’d keep the Asians and the Indians in your sample.

[-]

aghastamok@reddit

You're right, but not in the way you think.

The average American is doing great! The median American is doing really badly.

the two countries don't compare well

Might as well just give up then, it's impossible to close the income gap.

[-]

notarealcamera@reddit

For the same role in the same industry, Americans get paid much better.

[-]

aghastamok@reddit

Which means you're just okay with other people working full-time jobs and living under the poverty line.

[-]

TheHammer8989@reddit

Looks like the Danes pay some of the highest taxes in the world.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/highest-taxed-countries

[-]

Organic_Dream_380@reddit

US Net salary is $4450 per month. Wikipedia uses OECD as a source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

Meanwhile, Danes earn $5400 net per month. That is after taxes. Clear and brutal mogging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

You guys are poor

[-]

Airforce32123@reddit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income

We're literally #1 in the world for median disposable income.

[-]

Organic_Dream_380@reddit

This is irrelevant, since it refers to “household” income. You do realize that households vary in size from country to country, right? This is why we use average net salary.

[-]

Airforce32123@reddit

There's a second table on that page that accounts for varied household size and reduced costs for shared accommodation, and the US is still on top.

[-]

Organic_Dream_380@reddit

So, Danes earn more money than Americans, on average $1000 more per month, but Americans have more purchasing power because things are more expensive than in America. However, this depends on how you calculate purchasing power across two countries as different as Denmark and the US.

The OECD’s “net adjusted disposable income” subtracts taxes and mandatory contributions and adds the value of public services. It also reduces income for most employer-sponsored health insurance premiums, because those are typically deducted from paychecks. However, a large share of U.S. health spending still happens outside of that system. Out-of-pocket payments, deductibles, coinsurance, privately purchased insurance plans, dental and vision care, uncovered procedures, and medical debt remain entirely inside the “disposable” figure.

The same is true for childcare and higher education. When those are publicly funded, they count as in-kind benefits. When they are privately paid, the cost remains within disposable income. That is one reason the U.S. appears to have far more disposable income than other countries in the chart. The number includes money that Americans later have to use to buy services that other countries already fund through taxes.

The statistic itself isn’t fake, but it often gets used to imply something it doesn’t actually measure, which is how much money people truly have left to spend after meeting unavoidable costs

Americans also work 1800 hours per year on average. Danes work 1300 hours. Factor that in, and Denmark get way ahead.

[-]

Grantedx@reddit

Lmao, that retard bailed

[-]

IllIllllIIIlllII@reddit

The Danes number is not using OECD as a source, if you do it comes out to 2,925 per month

[-]

aghastamok@reddit

Now search the meaning of the word "net" in a financial sense.

[-]

TheHammer8989@reddit

Why don’t you educate me. When I look at it with those exact words, the charts looks almost the exact same as this chart. If you had different information share it. I’d like to read it. I’m capable of admitting when I’m wrong. But I’d like some information before I change my mind about it.

[-]

TTrainN2024@reddit

Why don’t you educate me.

CroatInAKilt@reddit

Economic impact? Oh my, this is one of those GDP vs purchasing power fallacies i hear so much about!

[-]

cplusequals@reddit

I'm confused, the US beats Denmark in both of those categories by quite a bit. You can see this evidenced by the enormous gap in disposable income between the two countries. The median PPP adjusted wealth consumption in the us is over $60k vs Denmark's $44k which is more directly comparable to the bottom quintile of Americans.

[-]

kryb@reddit

a medium sized city and has the economic impact of a mid tier US state

A medium sized city with the economy of a entire medium state, that sounds like an incredibly good result.

[-]

Congrats to the US for doing one cool but kind of useless thing 50 years ago

[-]

aghastamok@reddit

for all mankind

Thanks for knocking that out while we funded universal healthcare and stuff.

[-]

theSearch4Truth@reddit

Do boots taste better in the US or is there something I'm missing?

Ironic considering this is coming from the guy who loves a country that thinks only the lives of the wealthy elites and aristocrats are worth defending with firearms of their choice.

[-]

aghastamok@reddit

lives in a country with off-the-charts gun violence

little kids are gunned down in school almost every day

local and federal police roam the streets, murdering civilians with impunity

"wealthy elites and aristocrats" literally fucking and eating kids without consequence

"But at least we have our liburtee!"

