Nordic Social Democracies Outpace US in Billionaires Per Capita

TEDx Talks

Scandinavian labor unions effectively subsidize capitalists by capping skilled wages and imposing high wage floors that force automation, enabling welfare states to produce more ultra-wealthy individuals per capita than free-market economies.

AI-assisted summary of Where in the world is it easiest to get rich? | Harald Eia | TEDxOslo — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2016-05-02

Key ideas

When excluding offshore tax havens, Nordic social democracies produce the highest concentration of ultra-wealthy individuals per capita in the world, with Norway, Sweden, and Denmark consistently outpacing the United States. (2:51)
Scandinavia averages 2.1 billionaires per million residents compared to 1.7 in the United States, refuting the common belief that high taxes and strong welfare states inhibit extreme wealth creation. (5:41)
Universal tuition-free higher education and accessible state student support result in higher intergenerational social mobility in Scandinavia, where 11% to 14% of boys born into the poorest quintile reach the richest quintile, compared to only 8% in the US. (7:23)
Centralized wage bargaining acts as an indirect corporate subsidy by lifting minimum wages to force technological automation while simultaneously holding down high-skill professional wages well below American market rates. (9:29)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by TEDx Talks on May 2, 2016, this presentation features sociologist and comedian Harald Eia speaking at an independently organized TEDxOslo event. The talk challenges the conventional belief that low-tax, free-market economies like the US or UK are the best places to accumulate wealth, arguing instead that Nordic social democracies with high taxes, strong unions, and generous welfare states produce the highest density of rich individuals per capita.

## TL;DR Sociologist Harald Eia investigates where it is empirically easiest to become rich, examining per capita data for both multi-millionaires ($30M+ net worth) and billionaires. Contrary to free-market assumptions, Scandinavian social democracies like Norway and Sweden consistently outpace the United States. Eia explains this paradox through two main mechanisms: universal free education, which maximizes upward social mobility from a wider talent pool, and union-driven wage compression, which forces companies to automate low-skill jobs while providing businesses with comparatively inexpensive high-skilled engineering talent. Concluding with Kant's analogy of the flying dove, Eia illustrates that the welfare institutions rich individuals often resent actually provide the macroeconomic lift that generates their wealth.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation is intellectually playful, witty, and subtly subversive, pairing sharp sociological data with the comedic timing of an experienced broadcaster. Eia maintains a conversational and lighthearted demeanor—poking fun at his watermark-bearing slides and personal student encounters—while steadily dismantling entrenched dogmas from both the political left and right. The talk feels like an entertaining yet rigorous thought experiment that leaves the audience reconsidering the relationship between social solidarity and capitalist success.

## Bulletin - [02:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=171s) When excluding offshore tax havens, Nordic social democracies produce the highest concentration of ultra-wealthy individuals per capita in the world, with Norway, Sweden, and Denmark consistently outpacing the United States. - [05:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=341s) Scandinavia averages 2.1 billionaires per million residents compared to 1.7 in the United States, refuting the common belief that high taxes and strong welfare states inhibit extreme wealth creation. - [07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=443s) Universal tuition-free higher education and accessible state student support result in higher intergenerational social mobility in Scandinavia, where 11% to 14% of boys born into the poorest quintile reach the richest quintile, compared to only 8% in the US. - [09:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=569s) Centralized wage bargaining acts as an indirect corporate subsidy by lifting minimum wages to force technological automation while simultaneously holding down high-skill professional wages well below American market rates.

## Key takeaways - [00:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=11s) Conventional economic dogma assumes that minimizing government intervention, lowering taxes, and deregulating labor markets is the premier formula for individual wealth accumulation. - [00:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=11s) Scandinavia's wealthy elite frequently view the welfare system and labor regulations as an impediment, framing the social safety net as a hammock that saps productivity. - [02:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=171s) On an absolute basis, large economies like the US, China, and Germany have the most Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, but per-capita metrics tell a radically different story. - [02:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=171s) Excluding financial tax havens, Norway and Sweden lead the world in multi-millionaires ($30M+) per capita, while the United States falls to 13th place. - [05:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=341s) Billionaire density per capita is higher in Scandinavia (2.1 per million) than in the United States (1.7 per million), with Iceland and Norway posting some of the highest individual rates globally. - [07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=443s) Free public higher education and student maintenance support maximize economic talent discovery by decoupling educational attainment from family wealth. - [07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=443s) Upward mobility from the bottom income quintile to the top quintile reaches 14% in Denmark and 12% in Norway, compared to only 8% in the United States. - [09:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=569s) Exceptionally high wage floors for low-skilled workers in Scandinavia compel companies to automate early and eliminate unproductive manual labor. - [09:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=569s) Solidaristic collective bargaining suppresses the compensation of highly skilled professionals, allowing Scandinavian corporations to employ top engineers and specialists at a relative discount. - [13:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=804s) A generous safety net facilitates rapid creative destruction and industrial restructuring because unions are willing to permit layoffs knowing displaced workers are protected and retrained. - [13:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=804s) Borrowing Immanuel Kant's analogy of the dove, wealthy critics of the welfare state resent the institutional 'air resistance' without recognizing that it provides the aerodynamic lift enabling their success. - [13:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=804s) The institutional mechanisms of Nordic social democracy make Scandinavia a more effective environment for realizing the American dream than the United States itself.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=11s) The Sociology Student and the "Social Security Hammock"

During his sociology studies at the University of Oslo in the early 1990s, Harald Eia attended a lecture delivered by a classical left-wing professor extolling the egalitarian Scandinavian welfare state, where neither extreme wealth nor extreme poverty existed. While his professor celebrated this vision, Eia was in the middle of writing his master’s thesis on the wealthy elite. In his interviews with upper-class informants, he encountered a completely different narrative: the wealthy claimed that living in Scandinavia was an arduous struggle against confiscatory taxes, aggressive labor unions that controlled wages, and an overly generous welfare apparatus that sapped individual ambition. As one wealthy informant quipped to him, “They call it a social security net. Well, I call it a hammock.”

Beginning to sympathize with his informants, Eia raised his hand during the lecture and asked where an ambitious individual should be born if their ultimate goal was simply to get rich rather than achieve equality. His professor was visibly taken aback, eventually giving the standard ideological response: “Well, if that's your goal in life, you should probably have been born in a society with free markets, low taxes, and minimal government intervention.” The professor dryly added that anyone harboring such ambitions had made a mistake by enrolling in sociology. That conventional wisdom remained the default assumption until University of Oslo economics professor Karl Moene investigated the empirical data to determine which societies actually produce the most rich people.

- Informants among the Scandinavian upper class complained they had to work twice as hard to build wealth due to high taxes, powerful collective bargaining, and welfare protections. - Eia's professor presumed that minimal state intervention and low taxation represented the ideal environment for individual wealth accumulation.

