LWID #1 - Introducing Arun Prakash, new YouTube channel, and this week's headlines

Welcome to the relaunch of Last Week in Denmark's official podcast.

Introducing our new co-host Arun Prakash, who joins Narcis George Matache, the Founder of Last Week in Denmark to discuss this week’s newsletter headlines. The diverse backgrounds of our cohosts brings fresh perspectives for our podcast listeners, dissecting the topics and life from the lens as an EU citizen, a non-EU citizen and internationals living in Denmark.

Topics covered in today’s podcast includes:

• Euthanasia — should it be legalised in Denmark? (2:35)
• Rising… or freezing retirement age in Denmark? (11:00)
• New rules - manual transmission license even with an automatic driving test (35:50)
• Reducing unhealthy food and snacks in supermarkets (52:05)

The Last Week in Denmark podcast is now also available in both audio and video! And of course, you can always find the full newsletter here.

Want to stay updated with our latest news and events? Find us on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, or visit our website.

Transcript

Welcome, everyone, listening or watching this podcast.

I'm your host, Arun.

Each week in collaboration with Narcis, the founder of Last Week in Denmark, we bring you the latest news and insights that matter most to the expat community here in Denmark.

Hello, everyone.

This is basically a second attempt at the Last Week in Denmark podcast.

You probably have listened to the first podcast a couple of months ago.

Unfortunately, due to various reasons, we couldn't continue that project.

But now we are back into a new format.

Arun has reached out to us and said, hey, why don't we revive that project and do it together?

And we were like, yes, why not?

And he proposed, let's do it on video instead of just audio.

We're going to still continue with audio, so you're still going to be able to listen to us on Spotify, on Apple podcasts, and all the other platforms that you prefer to use.

But you can also see us now on YouTube.

We might not be the best models out there for watching for an entire half an hour, but it's more about what we say and less about how we look like, right?

And what's more interesting is that actually this time we try to see if we put a European, ergo me, Romanian, and Arun, a non-European, I guess Indian, right Arun?

Yeah.

Then if we put the two of us together, then to see if we discuss the news that are happening in Denmark, of course, from the two lives that are happening.

Because many people don't understand that internationalists are not one full unit.

We have-- and we go through wildly different experiences even between the same ethnic group.

But if we are to find parallels, I would say that the non-Europeans are having a much harder life here in Denmark than us as Europeans.

And it's interesting to see that what did they go through and what do we go through by approaching different subjects out there?

I could see that there's a lot of topics about around the state of Denmark.

There's news about weekly political overview.

And there's also focus areas where you have topics about foods and technology, climate neutral by 2050.

So we'll start with the first one, which is something that you wanted to talk more about.

And that is, if I'm not wrong, is it about euthanasia that we started talking about?

You wanted to start this podcast with a very, very strong touch, I guess, right?

Something people don't really want to touch or they don't want to think about, especially in our age.

I mean, relatively, we're still in our youth.

So we don't think much about that.

But we are also at a certain stage in our youth where we do have some relatives who pass away, right?

Or they are in a situation to be at the end of life.

So we get to face this.

And the older we get, the closer we get to 40 or to 50, the more we're going to have to face this as part of our life, right?

So euthanasia is-- what is euthanasia?

What do you think is euthanasia in your mind?

I did some Google search while we spoke about it.

And it says, "The painless killing of a patient suffering from incurable or painless disease and painless disease. And it is actually illegal in most countries.”

So how is this legal in Denmark?

Or why suddenly this topic is Denmark?

Oh, OK.

So it's not legal.

It's not legal.

Actually, the ethics council in Denmark, which is a very big and very highly respected council, has said we should not do this.

We should not legalize euthanasia.

But the current prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, she supports it.

She finds it necessary because there should be dignity in the last moments.

So you should be able to choose when it's time to go, instead of suffering and going through terrible, terrible situations.

So it's a question about allowing the states to-- it's a question of liberty, to be honest.

Should people be allowed to decide that they want to die?

And who should be responsible for the death?

Should it be the state?

So should it be the doctor that comes and makes the injection?

Should they just give some pills to the patient?

And the patient has to take them themselves?

Or should a relative come and do it for them?

So that's the question.

But people are afraid to allow or to open such a discussion where the government can regulate how you die.

Right now, the only way you can legally die is by natural causes, or if someone illegally kills you, right?

So-- I'm a bit curious.

It's a challenge to have.

Yeah, yeah.

The curiosity that I have is the patient.

In a good state of mind that he or she chooses to say, OK, I'm not going to take this anymore.

I'm through a lot of pain.

And I want to end my life.

It could also be a mental state where people are not, I would say, 100% themselves.