[-]

pdiddysuncle@reddit

congrats on allowing completely biased media to turn you into an aggressive douchebag.

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent

[-]

aghastamok@reddit

only some little kids are gunned down in schools

I hate to use this word but... Is this cope?

[-]

theSearch4Truth@reddit

We could say the exact same for your country lol. Cope.

[-]

pdiddysuncle@reddit

ah so now the goalposts have moved. how shocking

[-]

theSearch4Truth@reddit

little kids are gunned down in school almost every day

Actual lies lol

lives in a country with off-the-charts gun violence

Out of 500 million firearms in circulation in the US, .00035% of them cause murders, both justified and unjustified.

"Off the charts" lmfao. That number falls off a cliff when you remove Chicago, LA and NYC gun crimes (hmmmm, where the strictest gun control laws are 🤔🤔).

local and federal police roam the streets, murdering civilians with impunity

What happened to the cop that killed George Floyd?

"wealthy elites and aristocrats" literally fucking and eating kids without consequence

Yet.

Good for you, you didn't deny that aristocrats and millionaires lives are worth more by law in Denmark. Good boy.

[-]

aghastamok@reddit

statistics based on number of guns

What?

Little kids not actually killed every day

Gosh, only one mass school shooting every few weeks. You're right, that's great compared to Denmark's "literally never"

Only if you don't count Chicago!

Cherry picking. Most peaceful area of the US gun violence rate still double Denmark's violent crime rate.

George Floyd guy

Cherry picking

Yet

Lol, hold your breath.

Millionaires worth more blah blah

What are you talking about?

[-]

theSearch4Truth@reddit

statistics based on number of guns

What?

I'll put it to you like this. Car owners murder more people than gun owners do. By your logic we should ban cars, lol. Car violence is "off the charts" lol.

Gosh, only one mass school shooting every few weeks. You're right, that's great compared to Denmark's "literally never"

You said every day. Are you amending your original statement?

Only if you don't count Chicago!

Cherry picking. Most peaceful area of the US gun violence rate still double Denmark's violent crime rate.

Reread my statement and try again. But let's grant your position since you make a good point - a mono-ethnic nation is more peaceful than one with multiple ethnicities. Who woulda thunk!

George Floyd guy

Cherry picking

So you mean cops aren't killing innocent people with total impunity like you said earlier?

Millionaires worth more blah blah

What are you talking about?

Who gets to protect their own lives and their loved ones with firearms? Everyone in Denmark? Or the rich aristocrats and politicians? If the latter, how's that boot taste?

[-]

aghastamok@reddit

> how's that boot taste

I guess that's where the exchange ends, friend-o. It's perfectly legal to obtain assault rifles in Denmark, they just don't hand them out to anyone who asks. Learn more about Europe, you'll be surprised.

There's really no aspect of living in the US that makes living there better than living in the Nordics, UNLESS you make way above SOL in the area you live.

> But the USA has legal weed!

Oh damn, point to the USA. Let them eat cake eh?

[-]

Kahlypso@reddit

European

You know you're like....a hobby for us right? You're like a theme park attraction. You aren't needed.

[-]

aghastamok@reddit

I lived in the USA for 30 years lol, it sucks.

[-]

theSearch4Truth@reddit

I guess that's where the exchange ends, friend-o. It's perfectly legal to obtain assault rifles in Denmark, they just don't hand them out to anyone who asks.

Neither do we 🤔🤔🤔

[-]

Zupergast@reddit

Just pack it up bud

[-]

theSearch4Truth@reddit

Keep your haterade bud 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅

gif

[-]

DJDavidov@reddit

historically gangbanged by Denmark. Now sticks up for Denmark.

relevant for 50 years because of Karl Gustav

nazi sympathizers

no1 destination for cultural enrichment via the Middle East

Did I miss anything?

[-]

Organic_Dream_380@reddit

Oh nooo, not the evil heckin nazi sympathizers!!! Sweden is le evillll, this is like my heckin marvel superhero movie, Sweden is like thanossss

[-]

DJDavidov@reddit

Look, I’m just using a popular Reddit blasphemy to pad out my list of insults, calm down.

[-]

aghastamok@reddit

Are we roasting Sweden now?