---

[02:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=171s) Defining the Rich: Counting Multi-Millionaires per Capita

To evaluate where becoming rich is easiest, Eia establishes a benchmark using what he terms the "richness line," contrasting it with the United Nations poverty line of one or two dollars a day. Relying on data from *The Wealth Report*, he defines the entry point of serious wealth as Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWIs)—individuals with a net worth exceeding 30 million US dollars. Showing stock photos of wealthy lifestyles, Eia jokes with the audience that he left the watermark on the slide to save production money.

Global figures indicate there are over 170,000 UHNWIs, with large economies leading in raw volume: the United States sits at number one with over 40,000, followed by Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and China with over 8,000. However, Eia points out that absolute numbers distort the probability of an individual reaching that threshold; the meaningful metric is the number of wealthy individuals per capita (per million residents). When excluding financial havens such as Monaco, Cyprus, Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Singapore—whose concentrations of wealthy residents are artificially inflated by offshore tax shelters—the ranking shifts dramatically. The top spots are dominated by social democracies and Commonwealth nations: Denmark ranks fifth with 179 UHNWIs per million inhabitants, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and Norway at the top. The United States ranks down in 13th place.

- Wealth threshold: Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWIs) possessing at least $30 million USD in net worth. - Absolute leaders in UHNWIs: United States (>40,000), followed by China (>8,000), Germany, the UK, and Japan. - Per capita ranking (excluding tax havens): Norway takes first place, followed by Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, and Denmark (179 per million residents). - The United States ranks 13th in the world on a per capita basis for individuals with over $30 million in net worth.

---

[05:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=341s) Raising the Bar to Billionaires and the Scandinavian Paradox

Anticipating the objection that thirty million dollars might merely be considered comfortable pocket money in a country like the United States where colossal fortunes are built, Eia raises the threshold to one billion US dollars, drawing on the annual *Forbes* billionaires list. When examining billionaire density per million inhabitants, Germany places fifth with 1.2 billionaires per million residents. The United States records 1.7 billionaires per million, while Norway reaches 2.0, Sweden posts even higher numbers, and Iceland lands at the very top with 3.1 billionaires per million (a figure achieved by virtue of a single billionaire, Thor Björgólfsson, relative to the country's small population).

Taken as an aggregate region, Scandinavia averages 2.1 billionaires per million inhabitants, significantly outpacing the United States at 1.7. Eia highlights the striking paradox of these findings: “How can Bernie Sanders' dream societies, these socialist paradises be such a breeding place for rich people?” Far from suppressing high-end fortunes, Nordic social democracies systematically produce more multi-millionaires and billionaires relative to their population size than the unregulated, low-tax capitalist model of the US.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Billionaires per Million Inhabitants accDescr: Bar comparison of billionaire density across Germany, the United States, Scandinavia, and Iceland.

subgraph PerCapitaBillionaires["Billionaires per 1,000,000 Inhabitants"] DE["Germany: 1.2"] US["United States: 1.7"] NO["Norway: 2.0"] SCA["Scandinavia (overall): 2.1"] IS["Iceland: 3.1"] end

DE -.-> US US -.-> NO NO -.-> SCA SCA -.-> IS ```

- Billionaires per million inhabitants: Germany (1.2), United States (1.7), Norway (2.0), Scandinavia overall (2.1), Iceland (3.1). - Iceland’s top per-capita density is represented by businessman Thor Björgólfsson. - Contrary to conventional belief, Scandinavia generates more billionaires per capita than the United States.

---

[07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=443s) Reason One: Free Education and Social Mobility

Eia identifies the first core explanation for this outcome: comprehensive, state-funded higher education combined with accessible student grants and loans. Universal access allows societies to identify and develop talent regardless of socioeconomic background. This dynamic is directly measurable through intergenerational social mobility studies, which track economic movement by dividing fathers into five income quintiles and measuring the distribution of their adult sons across the same quintiles.

In a theoretical society with perfect social mobility and equal opportunity, exactly 20 percent of sons born to bottom-quintile fathers would end up in each quintile, including the top 20 percent. Denmark comes closest to this ideal, with 14 percent of sons from the bottom quintile rising to the top quintile. Norway follows at 12 percent, Sweden at 11 percent, and the United States trails at just 8 percent. Eia emphasizes that free public education produces a higher rate of genuine self-made success in Scandinavia than in the US. The contrast is equally stark at the bottom: in Denmark, only 25 percent of sons born into the poorest quintile remain trapped in the bottom quintile as adults, while the United States traps a far higher percentage due to the steep cost of American higher education.

- Perfect mobility baseline: 20% of sons from the bottom income quintile would reach the top quintile if background played no role. - Rags-to-riches mobility rate (bottom quintile to top quintile): Denmark (14%), Norway (12%), Sweden (11%), United States (8%). - Rags-to-rags persistence (remaining trapped in the bottom fifth): Denmark (25%), compared to substantially higher rates in the United States. - Low-cost, publicly funded higher education acts as an economic funnel that mobilizes latent entrepreneurial talent.

---

[09:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=569s) Reason Two: Union Wages, Forced Automation, and Subsidized Capitalists

The second and more decisive factor lies in the Scandinavian wage structure, maintained through centralized collective bargaining. Eia illustrates this with everyday observations from visits to the United States: manual toll collectors sitting in booths, grocery store clerks bagging customer groceries, and attendants stationed inside public restrooms. In Norway, low-skill service positions are almost entirely automated: toll plazas use automated camera systems, supermarket shoppers bag their own groceries, and public toilets are self-cleaning units. Because powerful unions push Scandinavian wage floors exceptionally high, low-skilled workers earn nearly three times as much as their American counterparts. This wage pressure makes low-skill labor too expensive to retain, forcing businesses to modernize.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Union Wage Compression and Capitalist Profitability accDescr: Flowchart illustrating how high minimum wages drive automation and suppressed high-skilled wages subsidize profits.

subgraph BottomWages["Lower End of Wage Ladder"] A["Strong Unions Enforce High Wage Floors"] --> B["Low-Skill Labor Becomes Costly"] B --> C["Companies Forced to Automate & Innovate"] C --> D["Higher Overall Macro Productivity"] end

subgraph TopWages["Upper End of Wage Ladder"] E["Unions Restrain High-Skill Wages in Solidarity"] --> F["Senior Engineers & Specialists Cost Less"] F --> G["Lower Overhead on Skilled R&D & Management"] end

D --> H["Expanded Corporate Profit Margins"] G --> H ```

Eia cites a 2014 *New York Times* article reporting that the US was only then beginning to adopt Chip-and-PIN payment cards, while Scandinavian banks had eliminated paper checks decades earlier because they could not afford the labor required to process physical checks manually. By forcing companies to adopt new technologies or face bankruptcy, high wage floors drive macroeconomic productivity, expanding aggregate profits over time. Simultaneously, Scandinavian unions exercise wage restraint at the top end of the labor market in the name of wage solidarity. A Norwegian senior engineer earns an average of approximately $76,000 annually, whereas an equivalent American engineer earns well over $100,000. By compressing the wage spread from both ends—elevating the floor and capping the ceiling—labor unions effectively reduce corporate overhead on elite talent: “So, the unions are in effect subsidizing the capitalists.”

