As a Swede who's been in the US for 5 years, what you say is true, but it's more nuanced than that. If you're poor, Sweden is so much better than the US, not even in the same league. As a software developer though, you'll earn roughly twice as much, enough to cover all the benefits of living in Sweden and probably quite a bit more. Engineers and technical people are not paid what they're worth in Sweden, I have no idea why.

But then again, you'll be wealthy in a hugely unequal society. The benefit of the Swedish system is that everybody gets those benefits and safety net, improving the society as a whole.

Here are a few other benefits of living in the US:

- THE place to be if you're in tech, there will never be an Apple or Google coming out of Sweden unfortunately

- More interesting career opportunities, you can do anything you want (if you're prepared to move around)

- Much more, better and affordable food

- Going out, eating, drinking, doing stuff in general doesn't break the bank

- You're not patronized in the same way (systembolaget, overbearing regulations etc, "we know what's best for you")

- Better weather (depending on where you are)

- A society much more friendly to immigrants (maybe counter intuitive). This is a big one. As a native Swede, you don't realize how much discrimination there is in Swedish society, even for highly educated professionals. People have to change their last name to something Swedish-sounding just to get an interview. In the US, nobody gives a shit where you're from, as long as you know what you're doing.

All in all though, I've decided to move back, for many of the reasons you listed, as well as a relatively sane political system, move vacation, parental leave and ease of travel. The biggest factor though is being closer to family and friends.

> Engineers and technical people are not paid what they're worth in Sweden, ...

How much does that have to do with the extreme risk of hiring? (Owing to the difficulty of firing.)

That's what probationary periods are for, if you can't evaluate a person in 6 or so months of actual work you are probably doing something drastically wrong.

What if you have to lay off workers due to a business cycle?

> but the US lacking so many of these in a widespread manner makes me not consider it a first world country.

Cute. The inferiority complex is palpable. You create very specific custom goalposts for being a first-world country and then you just happen to meet them. Cheers mate, congrats on making your small nation a good place to live. Don't be so insecure.

I don't think we're talking cherry-picked goalposts here. On many axes the US is a striking outlier compared with other countries at similar levels of economic development, seemingly having more in common with BRIC than western Europe - healthcare, publicly-funded education, inequality, incarceration rate, public transport, labour laws, environmental protection. Did you have some other measures of development in mind where the US scores are more close to the rest of the "first world"?

Tell me what makes the US a better place to live, and don't say something like "freedom" or "democracy" (hah!).

It's not a list of policy tick-boxes that make the USA what it is. It's our enormous diversity. The USA is many countries that all live together as one. There are so many cultures here that all get along better here than they do anywhere else in the world. It's why our economic and cultural engines are the biggest in the world. Compared to the USA... Sweden is... provincial. And that's fine. You're doing well.

You've made several assertions which have no basis in fact.

"There are so many cultures here that all get along better here than they do anywhere else in the world"

Yes, there are many cultures in the US. If I use language as a proxy for culture, then according to one reference there are 311 languages spoken in the US.

There are 820 in Papua New Guinea, 742 in Indonesia, 516 in Nigeria, and 427 India. So it seems like there are even more cultures in those countries, and a higher diversity. By your argument, those countries should be economic and culture engines, yes?

Sure, that's not an exact measure since in the US there are many different cultures which use English, but then again Hindi plays a similar role in India. You've made the assertion, so it's up to you to back it up.

Or, if I simply ask Wikipedia for countries ranked by diversity it gives me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_eth... , which ranks Cameroon as the most culturally diverse country.

The US is 84th on that list. Canada is 37th on that list, Belgium is 43rd, Switzerland 53rd, New Zealand is 69th ... and Sweden is 128th.

It does not seems that the diversity of the US is sufficiently enormous or exceptional as to give rise to your conclusion. Eg, India has more people and more diversity, but doesn't have the same economic and cultural influence as the US, so certainly something is missing in your analysis.

Then you say "get along better here than they do anywhere else in the world." What does that even mean? How do you know that the diversity of cultures gets along better in the US than in Canada, or in Belgium? Is it a (provincial) belief of yours, or if not, what is the basis for your analysis?

If you take a look at a list of countries ranked by foreign-born population:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-bo...

USA is ranked #1... by a huge margin. The fact we rank so low on your cited Wikipedia page is a evidence to my assertion that we "get along". Unlike so many other countries, we integrate and assimilate our immigrants.

You didn't say "foreign born", you said "enormous diversity."

Those are very different concepts.

"Unlike so many other countries, we integrate and assimilate our immigrants"

What does 'diverse' mean to you? Since I don't think it means what you think it means. Assimilation is a process which reduces diversity.

Also, in that list the US is indeed #1 ... in the total number of immigrants. If you re-sort by "Immigrants as percentage of national population" then it's:

    UAE - 83.7% (but I don't include guest workers)
    Saudi Arabia - 31.4%
    Australia - 27.7%
    Canada - 20.7 %
    United States - 14.3%

By all metrics, it seems that Canada has both a more diverse culture than the US and a higher percentage of immigrants than the US. That's the country you should be praising, not the US.

The main factor in all of these numbers is that the US has a high population. Once you switch to per-capita, it drops in the ranks.

Congratulations, there's a lot of people living in the US.