Treats weed like a capital crime

Swedish women are hot but unbelievably boring

Cops are too scared of gang violence to do anything about it

So proud of their military industry but if you look inside it's all American parts and they sell it to authoritarians willy-nilly

Although "relevant för 50 years because of Karl Gustav" isn't quite right. Stormaktstiden was a lot longer than 50 years and had a lot more to do with having one of the only standing well-trained armies in Europe.

[-]

Organic_Dream_380@reddit

Denmark has a higher average net salary than the US. Is the average American a farmer living in bumfuck nowhere? Lmao. Cope and seethe, poorfag

[-]

womerah@reddit

What is the US then? Not a technologically based, well educated country? You saying you're a bunch of uneducated morons? Why would any country want in on your bargain?

[-]

Maybe_this_time_fr@reddit

So the US is poorer, fatter, shorter and have smaller dick than Denmark.

[-]

RedOtta019@reddit

Yeah having one small area is absolutely going to skew the metrics. Especially as much of these tiny European countries massively profited from colonization by having such a small population themselves.

Though they are fucking tall. What the actual fuck caused that? Massive people.

[-]

UnsureAndUnqualified@reddit

What advantage does having a smaller land mass bring? Not natural resources, not space for expansion, not space for massive industries. And why compare with Silicon Valley or New York? If it's just about the area, why not take West Virginia or Maryland instead? Those are closest to the size of Denmark.

[-]

erasyn@reddit

We’re taller so our dicks won’t drag on the ground when we walk around.

[-]

Toastwitjam@reddit

Just the state of Tennessee has a bigger economy with more GDP than Denmark. They’re basically competing with a single one of our second tier states in terms of economy.

Like congrats even Minnesota is more important to the global economy than Denmark. Nobody cares.

[-]

Congrats on recently getting close to Washington state in GDP per capita at least until the numbers from your economy implodes due to ozempic being overtaken and Americans not buying legos get priced in by Christmas since those are basically running the entire danish economy.

[-]

mrnx136@reddit

I don’t live in Denmark, mate. I live in the Netherlands. 😆🇳🇱

[-]

mrnx136@reddit

Let’s do those numbers per capita 😆

[-]

Toastwitjam@reddit

They still lose to Minnesota lmao. There are more states ahead of Denmark per capita than behind them.

You basically only have a bigger economy than states that basically are just farmers in the middle of nowhere.

[-]

Organic_Dream_380@reddit

US Net salary is $4450 per month. Wikipedia uses OECD as a source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

Meanwhile, Danes earn $5400 net per month. That is after taxes. Clear and brutal mogging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

You guys are poor

[-]

mrnx136@reddit

The US is: last among western countries in healthcare, happiness 24th, education 26th, life expectancy 46th, free press 57th, climate 57th, social mobility 27th, income equality last in the western world.

Sure, sure, but your dick is still smaller.

And there is no need of forcing a minimum wage in Denmark because they are not underdeveloped. Minimum decency exists there.

[-]

CroatInAKilt@reddit

You really could have stopped after the first sentence

[-]

__El_Presidente__@reddit

no minimum wage

ironpathwalker@reddit

Aussies and new Zealanders tend to be very passionate about things that matter like education, family members, and Healthcare. I used to work in China building factories and would hang out with those Oceania types who were mostly fantastic. I will say that where and the poverty level I grew up with in the US had me hanging out with some really interesting groups like Shia refugees from northern Iraq/southern Syria, Basque separatists, and Taiwanese immigrants. Also thought it was normal for people to speak at least two languages so I got a culture shock when I was around mostly white kids in high school. Mind you, my mother, whose family was considered of mixed race by the "one-drop" rule insisted that we were as white as rice on a paper plate in a snow storm as her parents got called nasty names until they moved to Memphis.

[-]

Fwob@reddit

probably because billions are being spent on a decade long smear campaign by globalist propagandists.

[-]

CroatInAKilt@reddit

And so many of the retorts are just military threats, a la "my dad could beat up your dad"

[-]

Judah_Earl@reddit

They are a very insecure people.

[-]

Fwob@reddit

We actually make more after taxes.

Danes pay 36% on average, brings them down to $3400 USD, Americans pay 23%, brings us down to $3600.

[-]

Organic_Dream_380@reddit

The stat is literally net salary.