- Norwegian low-skill service workers (restroom janitors, grocery packers, toll workers) earn approximately three times what their US counterparts earn, rendering manual low-skill jobs cost-prohibitive. - American banks and retailers relied on paper checks and magnetic-stripe processing decades after Scandinavian banks automated using Chip-and-PIN technology. - A Norwegian senior engineer averages roughly $76,000 per year compared to over $100,000 for an equivalent US engineer. - Compressed wage differentials provide Scandinavian firms with highly skilled engineering and technical labor at an international discount.

---

[13:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=804s) Kant’s Bird and the Reality of the American Dream

Eia reflects on the striking irony that dismantles both traditional right-wing complaints and left-wing assumptions. His wealthy interview subjects complained bitterly about the welfare state, failing to recognize that the very institutions they resented were the engines of their wealth: high taxes fund universal education to supply a skilled labor pool, strong unions force productivity gains while providing bargain-priced skilled labor, and a generous welfare safety net reassures unions, allowing them to cooperate with layoffs and technological restructuring without resisting modernization. Eia compares these affluent critics to the dove in Immanuel Kant’s *Critique of Pure Reason*: “So rich people are a bit like Immanuel Kant's famous bird, who thinks she could fly even faster in airless space, forgetting that it's the air itself that gives her lift.”

At the other end of the political spectrum, left-wing figures like Bernie Sanders praise Scandinavian social democracy while overlooking that it operates in direct harmony with capitalist incentives, rather than against them. The welfare apparatus, collective bargaining institutions, and market forces reinforce one another to create an engine for enterprise. Concluding his address, Eia emphasizes that economic prosperity is not a zero-sum conflict: “The economy is not a zero-sum game. We are in this together.” Counterintuitively, the institutional design of Scandinavian social democracy makes Northern Europe a far more reliable environment in which to realize the American dream than the United States itself.

- The comprehensive social safety net induces labor unions to accept layoffs and creative destruction, because displaced workers are protected and retrained rather than cast into poverty. - Kant's dove analogy: the bird feels air resistance and imagines vacuum flight would be frictionless, failing to realize air is the medium enabling flight. - Social welfare structures and capitalist market dynamics operate in tandem rather than as opposing systems.

## Notable quotes > [13:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=804s) So rich people are a bit like Immanuel Kant's famous bird, who thinks she could fly even faster in airless space, forgetting that it's the air itself that gives her lift. — Harald Eia

## Mentioned Harald Eia, Karl Moene, Thor Björgólfsson, Bernie Sanders, Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, The Wealth Report, Forbes, The New York Times, University of Oslo, United Nations, TEDxOslo

## Video description In which society is it easiest to get rich? Contrary to common belief, it is not countries like the US or the UK that create the highest number of rich people per capita, but Nordic social democracies like Norway and Sweden. Counter intuitive as it may sound, high taxes, generous welfare states and strong unions makes a better environment for the people who wants to earn huge amounts of money, than free markets, low taxes, and minimal government intervention.

Harald Eia is a trained sociologist who works in television with comedy and documentaries.

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU)

中文简报

北欧社会民主国家人均亿万富翁数量超越美国斯堪的纳维亚工会通过限制高技能劳动力薪资上限并设定高工资底线以倒逼自动化，从而实质上补贴了资本家，使福利国家人均创造的超级富豪数量超过了自由市场经济体。社会学家哈拉尔德·埃亚（Harald Eia）通过考察净资产超过3000万美元的超级富豪和亿万富翁的人均数据，探究从经验上看究竟在何处最容易致富。与自由市场理论的预设相反，挪威和瑞典等斯堪的纳维亚社会民主国家在这方面始终超越美国。埃亚通过两个主要机制解释了这一悖论：一是全民免费教育，它从更广泛的人才库中最大程度促进了向上社会流动；二是工会主导的工资压缩机制，它迫使企业将低技能岗位自动化，同时为企业提供了相对廉价的高技能工程人才。埃亚最后引用了康德关于飞鸽的比喻指出，富人往往厌恶的福利制度，实际上恰恰提供了产生其财富的宏观经济升力。在排除离岸避税港的情况下，北欧社会民主国家的人均超级富豪集中度位居世界首位，挪威、瑞典和丹麦的人均表现始终超越美国。 (2:51) 斯堪的纳维亚半岛平均每百万人拥有2.1位亿万富翁，而美国为1.7位，这驳斥了关于高税收和强大的福利国家会抑制极端财富创造的普遍观点。 (5:41) 普及的免学费高等教育和便利的政府学生资助带来了更高的代际社会流动性，在斯堪的纳维亚半岛，出生于最贫困五分位群体的男孩中有11%至14%能跃升至最富裕的五分位，而这一比例在美国仅为8%。 (7:23) 集中化工资谈判起到了间接的企业补贴作用，它既提高了最低工资以倒逼技术自动化，又同时将高技能专业人士的薪酬控制在远低于美国市场水平的区间。 (9:29)

