What does it mean? I can see Sweden following usa quite closely in gdp/capita up until 2014 when it's started to drop off. Any smart explanation is welcome! Sweden is quite high in private debt, but usa is higher from what I can find.

https://i.redd.it/tvijqxxw5r6f1.png

by Hellunderswe

10 comments

  1. I am assuming it’s skewed by the many refugees they took in recent years?

  3. Somebody recently showed a statistic claiming that the poorest American state has a higher per capita income then any European country.

    Yet, take a walk in Germany, France and then take a walk in one of the poorest USA states.

    Statistics are sometimes very silly

  5. Excellent follow-up. The steep drop in Sweden’s bottom 50% net personal wealth starting in the mid-1990s is rooted in several interlinked economic and policy shifts that began during and after the Swedish financial crisis of 1990–1994. Here’s a deeper look:

    —

    📉 Why Did Sweden’s Bottom 50% Net Wealth Collapse After 1995?

    1. Aftermath of the Early 1990s Financial Crisis

    Sweden experienced a severe banking and real estate crisis (1990–1994).

    In response, the government deregulated financial markets, bailed out banks, and shifted toward more market-oriented policies.

    As the housing market recovered, home prices soared, but so did mortgage debt.

    2. Housing Bubble + Debt Boom

    Home ownership became more widespread, but increasingly financed with large mortgages.

    From 1995 onward, Sweden entered a long property boom. For the bottom 50%, this meant asset prices rose, but net wealth fell because they financed those homes with massive loans.

    3. Student Loans Became More Common

    In the 1990s, Sweden introduced reforms that increased the use of loans to finance higher education, even though education remained free.

    Younger Swedes, often in the bottom 50%, began carrying student debt, further reducing net wealth.

    4. Shift Toward Financialized Economy

    From the mid-1990s, Sweden encouraged private pension investment (e.g., PPM system) and stock market participation.

    But the bottom 50% didn’t benefit much—they didn’t have excess capital to invest.

    Meanwhile, asset owners (top 10–20%) gained greatly from the boom in financial and real estate markets.

    5. Policy Shift: Decline in Wealth Redistribution

    Starting in the 1990s, Sweden reduced wealth and inheritance taxes (abolished in 2007).

    These tax changes helped preserve wealth among the top, while doing little for those with low or negative net assets.

    —

    🧮 A Vicious Math Cycle:

    Let’s say someone in 1995:

    Buys a home for €150k with a €130k mortgage.

    In 2020, home is worth €400k, but they refinanced and owe €350k.

    Net wealth = €50k (asset minus debt) → not bad.

    But if this person is grouped with others who also have credit card debt, student loans, or mortgage debt greater than assets → average wealth for the group drops, even below zero.

    —

    Final Observation:

    This is not a sign of destitution, but a reflection of:

    How debt dynamics interact with asset ownership,

    How inequality in asset gains emerged post-liberalization,

    And how policy changes after 1995 disproportionately helped capital owners over wage earners or debt holders.

    —

    Follow-up Questions for Deeper Understanding:

    1. What was the average mortgage-to-income ratio in Sweden over time?

    2. How did wealth tax policy evolve after 1995?

    3. Has household financial literacy or risk tolerance changed during this period?

    Would you like a timeline visualization of these policy and debt shifts or a comparison to another Nordic country like Denmark or Finland?

  6. Taxes? Sweden has one of the most regressive tax structures out there. Their top marginal tax rate of 52% kicks in at $59,000 USD.

  8. Stagnant growth GDP wise for the last several , plus insanely high taxes doesn’t equal great success

  9. This is a crazy bad metric. Here’s why.

    In the US and Sweden 2/3 of households are homeowners. The bottom 1/3rd are pretty much all the renters, who have essentially no or negative net worth. Out of this bottom 50% wealth as a group you then have 5/6 broke renters and the remaining 1/6 the least wealthy homeowners. A minor deviation in real estate prices causes a massive swing in illiquid equity and hence wealth for the 1/6 which totally swamps the data for the 5/6.

    These two groups should be tracked separately to have an informed view of the issues that matter to each. Combining them says nothing much at all. Overall the cure for the inequity is to improve the home ownership rate because in net worth nothing else seems to matter until you own a home. In the US the median homeowner net worth is about $400,000 and the median renter’s is $10,000.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/16/economy/renter-homeowner-net-worth-gap

  10. This just proves how American society prioritizes hoarding wealth in the belief that it will make their lives better instead of investing that wealth in social systems that actually work to make their lives better.

Comments are closed.