US Net salary is $4450 per month. Wikipedia uses OECD as a source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

Well, no, your numbers are wrong. 2024 monthly net salary from OECD and Numbeo in the US is ~$4.5k-4.7k adjusted while Denmark's is $3.5k-$3.9k. Net salary generally does not include social services such as Medicare or social security (in the US) or public schools which are usually free at point of service, but it would include cash benefits like an HSA contribution or an employer provided health plan. You don't count stuff like public services in that figure. You have to look to my figure (actual individual consumption) to see those reflected. AIC also takes personal healthcare and government healthcare expenses into account unlike, as you point out, net income does not.

At the end of the day, the median Dane is considerably less wealthy than the median American and stacks up roughly to one of our poorer citizens.

Americans also work 1800 hours per year on average. Danes work 1300 hours. Factor that in

Factor it in "how?" Americans are considerably more wealthy in large part because we're hard workers. If you want some napkin math...

$63k : $44k = 1.43 favor US earning more

1811 hours : 1372 hours = 1.32 favor US working more

Looks like the US is ~9% more efficient in turning time into wealth.

But anyway, even if it weren't the case and Denmark had a better ratio you can't just divide it out. You're more so accidentally explaining why the US is so much richer than Denmark rather than trying to claim Denmark is richer. They simply are not. You really have to cherrypick the data to even begin to make that argument.

[-]

Organic_Dream_380@reddit

It is very good that you bring up median wealth. The median wealth in Denmark is $186K, while the median wealth in the US is $106K. This is quite a considerable gap. The median American is definitely poor by Danish standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

Net salary in Denmark is $5400. Net salary in the US is $4400. That explains some of the gap.

[-]

cplusequals@reddit

That's more of a cultural measurement than an economic one once you start comparing OECD countries to each other rather than the third world. Canada is a considerably poorer country than the US and they have "more wealth" by this measurement. We just really enjoy spending our money. Also you guys have pension systems that prevent people from spending wealth which I believe is a very good idea and also why you're so much higher in this statistic than much of Europe even richer parts with much more favorable PPP. Social Security (the US version of the "pension" system) does not count as wealth (it's income) and it's a ponzi scheme that needs to be completely rewritten. I do think it would benefit America if we could force people who take benefits to not waste all of their money in a similar way as a pension would. This would lower our tax burden considerably for social security and Medicare.

The median American is definitely poor by Danish standards.

I'm not sure why you'd say that when Americans are making use of 30% more material wealth than Danes annually. From a pragmatic standpoint, Danes live as if they are much poorer and a lot of that has to do with how almost all goods from clothing to cars are exorbitantly more expensive.

Actually, that's a bit of a lie. I know exactly why you're fishing around for stats to try and explain around the gold standard of AIC, but I won't hold that against you. It's a very human reaction.

[-]

Fwob@reddit

You're a details guy, we need a lot more of those around with the constant onslaught of half truths always cutting one way.

[-]

Fwob@reddit

I don't see any of your numbers anywhere on those links.

It's not a fair comparison to begin with. We have multiple cities larger than denmarks entire population.

It would be like comparing the average salary in Atherton California ($130k+) to their entire population.

[-]

Organic_Dream_380@reddit

For the US:

Unemployment Positive decrease 4.3% (March 2026)[16] Positive decrease 13.7% youth unemployment (March 2026; 16 to 19 year-olds)[16] Positive decrease 7.2 million unemployed (March 2026)[16]

Average gross salary $5,886, monthly[18] (2024) Average net salary $4,450, monthly[18] (2024)

Final consumption expenditure Increase 85.2% of GDP (2023)[8] Gross capital formation Increase 17.7% of GDP (2023)[8] Yield curve 10-year bond 4.28% (April 2025)[19]

[-]

TheHammer8989@reddit

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/highest-taxed-countries

[-]

Organic_Dream_380@reddit

The stat is literally net salary.

US Net salary is $4450 per month, after taxes. Wikipedia uses OECD as a source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

Meanwhile, Danes earn $5400 net per month, after taxes. Clear and brutal mogging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

You guys are poor

[-]

cplusequals@reddit

Net salary doesn't make sense. It's not adjusted by PPP or households. The statistic you're looking for to compare how wealthy the average Joe is is called PPP adjusted annual consumption. The numbers for the US and Denmark are $63k and $44k in 2024 respectively. The median Dane consumes slightly less wealth per year than American at around the 20th percentile.