Reading summary

Sociologist Harald Eia argues that Scandinavian social democracies, contrary to common ideological assumptions, produce more multi-millionaires and billionaires per capita than the United States. Drawing on research by economist Karl Moene, Eia attributes this wealth creation to universal education and a compressed, union-driven wage structure that drives automation and lowers overhead on skilled talent. Per Capita Wealth in Social Democracies (2:51) While large economies such as the United States dominate the gross count of Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWIs with over $30 million in net worth), per capita rankings paint a very different picture once offshore tax havens are excluded. Norway leads globally in UHNWIs per million residents, followed by Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, and Denmark (at 179 per million), while the United States falls to 13th place. Raising the bar to billionaires yields similar results: Scandinavia as a whole averages 2.1 billionaires per million people and Norway posts 2.0, compared to 1.7 in the United States and 1.2 in Germany. Universal Education and Upward Mobility (7:23) Eia points to state-funded higher education, supported by accessible grants and loans, as the first institutional driver of Nordic wealth generation. By removing financial barriers, these systems activate entrepreneurial talent across all socioeconomic tiers rather than restricting opportunity to the wealthy. This dynamic is reflected in intergenerational mobility data tracking the movement of sons born into the bottom income quintile to the top quintile. Denmark leads this measure at 14 percent, followed by Norway at 12 percent and Sweden at 11 percent, whereas the United States reaches only 8 percent. Denmark also limits the persistence of intergenerational poverty, with only 25 percent of sons born in the bottom quintile remaining there as adults. Wage Compression and Indirect Subsidies (9:29) The second core mechanism is Scandinavia's centralized collective bargaining system, which compresses wage dispersion from both ends. High wage floors force low-skill service workers' wages to nearly three times those of their American peers. This high cost renders manual tasks like toll collecting, grocery bagging, and paper check processing unviable, compelling Nordic firms to automate earlier and achieve higher macroeconomic productivity. Simultaneously, union solidarity restrains pay at the top, allowing Scandinavian firms to hire highly skilled professionals at lower costs: a Norwegian senior engineer averages roughly $76,000 annually, compared to well over $100,000 for an equivalent American engineer. This wage dynamic effectively lowers corporate overhead on technical leadership. The Misunderstood Symbiosis of Welfare and Capital (13:24) Eia highlights an irony shared by both the affluent critics of the welfare state and outside left-wing admirers. Using Immanuel Kant's metaphor of a dove that imagines it could fly faster in a vacuum without realizing that air provides its lift, Eia contends that Scandinavian business owners often fail to recognize that the taxes, unions, and safety nets they criticize provide the educated labor and productivity gains that fuel their success. Furthermore, robust safety nets reassure labor unions, encouraging them to accept technological disruption and layoffs rather than obstructing modernization. Eia concludes that economic prosperity is not a zero-sum conflict between labor and capital. Instead, the institutional structures of Scandinavian social democracy reinforce capitalist incentives, making Northern Europe a more reliable environment for realizing the American dream than the United States itself.