So how in this situation can someone's concern be-- is it fine to actually terminate one's life by a statement?

Well, it's not enough just a statement.

I think there will be other things taken in consideration, like, for example, can they ever recover from it?

Is there possibility?

Or it's incurable, because some diseases are simply incurable, right?

There's nothing more to be done there besides waiting.

So that's the question.

You cannot use legal out in Asia on patients that can recover.

So this cannot be used as a way to suicide.

I know a lot of people are now calling it state assisted suicide.

That way, because people who are against it, obviously, they're going to find ways to portray it in a negative way.

So now they're trying to call it not legal in Asia, because it's a difficult word, and most people don't know it, and simply call it state assisted suicide, which is-- it's a bit unfair to call it in that way, because you cannot call suicide something that you know is going to happen.

It's just a matter of, is it today, or is it in two weeks from now?

That's the question, right?

So this is a talk show, right?

So it's not a political talk show.

We're not going to take sides.

We're just going to say, yeah, the government would like it to happen.

There's a lot of resistance to it.

There is a huge network of celebrities and health professionals who are against it, who are afraid that people can misuse it.

They can misuse it as a way to suicide.

It's a difficult question, and it's not easy to be covered in a little bit of time.

I could imagine.

It's just-- it's a question of, would you like to have that option, Arun?

If you are having an incurable disease, would you like to have the option to have a dignified death, or would you prefer to go through the most excruciating situations and maybe not the most excruciating situation?

I would choose the one which is dignified, obviously.

Because, yeah, at least that is how I feel.

My gut says, I lived enough.

I lived a life worth living.

And then when it is time to go, I think I will choose the one which is dignified, in my opinion.

So that's the whole approach in here, because in most countries it is illegal, fair enough.

But there is two countries where it is legal, like, for example, Netherlands.

OK.

So I'm not sure about the US or the big countries, to be honest, outside of Europe.

But what about India?

Do you know by any chance it is illegal?

I don't think so.

It's not legal yet.

And of course, there's a lot of loss have been passed on-- if it's, like you said, incurable diseases, then they ask their belongings.

If they're too old and weak, and they actually ask the consent from belonging, is it OK?

But I don't know if it's actually legal to do it.

My experiences goes with what my relatives and third degree connections have said.

And I think it's a decision that the family members make if they're, let's say, great-grandmother or grandmother is too weak to be able to mediate further.

And those exceptional cases, they also get a consent from belongings.

And that's very subjective to this family, right?

But I don't know if it's actually legal.

And I'm honestly sure it's a broad topic to also consider what goes into the law of-- I think this is just at the beginning, the whole discussion.

Yes, there's some countries who are early adopters who already done this.

There's other countries who are on their way.

And I think there will be a lot of pushback as well from the conservatives or from people who say, like, life is sacred.

Humans should not have the right to decide on life.

Because I think many people are using this argument, actually, saying life is sacred.

There is some sort of spirit behind.

And we should allow only higher beings to decide not us.

So humans should not decide about other humans' life.

That's why many people are against it, not necessarily because of political reasons, but mainly actually because of religious reasons.

But I think we covered enough this legal-- Yeah. --it goes because right now what I can tell you is going to be a battle in Denmark between the anti-side and between the ones who want to pass it.

So we will be talking about this in the next many weeks, for sure.

OK, cool.

Let's jump into a political agreement from 2006 about the retirement age increase.

Let's talk about it.

Another tough one.

We go from the dignified way of dying to the dignified way of retirement.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look very good for us.

I looked at the website.

If you guys are going to check the newsletter on Sunday when it comes, there is a link where you can press and see when you can retire.

So you put your birthdate, and it's going to tell you the age when you can retire.

Seriously?

Yeah, just check on the information coming when you find it.

In the meantime, while you look for yours, mine was that I can retire when I will be 74 years old, because the life expectancy in 2063, when I can finally retire, is going to be up to 87 years old.

So they expect you to pay a pension for you for 13 to 14 years old only.

So at 74, I can finally retire.

So I'm curious, Arun, when is your retirement age?

So you are saying that you're going to retire in 2074?

No, no, no.

At 74 years old.

At 74 years old.

Oh, my god, sorry.

I'm just seeing the chart.

I'm just seeing the chart.

It says that 2024 people retire at 67, and at 2040, people retire at 70.

Arun, there's a link in there where you can put your birthdate.

If you say find out when you can retire by using this calculator.

OK.

Press on the calculator link.

I'm just looking.

OK, I'm checking out the link that you shared with me.

Put in my date.

Insert your birthdate.

OK.

1992.

OK.

OK, I can actually retire at the age of 73.5.

OK.

And now I'm 32.

So I can retire at 2081.

In 2081, you can retire.

No, I think I can retire in 2065.