[-]

TheHammer8989@reddit

O yes we are so very poor.

Those are the 2 main reasons.

[-]

c0mput3rdy1ng@reddit

It's ridiculous, how good Pizza Hut is in Portugal.

[-]

Jozoz@reddit

It hurts so badly in their brain when they see evidence against what they have been programmed to believe their whole lives.

[-]

Kahlypso@reddit

All I see are a gaggle of pissy Europeans trying desperately to resolve the cognitive dissonance spawned by their own irrelevance.

Adept-Platypus6676@reddit

Imagine being proud of what was given to you by luck

[-]

Gamer_chaddster_69@reddit

Everything is decided by luck, by your logic no-one should be proud of anything

[-]

Adept-Platypus6676@reddit

That's entirely false , your will are your and only your to command, it's true that few can change the environment and circumstances we were born with, but that doesnt mean you cannot try to better yourself

[-]

Gamer_chaddster_69@reddit

Ever since you were born or even since the first thing ever happened in our universe has something smart enough been able to predict your entire life, this means it's all set in stone already.

I prefer keeping to the truth rather than faltering to cute and lazy rationalizations

[-]

Adept-Platypus6676@reddit

Very interesting perspective , and how does one come to the conclusion of fate?

[-]

You're so spergy, all asians are like this for some reason.

Free will is not researched, it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

Yes I don't actually believe things are set in stone, I said that to communicate my reasoning, since you barely seem able to understand or write english i'm not gonna give all the nuances.

[-]

assbaring69@reddit

So even if we take that out, you’re saying higher salaries are given by “luck”? Salty American suddenly sounds like a commie, ironic…

[-]

Adept-Platypus6676@reddit

If you were born into India , your chance of having a lower salary than that of an american or denmark is very high , so yes ,the circumstances of when and where you were born very much influence what kind of salary you can get , the only thing you can ever truly control is your own free will

[-]

assbaring69@reddit

But we’re not talking India. We’re talking about Denmark versus supposedly the “best country in the world”, a title that more Americans proportionally consider their own country to be more so than any other country’s citizens.

[-]

Fisherman_Gabe@reddit

The top salaries in the US completely mog anything in Scandinavian countries. For example, most of the brightest minds in tech flee for the US at the earliest opportunity.
But for the most average of people, Denmark is undeniably a more comfortable place to live economically speaking. There's next to no chance you'll end up homeless and doing fent on the street.

[-]

Jozoz@reddit

You get a fuckton of benefits from living in a country designed for the 90% even if you are in the top 10%.

In Denmark there are no "bad neighborhoods" to speak of. You are pretty much safe anywhere.

There is no homeless, there is barely any crime. Everything gets maintained.

So yes, you get less money in your bank account but on the flip side you get to live in a society where things just function.

The suffering of others around you also affects your quality of life. Look how many people in America live in gated or de facto gated communities. This is not a thing at all in Denmark.

I would gladly give up a larger salary to gain all of those things. Also just because I happen to have basic empathy and I want the less fortunate to at least be able to live a decent life.

[-]

DoreenTheeDogWalker@reddit

The US should adopt Danish immigration laws.

[-]

Hotsaucehat@reddit

Danish immigration laws are - very - strict.

The United States offer opportunities for very poor and unfortunate people to come and make a life and earn a living in relative safety. This makes the US very attractive for many people in the world and this inspires a lot of people to migrate to the United States. Historically the United States have excelled in job creation thus liberal immigration laws made sense.

Denmark is a small economy with a highly homogeneous population. The economy is less dynamic than the US economy - in particular with respect to job creation. The Danish economy doesn't add new jobs very fast. As a result, Denmark curtails immigration to ensure employment and wage stability.

Im not sure if people in the United States would benefit from Danish immigration laws. Likewise, Denmark clearly would not be able to handle the liberal American immigration laws.

[-]

DoreenTheeDogWalker@reddit

I'm not sure if people in the United States would benefit from Danish immigration laws.

If following Danish immigration laws gets us closer to the things the person I replied to was gushing all over about, why not implement them?

Focus more inward on yourself as a country seems to help quite a bit from what they described.

[-]

Hotsaucehat@reddit

I understand your point. But in the United States there are many neighborhoods that are as safe as neighborhoods in Denmark.