精炼阅读摘要

社会学家兼演讲者Harald Eia通过实证数据指出，与传统认为低税收、低监管的自由市场最易致富的观点相反，斯堪的纳维亚社会民主国家在人均超级富豪和亿万富翁的产出比例上显著高于美国，其制度核心通过免费教育与工资压缩有效促进了财富积累。人均财富排名的悖论与数据事实 (2:51) 依据《财富报告》（The Wealth Report）将极高净值人士（UHNWI）界定为净资产达3000万美元以上的标准，全球范围内美国在绝对数量上超过4万人，位列第一，其次为日本、德国、英国与中国（超8000人）。但在剔除摩纳哥、瑞士、塞浦路斯、香港和新加坡等离岸避税港后，以每百万人拥有量计算的人均排名发生了逆转：挪威位居全球首位，其后为瑞典、新西兰、加拿大以及位列第五的丹麦（每百万人179人），而美国仅排在第13位。在将财富门槛提升至10亿美元的《福布斯》亿万富豪榜中，同样呈现出这种分布格局。德国每百万人拥有1.2位亿万富豪，美国为1.7位，而挪威达到2.0位，北欧地区整体平均为2.1位，冰岛则因人口基数与单一富豪Thor Björgólfsson达到3.1位。Eia强调，这一客观数据打破了外界关于高福利、高税收社会必然压抑高额财富累积的固有认知。免费教育与代际社会流动的筛选机制 (7:23) Eia提出的首要解释机制是国家全额资助的高等教育，辅以普惠的学生助学金与贷款。这种机制打破了家庭经济背景对人才发掘的限制，使社会能够更充分地调动潜在的企业家与专业人才。代际社会流动性研究验证了这一效应：在完全平等的理想状态下，出生于最低收入五分位数的家庭子代应有20%的比例流动至最高收入五分位数。现实数据显示，丹麦有14%的底层子代成功跃升至最高收入阶层，挪威为12%，瑞典为11%，而美国仅为8%。在底层的阶层固化方面，丹麦仅有25%的底层子代成年后仍滞留于底层五分位数，而美国因高昂的高等教育成本导致了远高于北欧的阶层固化率。低成本的公立教育体系在北欧充当了高效的人才漏斗，提高了白手起家成功的概率。压缩工资结构对技术升级与资本的红利 (9:29) 更深层的驱动力源自北欧集中化集体谈判形成的工资压缩结构。强大的工会将低技能工人的工资底线推至极高水平，挪威清洁工、收费员和超市打包员等基础服务工人的薪酬接近美国同行的三倍。高昂的劳动力成本迫使企业放弃低技能人工，全面进行自动化改造（如自动拍照收费系统、自清洁公共厕所，以及较美国提早数十年淘汰纸质支票并普及芯片密码卡），从而提升了宏观经济的整体生产率。与此同时，工会基于团结平等的原则自愿约束了高端技术人才的薪酬上限。挪威一名资深工程师的平均年薪约为7.6万美元，而对等资质的美国工程师年薪则大幅超过10万美元。这种“托底限高”的双向工资压缩，使北欧企业能以显著低于国际市场的成本雇佣高技术研发与管理人员。Eia据此指出，工会的制度安排在客观上起到了以低廉技术劳动力补贴资本家的作用，进而扩大了企业的整体利润空间。康德飞鸟隐喻：福利制度与资本的共生 (13:24) 针对富裕阶层将福利国家蔑称为削弱个人抱负的“吊床”，以及左翼政客将北欧视作反资本主义典范的观点，Eia指出双方均忽视了制度间的协同互补。北欧健全的社会保障网使工会无惧因企业技术革新而裁员，因为被裁员工能够获得充分的救济与再培训支持，这让劳工阶层积极接纳技术升级与企业的创造性破坏，而非发起对抗。 Eia援引伊曼努尔·康德在《纯粹理性批判》中关于鸽子的比喻：飞鸟感受到空气阻力，便以为在真空环境中能飞得更快，却忽略了正是空气的阻力提供了飞行的升力。北欧富豪对高税收和工会管制的抱怨正如这只飞鸟，未能意识到正是高税收维持的人才池、工会推动的生产率飞跃以及社会稳定，构成了其财富积累的基础。制度运行的结果显示，北欧社会民主体制反而比美国更能稳定地兑现个人致富的梦想。 Eia总结认为经济发展并非零和博弈，北欧模式通过高福利、强工会与市场激励的深度嵌合，打造了比低税收自由市场更高效的财富孕育环境。然而，该演讲主要聚焦宏观结果与制度逻辑阐释，并未探讨这种依赖高社会信任度与特定劳资协同历史的模式，是否能够脱离北欧特定的文化与人口规模在其他大型经济体中完整复制。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由 TEDx Talks 于 2016 年 5 月 2 日发布在 YouTube 平台上。视频记录了挪威社会学家兼电视人哈拉尔德·埃亚（Harald Eia）在 TEDxOslo 上的演讲，页面简介指出，与传统认知相反，人均创造富豪最多的并非美英等国，而是挪威和瑞典等北欧社会民主国家，高税收、慷慨福利与强势工会反而为巨额财富的积累提供了更优越的土壤。 ## TL;DR 埃亚通过详实的人均财富数据颠覆了人们对“自由市场最易致富”的传统常识，揭示出斯堪的纳维亚国家的人均千万与亿万富豪密度均超越了美国。其核心成因在于两大制度支柱：其一是全民免费的高等教育机制，极大拓宽了社会流动性，培育出远比美国更多的白手起家者；其二是工会推行的压缩工资结构，既以高底薪倒逼企业进行技术革新与自动化升级，又压低高技能人才的薪资上限，变相补贴了资本家。富豪们平日抱怨的高税收与强工会，恰恰是托举其商业成功的底层升力，证明了北欧福利模式与资本繁荣可以实现高度协同。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场演讲充满北欧式的冷幽默与犀利的思辨趣味，埃亚以举重若轻的学术脱口秀风格，将严肃的宏观经济学与社会学实证转化为通俗生动的日常见闻。现场氛围从最初打破常识认知的错愕，逐渐过渡到逻辑层层扣合的恍然大悟。演讲者借用康德飞鸟的比喻完成了极具讽刺意味又发人深省的高潮收尾，给观众带来一种智性颠覆与逻辑闭环的双重快感。 ## Bulletin - [02:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=171s) 排除避税天堂后，挪威、瑞典等北欧社会民主国家在人均超高净值富豪（净资产逾 3000 万美元）和十亿美元级亿万富豪密度上全面超越美国。 - [07:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=423s) 斯堪的纳维亚凭借全免费的高等教育体系，实现了远超美国的代际阶层流动性，丹麦底层攀升至顶层的白手起家比例高达 14%，而美国仅为 8%。 - [09:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=569s) 北欧工会的工资压缩政策强行推高了低技能底薪，倒逼企业加速技术创新与全面自动化，大幅拉升了全社会的整体生产力与利润空间。 - [13:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=804s) 工会压制高技能人才薪水上限客观上补贴了资本家，加之完善的社会福利网降低了裁员转型的社会阻力，使北欧反成真正实现“美国梦”的温床。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=0s) 传统学术常识与富人自身多认为自由市场、低税收与小政府最容易致富，并抱怨高福利社会阻碍财富积累，但实际统计数据彻底推翻了这一推论。 - [02:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=171s) 以人均拥有量而非绝对总量衡量，挪威的超高净值人群（3000 万美元以上）比例位居非避税国家榜首，而美国仅排在第 13 位。 - [03:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=230s) 斯堪的纳维亚的十亿美元级亿万富豪密度平均达到每百万人 2.1 人（冰岛 3.1 人、挪威 2.0 人），显著高于美国的 1.7 人与德国的 1.2 人。 - [07:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=423s) 免费大学教育辅以低息助学贷款与生活津贴，有效避免底层人才因贫困被埋没，使得北欧白手起家的成功人士比例明显多于美国。 - [07:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=465s) 代际收入流动性数据显示，丹麦底层子弟进入最高收入阶层的比例最接近理论完美模型的 20%，而美国底层有超过 30% 滞留于贫困阶层，固化严重。 - [09:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=569s) 强势工会大幅推高底层工人薪资，使挪威收费员或清洁工的用工成本高达美国的三倍，彻底消除了低效率人工的生存土壤。 - [10:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=630s) 昂贵的人工成本倒逼北欧企业极早淘汰人工与传统票据，全面投资电子化与自动化设施，进而催生了极高的全要素生产率。 - [12:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=720s) 在“团结同盟”机制下，工会严格压低了高技能人才薪资上限，使挪威资深工程师薪酬显著低于美国同行，实质上对资本家的技术成本构成了巨额补贴。 - [13:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=804s) 富人往往如康德笔下的飞鸟，把托举自身翱翔的空气阻力误判为前进的障碍，未察觉正是自己所痛斥的福利体系成就了其庞大身家。 - [14:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=860s) 经济并非零和博弈，北欧模式证明福利国家、强工会与残酷高效的资本主义能够良性共存，反而比美国本土更高效地兑现了人人平等的“美国梦”。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=0s) 一个社会学学生的离经叛道之问演说家兼社会学家哈拉尔德·埃亚（Harald Eia）以一个直击灵魂的问题拉开序幕：“世界上究竟在哪个地方最容易变富？”这个疑问源于他 20 世纪 90 年代初攻读社会学时的经历。当时，一位典型的左翼社会学教授正在课堂上神采飞扬地讲授斯堪的纳维亚福利国家模式，言辞间满是对这种既无赤贫也无巨富的平等主义社会的向往。然而，当时的埃亚正在撰写关于富人阶层的硕士论文，与富裕受访者的接触让他听到了截然相反的声音。富人们大倒苦水，声称在北欧生活异常艰难，必须付出双倍努力才能赚到钱，因为他们每天都在与高税率、掌控工资的强势工会以及纵容懒汉的慷慨福利体系苦苦抗衡。正如一位富人向埃亚抱怨的那样，社会保障网在他眼里不过是一张让人不愿工作的吊床。这种深入上流阶层的田野调查让埃亚产生了所谓的“本地化同情”（going native）。于是，他在课堂上举手打断了导师的美好叙事，提出了一个让全班错愕的问题：如果一个人不在乎平等，人生唯一的梦想就是赚大钱，那他应该出生在哪里？教授愣了一下，给出了当时学术界最标准的推测：若想大富大贵，就该出生在自由市场、低税收和政府干预最少的国家，而且顺便讽刺了一句“想发财就别学社会学”。直到多年后，奥斯陆大学经济学教授卡尔·莫内（Karl Moene）用扎实的数据去验证这一问题，埃亚才发现当年的常识推论彻底错了。 - 富人受访者对社会福利制度的经典讽刺：“They call it a social security net. Well, I call it a hammock.”（他们称之为社会安全网，可我觉得那是一张吊床。） - 面对埃亚的发问，社会学教授在震惊之余给出的传统回答是：“Well, if that's your goal in life, you should probably have been born in a society with free markets, low taxes, and minimal government intervention.”（好吧，如果那是你的人生目标，你大概应该出生在一个拥有自由市场、低税收和政府干预极少的社会。） --- ### [02:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=171s) 重新定义“富裕线”：人均富豪榜的颠覆性结果为了探究真相，首先必须界定何为“富人”。联合国定义了每天收入一两美元的贫困线，而埃亚指出我们需要一条更有趣的“富裕线”。根据权威的《财富报告》（The Wealth Report），超高净值人群（UHNWI，即净资产超过 3000 万美元的人）构成了富裕阶层，全球此类人群超过 17 万人。从富豪绝对数量来看，美国以超过 4 万人稳居榜首，随后是日本、德国、英国和中国（超过 8000 人）。但绝对数量受人口规模影响，真正能衡量“致富几率”的是每百万居民中的富豪数量。剔除塞浦路斯、瑞士、中国香港、新加坡、摩纳哥等由于极低税制吸引外来资本的避税天堂后，人均超高净值人群的数据呈现出戏剧性的逆转：丹麦以每百万人 179 位富豪排在第五，其后是加拿大、新西兰、瑞典，而高居榜首的正是挪威；向来被视为资本主义大本营的美国仅仅排在第 13 位。即便将门槛大幅提高至《福布斯》（Forbes）十亿美元级全球亿万富豪榜，结果依然令人震惊。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 亿万富豪密度对比 accDescr: 比较北欧国家与美德两国每百万人中十亿美元级富豪的分布情况 subgraph Nordic ["北欧国家 (平均 2.1 人/百万人)"] ICE["冰岛: 3.1 人<br>(富豪 Thor Björgólfsson)"] SWE["瑞典: 前列"] NOR["挪威: 2.0 人"] end subgraph Traditional ["传统自由市场国家"] USA["美国: 1.7 人/百万人<br>(排名靠后)"] GER["德国: 1.2 人/百万人<br>(排名第五)"] end Nordic -->|"人均密度全面超越"| Traditional ``` 在十亿美元级富豪的密度上，德国以每百万人 1.2 人位居第五，美国为 1.7 人，挪威达到 2.0 人，瑞典紧随其后，而冰岛则凭借单一富豪索尔·比约戈尔夫松（Thor Björgólfsson）实现了每百万人 3.1 人的极高密度。将整个斯堪的纳维亚作为一个整体来看，其亿万富豪密度高达 2.1 人/百万人，远超美国的 1.7 人。埃亚由此抛出全场的核心谜题：“伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）梦寐以求的社会主义天堂，怎么反倒成了巨富阶层的孵化温床？” --- ### [07:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=423s) 致富秘诀之一：免费教育与卓越的阶层跃升机制斯堪的纳维亚之所以盛产富豪，首要原因在于全面普及的高等教育体系与极高的社会流动性。北欧社会民主体制向全体国民提供免费的高等教育，辅以低息助学贷款与生活津贴，使得底层社会的聪明才智不会因贫穷而被埋没，让更多人有机会利用自身天赋去创造财富。这一机制直观地反映在代际收入流动性（Social Mobility）的统计数据中。研究人员将社会中的所有父亲按收入均分为五等分（从底层 20% 到顶层 20%），并追踪其儿子的收入轨迹。在机会均等、才能均匀分布的完全流动社会中，无论出身如何，来自最底层五分之一家庭的孩子落在各个收入阶层的概率应当各为 20%。 | 国家 | 底层出身攀升至顶层比例（白手起家） | 底层出身滞留于底层比例（阶层固化） | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **理论完美流动模型** | 20.0% | 20.0% | | **丹麦** | 14.0% | 25.0% | | **挪威** | 12.0% | 约 26% | | **瑞典** | 11.0% | 约 27% | | **美国** | 8.0% | 超过 30%（高度固化） | 数据清楚地表明，丹麦以 14% 的白手起家（rags to riches）比率最接近完美流动，挪威和瑞典紧随其后，而美国仅有 8% 的底层子弟能够跻身顶层。