Yes, that really is a useless metric since the US has four times the population of the next most populous western country (Germany). And btw:

    Sweden - 15.9%

http://esa.un.org/unmigration/migrantstocks2013.htm?mtotals

> Yes, that really is a useless metric since the US has four times the population of the next most populous western country (Germany).

After the US, the next most popular country of those generally considered "Western" is Brazil; the US has a little over 1.5× the population of Brazil. Number 3 is Mexico. Germany's number four.

The USA is significantly larger than Sweden in both geography and sheer numbers of people. This has an obvious effect on the absolute size of economic engine. If you take population into account then Sweden actually has a larger economy[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nom...

European Union is basically many countries living together as one too. I can move between countries without any problem. I can work in any other EU country just as easily as I can in my home country. How about you consider Sweden as one province of EU. Are you really saying that different cultures aren't getting along here? What you win at economy you lose in quality of life.

If we are entirely honest, you don't have anywhere near the level of social mobility across the EU as across the U.S.A.

So what can't I do when I go to other EU country that you can when changing state in US? I still get health care, I still can work there, I can move there if i so desire. What can't I do what I could possibly still want?

You are a foreigner when you move to a different place across EU, with all social implications. A worker moving from LA to NYC is not nearly as disadvantaged as one moving from say Sicily to Sweden.

Of course you are able to move freely and there's no legal barrier preventing your employment, but in practice you are rarely on equal footing with locals. There are both linguistic and cultural externalities at work here, which are simply absent over the pond.

Believe it or not, i've been living for quite some time in Russia and you hear Russians saying exactly what you say, all the time. I think that all the last century "big-players" have this "we are different, we are better" syndrome.

Just let me say, Sweden is a really GOOD place where to live- No need to troll around.

> There are so many cultures here that all get along better here than they do anywhere else in the world.

Brasil.

Look at Germany! Much higher population density than the US at 1/4 (roughly, from memory) of the population.

But as he said, the US is many things.

It's not that hard to find an area the size of Germany in the US where the population density is the same or higher than in Germany - just as you'll find parts or states that has the population density of Sweden.

If that is a sign of an inferiority complex, what is American Exceptionalism[0] a sign of?

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

Quoting that article:

> the term does not necessarily imply superiority

Those for whom the term does imply superiority lie largely on the right, politically speaking, while those on HN lie largely on the left, in my experience. It seems to me that there is a difference between calling someone out on an inferiority complex, and calling someone out on sharing a country with people who have an inferiority complex.

The term itself suggests superiority, by using the word "exceptional". That isn't a word reserved for comparing different things that are different but not objectively better or worse.

> It seems to me that there is a difference between calling someone out on an inferiority complex, and calling someone out on sharing a country with people who have an inferiority complex.

And that person didn't say that he's from the US, for that matter. But you can read a personal attack into it if you want.

Are you asking me to repeat myself?

It was a rhetorical question.

Those are all great points and credit to Sweden where credit is due.

However, please take into account that your country's population is nearing 10 million whereas the US's population is over 300 million.

What I am trying to say is: The programs that are working out so well for you may be much more difficult to implement in a country with a population the size of the US.

Incidentally, I have no idea why my comments are being shadow-banned, but thanks for replying anyway.

USA is comparable in size to EU, and USA states are comparable in size to EU countries, including Sweden.

People living in some USA state have the right to decide to govern themselves more like Sweden - if they wish and vote so. It's important to attempt comparisons with a variety of places, since they might show which policy directions you might want to choose and which to avoid.

..And where your tax rate is up to 60% of your income. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/nov/16/sweden-tax-burd...

And your point is ...?

Please bear in mind that 1) that number is the highest marginal tax bracket, only paid by those with the most income, and 2) it's actually 57% not the rounded up value of 60%.

For comparison, the marginal tax rate for the highest tax bracket in the US was above 60% during 1932-1986, with a peak was 91% in 1946-1964.

Of course you're mostly just sniping numbers, since that article you quoted also says Swedes say they are "very happy to pay high taxes because I know I am getting value for the money later on."

In the US we pay for things directly which are, in Sweden, paid indirectly through taxes.

Do you really care if you pay 5% less in taxes only to have to pay 10% of your income per year in health care?

> Do you really care if you pay 5% less in taxes only to have to pay 10% of your income per year in health care?

There is one difference: you can't shop around. It's probably not a problem in Sweden, but in a lot of other "government provides everything" countries, there's a huge variation in quality of government-provided services (like schooling and doctors). You might get stuck with a crappy doctor (because of geographical assignment), while there's a great one on the next street. If I can keep my 5%, I pick my own doctor (within my budget).

My point was that comparing the overall tax rate is worthless.

I gave a counter-example to show why.

I did not say nor mean to imply that it was a universal counter-example, although it seems you took it that way.

Your argument now is that "low taxes and affordable access to good services is better than high taxes and haphazard access to good services."

This is a different argument, and in fact is the same argument that I'm making, which is that you have to look at all of the costs and benefits, and not just simple income tax rates.

I was only arguing about a specific point in your post, not all of it. I read the rest of your post as "some people pay/paid high taxes, and are/were doing just fine". That implies (or at least that's how I read it) that higher taxes don't have a downside, which is what I was arguing against.

Worth till last cent considering the level of services you get, IMHO.

In your bubble, you believe all of those things are good things accepted by the HN hive mind. Hilarious.