On a state level, Boston is similar to Denmark in many aspects. Boston has been used as a case example in Danish analyses about the United States.

In the United States people can live a life similar to a life in Denmark. You are free to also live a very different life. In Denmark, most people live a similar life. But the society as a whole is more strict, offering less individual freedom.

For example, most of the brightest minds in tech flee for the US at the earliest opportunity.

InternetSolid4166@reddit

As a Dane that is how we view America: great wages for those willing to work long hours with little vacation time, parental leave, public healthcare, etc. That’s a good trade for some people, but not most.

[-]

mandrewsf@reddit

We have great healthcare and parental leave, provided by the company. Vacation time isn't as generous as Europe, but I doubt you could afford multiple international trips a year either. The hours are long, but not as excessive as many Asian countries -- and we get paid way more.

[-]

cplusequals@reddit

I'm pretty good with 3 weeks PTO plus holidays and 40 hour work weeks. If I want to take more I can just take some unpaid time off.

[-]

Waffle_shuffle@reddit

The point was that euros get like 4 weeks pto. Even 3 weeks pto like you is uncommon. 2 weeks is the norm in the usa.

[-]

cplusequals@reddit

That's the norm for how many people take off, but most positions offer more than two weeks at this point. It's uncommon to only have two weeks at a salaried position too.

But the point is you can have 4 weeks in America too. You just don't get paid for the extra week. And you'd still come out ahead. Bottom 20% American consumes roughly the same amount of wealth as the median Dane annually. If you're a median American, taking a week off isn't going to drop you down to the 20 percentile.

[-]

Airforce32123@reddit

great wages for those willing to work long hours with little vacation time, parental leave, public healthcare, etc

I don't think that's really accurate. Usually the jobs with the good wages also have those benefits, generally comparable to European countries.

For example, I work a high-ish paying job in the US and get 4 weeks paid vacation, my insurance is about $60 a month and I pay nothing out of pocket after $1500 paid in a year, I get a year of parental leave, I get paid 1.5x overtime, and a great retirement plan.

[-]

I mean it's not far from average. Are you just trying to say my experience isn't representative of the average because it doesn't match your experience?

[-]

notarealcamera@reddit

great wages for those willing to work long hours with little vacation time, parental leave, public healthcare, etc.

Great wages usually come with great benefits. Lack of vacation time, parental leave, health insurance is a problem for people working shitty dead-end jobs.

I work for a multinational tech company, and as a US worker, I actually get a lot more vacation time and new parent leave than many of my European/British coworkers.

[-]

cplusequals@reddit

It's definitely a better trade for most people because in the US you can choose to trade some of this higher wealth for more time off or for better medical care etc. And you know that's the case for most people because when you actually do tally up all the government benefits and wages and regulations, the median American consumes PPP adjusted ~$62k in wealth versus $44k in Denmark. The bottom quintile (the poorest 20%) of the US matches up pretty well to the median Dane.

The real reason you'd choose to live in Denmark over the US is because it's your home and you love the culture and the society and the people and the way of life. The US has lots of problems, but most of them are social or crime related and almost none of them have to do with wealth.

[-]

Col2543@reddit

Not worth it for anyone who wants to have a happy wife and kids that don’t resent them lol. America is built to promote single, greedy, societally impotent men.

[-]

Mahizzta@reddit

Idk where these numbers are from, but median wage in Denmark is 42k DKK which is equivalent to 6600 USD, while it’s 4600 USD for Americans. Yes, we pay more in taxes (roughly 50% total taxation) but we don’t have to go get a healthcare insurance, so I think it evens out if you look at getting same coverage

[-]

DonnieMoistX@reddit

I’ve always wondered if Europeans actually have no idea how health insurance works or if they just pretend not to because their arguments fall apart if you do.

Almost all Americans are getting their health insurance for free provided from their employer.

[-]

Access and participation are not the same thing.

Most of these people not participating are either below 26 and staying on their parents insurance, or spouses opting into their spouses insurance instead of the one provided by their employer.

Literally if 25% of them aren’t participating it means they have an option even better than employer insurance.

[-]

CntonAhigurh@reddit

So not insured by employer, still between 48 and 53% and ‘almost all … their employer’ is still wrong. Thanks for making it clear!