相反，在“贫者恒贫”（rags to rags）的滞留率上，美国底层子弟留在底层的比例畸高，远逊于北欧。埃亚指出，正是因为美国的教育极其昂贵，阶层壁垒森严，反观北欧的免费教育网络让社会涌现出远比美国更多的白手起家者。埃亚直言：“Because of free education, there are more self-made men in Scandinavia than in the US.”（正因为免费教育的存在，斯堪的纳维亚白手起家的成功人士比美国还要多。） --- ### [09:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=569s) 致富秘诀之二：压缩工资结构逼出的生产力飞跃埃亚指出，斯堪的纳维亚造就富豪的第二个、也是更关键的深层机制，隐藏在极不平等的工资压缩政策（Wage Compression）之中。他通过亲身经历的风趣对比说明了两国日常生活的巨大差异：在美国自驾过收费站有人工收费员，超市有人专门负责装袋，公共卫生间里甚至配有专职保洁员；而在挪威，收费站只有冷冰冰的电子识别探头，超市毫无辅助装袋服务，公厕全部装配了全自动化冲洗清洁系统。造成这种现象的根源在于北欧工会极其强势，强行推高了底层低技能岗位的最低工资，挪威收费员、包装工或清洁工的薪资几乎是美国同行的三倍。雇佣廉价劳动力的成本极其高昂，倒逼北欧企业不得不彻底淘汰人工、投资机器自动化与新技术。埃亚举例称，2014 年《纽约时报》还在郑重其事地报道美国银行业终于准备推广芯片密码卡（Chip-and-PIN Cards），而彼时北欧早在多年以前就已经彻底淘汰了纸质支票。由于最低工资过高，北欧银行根本无法承担雇佣员工手动核对支票的成本。企业如果不上马新技术、精简人员以提高效率，就会在残酷的竞争中破产。长远来看，全自动化新技术大幅拉高了全社会的生产力，最终转化为企业丰厚的利润。更为反直觉的是工资天花板效应。在追求“团结同盟”的名义下，北欧工会不仅抬高了底薪，同时严格压低了高技能劳动者的最高薪资。埃亚以他的高级工程师舅舅为例：挪威高级工程师年均薪水约为 7.6 万美元，而同样资历的美国工程师年薪轻松超过 10 万美元。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 压缩工资结构驱动资本增值模型 accDescr: 展示工会推高底薪与压低顶薪如何双向促进资本利润增长 subgraph Bottom ["底层劳动力市场"] HighWage["工会推高最低工资"] --> ForceTech["逼迫企业采用新技术/自动化"] ForceTech --> HighProd["提升全社会生产力"] end subgraph Top ["高层技术人才市场"] WageRestraint["工会压低高技能薪资上限"] --> LowCost["高素质工程师/管理人才成本低廉"] end HighProd --> MegaProfit["企业长期利润飙升"] LowCost --> MegaProfit MegaProfit --> RichCap["资本家更容易累积巨额财富"] ``` 埃亚幽默地评价道，美国工程师或许看起来更有派头，但代价是他们太昂贵了。对于北欧的企业家和资本家而言，高技能技术人才的用工成本被工会牢牢压制，这在实质上形成了工会对资本家的巨大补贴。埃亚一针见血地指出：“So, the unions are in effect subsidizing the capitalists.”（因此，工会实际上是在补贴资本家。） --- ### [13:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=804s) 康德的飞鸟：超越零和博弈的“美国梦”真相行至演讲尾声，埃亚回顾了自己放弃社会学学术生涯的遗憾，因为这些实证发现展现出极具反讽意味的社会学之美。当年向他诉苦的富人们完全搞错了事实：他们不仅在社会民主体制下更容易致富，而且他们日常抱怨痛斥的各项制度，恰恰就是帮助他们积累财富的真正推手。埃亚梳理了这一制度闭环的内在逻辑：高额税收支撑了免费教育，向经济体源源不断地输送高质量人才；强势工会一方面通过高底薪倒逼企业生产力升级，另一方面通过压低顶薪降低技术成本；而慷慨的社会福利网则为工人提供了失业保障，工会才敢于放手让企业裁员重组、应用颠覆性技术。北欧的富豪们恰似哲学家伊曼纽尔·康德（Immanuel Kant）笔下那只著名的飞鸟——它在振翅高飞时感受到空气的阻力，便误以为在没有空气的真空中自己能飞得更快，却浑然不知正是空气的存在才给予了它腾飞的升力。不仅富人们深陷认知误区，大西洋彼岸推崇北欧模式的左翼政治家（如伯尼·桑德斯）同样未能参透其底层机理。北欧体系绝非反资本主义或反富人的乌托邦，而是让福利国家、工会组织与残酷的资本主义市场动态实现了紧密的齿轮啮合。埃亚最后总结道：“The economy is not a zero-sum game. We are in this together.”（经济从来不是一场零和博弈，我们休戚与共。）正因如此，当人们追寻机会均等与白手起家的理想时，斯堪的纳维亚反而成了比美国本土更能实现“美国梦”的地方。 ## Notable quotes > [07:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=423s) Because of free education, there are more self-made men in Scandinavia than in the US. — 哈拉尔德·埃亚（Harald Eia） > [09:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU&t=569s) So, the unions are in effect subsidizing the capitalists. — 哈拉尔德·埃亚（Harald Eia） ## Mentioned Harald Eia（哈拉尔德·埃亚）, Karl Moene（卡尔·莫内）, Bernie Sanders（伯尼·桑德斯）, Thor Björgólfsson（索尔·比约戈尔夫松）, Immanuel Kant（伊曼纽尔·康德）, The Wealth Report（财富报告）, Forbes（福布斯）, The New York Times（纽约时报）, TEDxOslo, University of Oslo（奥斯陆大学） ## Video description In which society is it easiest to get rich? Contrary to common belief, it is not countries like the US or the UK that create the highest number of rich people per capita, but Nordic social democracies like Norway and Sweden. Counter intuitive as it may sound, high taxes, generous welfare states and strong unions makes a better environment for the people who wants to earn huge amounts of money, than free markets, low taxes, and minimal government intervention. Harald Eia is a trained sociologist who works in television with comedy and documentaries. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU)