[-]

cplusequals@reddit

If we're talking coverage it's, 80% of employed individuals in the US. 74% of adults aged 19-64. 63% of children under 19. The only demographic in the US that are not overwhelmingly on private, employer health plans are retirees. They get Medicare. And the only reason why the rate of kids is lower than adults is because some of them qualify for CHIP. A lot of the statistics will overlap each other because of household qualifications, but for context ~20% of the population is on Medicaid/CHIP (again, children can qualify for chip while their parents have employer insurance), 7% use the ACA marketplace. So only 30% of the country is using public options. And the ACA insurance is still private insurance.

Yes you do, a portion of your paycheck every month goes to health insurance, and a larger portion every month is paid by your employer. I literally can see it on my benefits page and pay stubs I work for a F500

[-]

cplusequals@reddit

While there's no such thing as a free lunch, you have to operate within the bounds of the question. If you say we're not getting it for free, I can agree, but then you need to add this free benefit to the salary in terms of raw value. The reason why we get our insurance this way is because it's a way for employers to offer a more competitive hiring package for less cost in taxes.

Most employers don’t cover kids/spouse

They always offer family plans which are per capita cheaper, actually.

There is no question that the US is far more materially wealthy for the median citizen.

[-]

DonnieMoistX@reddit

Yes and free healthcare isn’t “for free” either because you pay for it with taxes. The point is you aren’t paying for it therefore it is free.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, almost all employer healthcare covers spouses and kids. You have to opt into it.

[-]

Kahlypso@reddit

They're all high on a memory of what their continent used to be. Leave them be lol

[-]

DonnieMoistX@reddit

When you pay for it with your taxes is it free?

[-]

Intensityintensifies@reddit

So you can both understand that it’s paid for with taxes in socialized systems, and not understand that your employer uses it in lieu of other payments? That they only do it because they can dangle your health in front of you like a carrot?

[-]

DonnieMoistX@reddit

So it’s okay when it’s “free” from the government but not okay when it’s “free” from your employer?

Is this just come European cope so they can still feel superior about their free healthcare?

[-]

Fun_Purpose6972@reddit (OP)

Danes still earn more net

[-]

TMWNN@reddit

No. The US has the second-highest disposable income in the world, 35% higher than #12 Denmark.

[-]

Organic_Dream_380@reddit

Read what you write. You are talking about household income. That is something else than net salary per person. Since households vary in size in US and in Denmark.

US Net salary is $4450 per month. Wikipedia uses OECD as a source.

If you can't see the issue of being forced to take a shit job just to get access to health care (a basic human right), then you are just entirely brainwashed.

[-]

MarshallKrivatach@reddit

Healthcare is not a basic human right and as already stated, just enroll in Medicare like I did, it took me 25 minutes and I got the same full coverage a EAP plan would normally get me when employed at no cost to me when I was job hunting.

Same deal, it's a shitty job if you choose to be employed by an employer which does not provide benefits, that is once again a you issue. The McDonald's example is present to showcase that even the commonly terrible service industry jobs provide benefits today. I'll say it again, if a frycook can find a position that provides benefits, you can too.

[-]

Bum_King@reddit

Because the democrats have done so much great work when they have reins.

[-]

Jozoz@reddit

You can go look up the voting patterns.

The problem is almost always that the Dems don't have enough of a majority to get stuff done.

You would have public health care by now if voters gave Dems 60 seats in the senate with a House majority for a whole cycle.

But as always, I am reminded that Americans don't even know how their own political system works.

[-]

Bum_King@reddit

Dems have had plenty of opportunities in the past to push through legislation.

lol, didn’t realize you weren’t American. Who gives a fuck what you think about our system. Go worry about your own problems.

[-]

FremanBloodglaive@reddit

There's no reason to stay in the middle-class. People can certainly move up.

Comparing 1971 to 2023, the middle class shrank from 61% to 51%, but the upper class expanded from 11% to 19%. The lower income expanded from 27% to 30%.

So, for the most part, the major reason the middle class got smaller is because 8% of the population moved up in the income bracket, while 3% moved down.

gif

[-]

Dynablade_Savior@reddit

Why does op think liberals have been seething about wanting the USA to be more like Europe for the past 15 years?

[-]

NibPlayz@reddit

Anon enjoys thinking about how much larger men’s penises are where he lives

[-]

TMWNN@reddit

The US has the second-highest disposable household income in the world, 35% higher than #12 Denmark.

But the right comparison is not with the US as a whole, but with Alaska. Greenland's per capita disposable income is less than one third that of Alaska.

[-]

Organic_Dream_380@reddit

Read what you write. You are talking about household income. That is something else than net salary per person. Since households vary in size in US and in Denmark.

US Net salary is $4450 per month. Wikipedia uses OECD as a source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

Meanwhile, Danes earn $5400 net per month. Clear and brutal mogging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

[-]

TMWNN@reddit

Read what you write. You are talking about household income. That is something else than net salary per person. Since households vary in size in US and in Denmark.

Had you read the article I cited, you would have seen that the calculation takes into account differing household sizes.

TMWNN@reddit

Both the US and Denmark offers positive economic mobility, the opportunity to 'go from rags to riches.'

I agree. The difference is one of degrees, as opposed to one of kind. The same goes for all developed countries; that's why they are "developed".

[-]

Hotsaucehat@reddit

I agree with you. Economic mobility is a question about institutions, culture and a lot of other factors.

There is a long way before we live in a world where autocratices provide better social mobility than the United States and Denmark.

The United States and Denmark may vary in terms of income and wealth equality, but both countries offer superior opportunities compared to other regions in the world.

[-]

Evening_Knowledge_21@reddit

We have unlimited guns. Take that, bitches

[-]

Why would it be quicker? Are the streets full of cars?

[-]

dude riding a bike is uncomfortable and lame. i would rather just walk idk why so many people are obsessed with bikes. and no im not some lazy fatass, im 6'1 165 (185 and 75 for u homos)

[-]

MyDogIsDaBest@reddit

Stop saying shit like this Danon! They'll start immigrating into Denmark and it'll become like Sweden. If they catch on to how incredibly beautiful the people are it's over.

Scare them off by telling them how high tax is

[-]

JTT_0550@reddit

And their government takes 60% of there paycheck and gives it to migrants on welfare.

[-]

IllIllllIIIlllII@reddit

Cope. If you use the same source for Denmark as they used for the USA number (https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/taxing-wages-2025_b3a95829-en/full-report/united-states_3fcfdf38.html#chapter-d1e83680-a03eff72ee), you get 327,541 kroner per year net take-home pay. Which is $2925 monthly.

[-]

BOUKEN-BEN@reddit

Basically Denmark should enjoy itself while it can before it becomes the next cultural enrichment target

[-]

A_Dragon@reddit

Can Denmark anon now explain that they pay 50%+ in taxes and their economy produces nothing.

Come to germany and sling amazon packages from september to january, 2700 net at 210+ hrs guaranteed

[-]

I-Hate-Hypocrites@reddit

I worked as an Amazon DA for 2 years in the UK.

Col2543@reddit

And the US doesn’t tax everything? I know what you’re talking about, but at the end of the day, insurance is a worse tax than most of the ones they pay in europe. Insurance companies have no reason/apparent obligation to consider the customer, but denmark’s government is literally obligated to ensure equal opportunity in these fields.

[-]

LooseButtPlug@reddit

7% > 25% federal

0%-14% > 21%-24% municipal

[-]

Mast3r_Bait0R@reddit

He said "how much of the salary is taken away as taxes", ie. Income tax. Talking about VAT and sales taxes is fking stupid because it varies on consumption and what state etc

[-]

LooseButtPlug@reddit

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

[-]

DJDavidov@reddit

historically gangbanged by Denmark. Now sticks up for Denmark.

relevant for 50 years because of Karl Gustav

nazi sympathizers

no1 destination for cultural enrichment via the Middle East

Net only takes into account what's taken out at payday.

You seem to be forgetting that almost every other action you take with that money can still be taxed after that payday and Denmark loves taxing everything.

gif

[-]

OnePastafarian@reddit

"net income" something tells me this is some math cope to justify getting taxed at 90% but "yeah it's totally better see????"

[-]

RashmaDu@reddit

Ah yes, negative economic literacy

[-]

of course they're better off, they don't have as many browns and blacks.

[-]

Adept-Platypus6676@reddit

You mistake the Identity of a Country for that of a person , a person is very much influenced by the place they are born with , a Denmark engineer and an American engineer may be of similar skill set yet make different level of salary is entirely out of their control , laws, regulations, leaderships and unions are what forge a country average income , only rarely could a person change a system.

[-]