Source quotes

[7:03] 哈拉尔德·埃亚（Harald Eia）: Because of free education, there are more self-made men in Scandinavia than in the US. [9:29] 哈拉尔德·埃亚（Harald Eia）: So, the unions are in effect subsidizing the capitalists.

Source quotes

[13:24] Harald Eia: So rich people are a bit like Immanuel Kant's famous bird, who thinks she could fly even faster in airless space, forgetting that it's the air itself that gives her lift.

Original transcript

[0:00] Translator: Zsófia Herczeg Reviewer: Queenie Lee [0:11] Where in the world is it easiest to get ... [0:18] rich? [0:19] That's the question I asked my professor when I studied sociology in the early 90s [0:25] because he was having a lecture [0:28] about social democracies, the Scandinavian welfare state, [0:34] and he was a classical left-wing sociology professor, [0:39] and he could not hide his enthusiasm [0:43] when he talked about these egalitarian societies [0:47] with no rich people and no poor people. [0:51] But I, on the other hand, I was writing my master's thesis about rich people. [1:01] When I interviewed my informants from the upper classes, [1:06] they all said the same thing: [1:09] "Life in Scandinavia is tough." [1:12] (Laughter) [1:14] "We have to work twice as hard to earn money [1:18] because we have to struggle against: [1:21] high taxes, [1:24] strong unions controlling the wages [1:27] and a generous welfare state that makes people lazy." [1:32] As one rich guy told me, [1:35] he said, "They call it a social security net. [1:40] Well, I call it a hammock." [1:42] (Laughter) [1:47] And as every aspiring social scientist, I started to go native; [1:52] I started to feel sympathy for these rich people. [1:57] And that's why I raised my hand and asked my professor, [2:00] "Well, what if you don't care so much about equality? [2:06] What if your dream is to become rich? [2:10] Where in the world should I have been born to become really rich?" [2:17] I still remember the puzzled look on my professor's face. [2:22] But he answered the best he could. [2:23] Something like, "Well, if that's your goal in life, [2:27] you should probably have been born in a society [2:30] with free markets, low taxes, [2:34] and minimal government intervention. [2:37] And he added, "If you want to become rich, [2:40] you should probably not study sociology." [2:43] (Laughter) [2:47] That was a good answer and the best guess we had back then. [2:51] That is until I saw that the University of Oslo professor in Economy, Karl Moene, [2:58] actually had checked the facts: [3:00] "Where in the world is it easiest to get rich?" [3:05] And before I share with you [3:08] where you should go to earn money, [3:10] we have to define "rich." [3:13] The UN talks about the poverty line. [3:16] You know, if you earn less than one dollar a day, [3:20] maybe two dollars a day. [3:21] But we have to define the richness line. [3:25] It's a more fun line, actually. [3:29] And the most reliable report, when it comes to rich people, [3:33] the Wealth Report, [3:36] they set the richness line [3:38] at individuals with net worth more than 30 million USD. [3:46] In the consultant jargon, these people are called UHNWI's. [3:52] That is Ultra High Net Worth Individuals. [3:57] That guy, by the way, is not rich. He is just a model. [4:00] (Laughter) [4:05] Actually, on the lower part of the model. [4:08] (Laughter) [4:11] And I have saved some money by keeping the watermark there as well. [4:14] (Laughter) [4:17] Smart. [4:19] (Laughter) (Applause) [4:22] So, according to The Wealth Report, [4:25] there are more than 170, 000 [4:31] UHNWI's in the world. [4:34] And here is the top five list of countries with the richest people. [4:39] Number five: China, with more than 8,000. [4:43] UK, Germany, Japan, [4:45] and on top, of course, the United States with more than 40,000 rich people. [4:49] But of course, we are not interested in the absolute numbers here. [4:54] We are interested in rich people per capita, per million inhabitants. [5:00] And if we leave out the pure tax havens, [5:04] like Cyprus, and Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Monaco - [5:10] where we have an artificially huge share of rich people - [5:13] it turns out that we have on number 5 Denmark - [5:17] with 179 rich people per one million inhabitants - [5:22] Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and on top: Norway. [5:26] (Laughter) [5:29] But where's the US? [5:32] On place 13. [5:36] So what happened to my old professor's, you know, social democracies? [5:40] There are no rich people there. [5:42] But OK. 30 million dollars, [5:45] that's just pocket money in a country like the US, [5:48] where people can get insanely rich. [5:51] (Laughter) [5:53] Look at the watermark again? [5:55] (Laughter) [5:58] So, let's raise the richness line up from 30 million dollars up to ... [6:04] 1 billion dollars. [6:08] And the most reliable source here is the Forbes billionaires list. [6:15] And according to the Forbes, [6:17] if you look at billionaires per million inhabitants. [6:21] Number 5, Germany: 1.2 billionaires. [6:25] 1.2 billionaires per million inhabitants. [6:32] The United States 1.7, Norway 2, Sweden, [6:35] and on top Iceland with 3.1 [6:37] (Laughter) [6:39] With a single billionaire: Thor Björgólfsson. [6:43] (Laughter) (Applause) [6:50] He could have been a model. [6:52] (Laughter) [6:54] But the point is, the United States: 1.7 Scandinavia taken as a whole: 2.1 [7:01] And the big mystery is ... [7:03] How can this be? [7:04] How can Bernie Sanders' dream societies, [7:08] these socialist paradises [7:11] be such a breeding place for rich people? [7:14] (Laughter) [7:16] That's a mystery. [7:18] (Laughter) [7:21] There are two reasons. [7:23] Reason number one is free education. [7:27] Social democracies give free higher education to everybody, [7:33] and cheap student loans, and grants. [7:37] That enables more people to use their talents and earn money. [7:43] We can see this in the social mobility numbers. [7:47] Imagine all fathers in a society, [7:50] and we divide them into five groups based on income: [7:54] from the bottom fifth up to the top fifth. [7:56] Then we look at their sons, [7:59] and divide their income into five steps, [8:03] and we see how many sons of the fathers from the bottom income [8:09] end up on top. [8:11] How many sons go from rags to riches? [8:17] If it was perfect social mobility, [8:21] if talents and opportunities were equally distributed, [8:26] 20% from the bottom would end up on each of these five ladders. [8:32] So let's look at the numbers for the different countries. [8:35] In Denmark, they are pretty close to perfect social mobility [8:39] with 14% that goes from rags to riches. [8:42] In Norway 12, Sweden 11, the United States 8. [8:48] Because of free education, [8:50] there are more self-made men in Scandinavia than in the US. [8:57] And if we look at those sons who don't end up on top but stay at the bottom, [9:03] that go from rags to rags. [9:06] Again, 20% would be perfect mobility. [9:10] In Denmark, 25% ends up at the bottom, [9:16] Sweden a bit more. Norway. [9:18] And look at the United States. [9:21] This is because education in the United States is very expensive. [9:29] But the second and most important explanation [9:32] for Scandinavia being such a breeding place for rich people is this: [9:38] Have you ever noticed if you have been to the United States, [9:41] when you drive around and drive through a toll plaza, [9:45] there are actually people sitting there taking your money. [9:50] Compare that to my local toll plaza. [9:55] (Laughter) [9:56] Just a sign with some gizmo attached to it. [10:00] And when you go to a supermarket in the United States, [10:04] there are actually people there helping to pack your things into your bags. [10:07] It's very friendly and convenient compared to my local grocery store. [10:11] Like this. [10:12] (Laughter) [10:14] There's nobody there. [10:18] (Laughter) [10:20] The biggest shock I had when I went to the US for the first time, [10:24] when I went to the restroom, [10:25] there were actually people working there. [10:28] Compare that to my local public toilet. [10:32] (Laughter) [10:34] There's not even a cleaner there; it cleans itself automatically. [10:39] And the reason for this difference [10:41] is that Scandinavian unions are pressing up the minimum wages. [10:47] It's so expensive to have these people working there. [10:51] In Norway, tollbooth operators, supermarket packers, [10:56] and a restroom janitor [10:58] would earn almost three times as much as in the US. [11:02] And that's why we have replaced these people with machines. [11:07] That is why I was surprised when I saw this article [11:12] in The New York Times in 2014. [11:16] Preparing for Chip-and-PIN Cards in the United States. [11:19] (Laughter) [11:22] Because in the United States people are still using paper checks [11:27] as a method of payment, [11:28] while Scandinavian banks have made us start using Chip-and-PIN cards long ago. [11:35] Because the minimum wages here are so high. [11:38] So Scandinavian banks can't afford having people manually control the checks. [11:46] So Scandinavian companies, [11:49] because of the unions pressing up the wages, [11:52] they have to downsize and introduce new technology or else ... [11:58] they will go broke. [12:00] And new technology increases the productivity in a society, [12:05] which in the long run also increases profit. [12:11] And on the upper end of the wage ladder, [12:15] in the name of solidarity, [12:18] Scandinavian unions hold back the highest salaries of the skilled workers. [12:25] So for example, a Norwegian senior engineer - [12:31] it's my uncle, by the way. [12:32] (Laughter) [12:36] That's why there's no watermark there. [12:38] (Laughter) [12:42] Actually, he would look cooler with a watermark, better. [12:45] (Laughter) [12:46] He earns, on average per year, 76,000 dollars, [12:51] while his American colleague earns more than 100,000 dollars. [12:56] So American engineers ... [13:00] (Laughter) [13:02] They are not only more good-looking, but they are more expensive. [13:10] Of course, this wage restraint on high-skilled work is good for profit. [13:17] So, the unions are in effect subsidizing the capitalists. [13:24] I wish I knew all this when I gave up a career in social science [13:28] because the beauty and the irony of these findings, I think, is amazing. [13:34] On the one hand, you have my rich informants [13:39] that complain about how hard it is to get rich in Scandinavia. [13:45] They had it all wrong. [13:47] Not only is it easier to get rich in a social democracy, [13:53] but they are critical to the very institutions [13:57] that have helped them get rich. [14:00] High taxes, which gives free education and more talent into the economy. [14:06] Strong unions that are helping to increase productivity, [14:13] and a generous welfare state that makes the unions accept downsizing [14:19] because they know that their members will be well taken care of. [14:23] So the unions cooperate because of the safety net. [14:28] So rich people are a bit like Immanuel Kant's famous bird, [14:34] who thinks she could fly even faster in airless space, [14:40] forgetting that it's the air itself that gives her lift. [14:46] On the other part of the political spectrum, [14:49] when Bernie Sanders is praising Scandinavian societies, [14:54] he forgets that these are not anti-rich or anti-capitalist systems. [15:00] Because the welfare state and the unions work in tandem with capitalist dynamics. [15:06] And I think that is the most important lesson here. [15:10] The economy is not a zero-sum game. [15:13] We are in this together. [15:15] And that is why Scandinavia is a better place [15:18] to fulfill the American dream ... [15:21] (Laughter) [15:22] than America itself. [15:24] Thank you so much. [15:25] (Applause) (Cheering)