But I could get the thing, what do you call it?

You could go up a pension.

I can retire at 2065.

Yeah, in 2065, you can retire, and then you expect to get pension for like 15 years.

So until 2061.

Yes.

Yeah.

OK.

But here's the thing.

So I have to work for 73.5 years.

Is that what you're trying to say?

OK.

And what was your number?

74.

74.

OK.

How old are you, man?

Yeah.

Well, 34.

OK.

Yeah, we were-- OK, so I'm 32.

OK.

Almost the same.

It's 30.

Something.

Nobody really knows how old anyone is, anyway.

All we know now is when you can retire with public pension.

And a fun fact, in Denmark, even if you have not worked the role, when it's retirement age, you can still get the public pension.

It's the only country in the world that has this.

But is it-- I'm just curious, should I have to go at pension at 73?

Wait, you'll be 74.

Do you understand that?

Listen to that number again.

74.

Are you really feeling me that you're going to still be entrepreneurial and start in the next-- when you're 74?

I'm not sure even if I live at that age.

But it would be-- it would be interesting what I will do at 74.

Your question is like this.

You're allowed, when you retire, to still earn money on the side.

You can still have a business running.

It has nothing to do with your pension.

So there is a minimum pension in Denmark.

Everyone has to get it.

Then you get pension based on how much you worked.

So you have the basic pension, which is for everyone.

Then you have the second level of pension, which is based on how much you worked.

So that one can change depending if you make too much money when you retire.

So let's say that you have still a very high income from your work.

It will be difficult to get a high pension from your second layer of pension.

And then you have a third level of pension.

If you are working in some special, let's say, industry or something, you have this industry pension, which is your third layer of pension.

Basically, it's like a private pension, but it's paid by your employer.

So you have one, two, three level of pensions.

And then it can be your own private pensions and whatever else you are doing on the side, basically.

But the whole discussion here is about, should retirement be blocked at 70?

Like the social democrats want to do now, they say, OK, in 2040, it will be 70 years old.

And from there on, it stops at 70, till 2100.

Or should it be following the life expectancy?

Because we are living longer.

That's the fact.

And so you are worried you will not reach 74.

Math and statistics say you will, but-- I'm just questioning the math here, because I think we, honestly, Denmark is a really good country.

The climate is good.

It's not polluted.

And the average life expectancy of Danish people, yes, I agree, they live longer.

But I have lived almost half or maybe 25 years until 25 years old in India.

So how do they get this number of average?

Is it only survey from Danish citizens?

Or is it generally the people who live in Denmark?

Because that could change, right?

Yeah, to be honest, this research are based on people living in Denmark.

So it's hard to say.

Makes sense.

It's hard to say how much it impacts your life, your life's health.

True, true.

In India, the number is actually quite less.

And I think I'll be frank here.

But of course, I would say different parts of India.

Now I live here, so I assume that I have an average life expectancy in that 87 range, which is good to know.

At that point that you raised, actually, yeah.

If you come at 14 years old, would you family, right?

You live half a year time abroad.

That means that chances are you will not end at the same ending.

Yeah, it's a lifestyle that shows us how much you can live healthy.

I've seen this lifestyle of Denmark compared to India.

It's a healthy lifestyle.

I'll always compare with how my uncles and aunties used to live.

Of course, it's a very subjective topic.

But in general, I've seen a lot of activities that people do here.

And the ecosystem is a bit different.

And that shows in the data that there's a lot of older people live in Denmark, but also older people also have higher expectancy rate in Denmark.

But in India, I think the number is less.

And also, yeah, and I think even if I choose to retire in Denmark on a long run, my number could improve for sure, because I will have a healthy lifestyle.

I think what you can do is take your number from India.

Because you can make a bad population here.

Take the number from Denmark.

Take the number from India.

Say, OK, I would live-- I lived, I don't know, 25% of my life in India and 75% in Denmark.

And then you average the 25% with 75%, and you get your number.

But this actually raises a question maybe for the future when there will be more internationals living in Denmark.

Especially when they move during their 30s or 40s, would be that, OK, that means an international will actually benefit pension from Denmark.

A lot less than a day in a year.

Native citizens, yeah.

So-- True.

So what about that, yeah, right?

Like they keep saying, oh, they're taking our benefits.

And they go away.

But should they think about it?

They live less.

Internationals live less.

They don't live as long as the Danes, right?

Because your body has been exposed to different health conditions for a couple of weeks.

It's also subjective.

Of course, there are a lot of healthy Indians.

And I've seen them in real life as well.

But as the statistics goes, by the statistics, I think it's comparatively lesser on the average Indian.

Because there's a lot of-- When we talk public economy, we only talk about statistics.

We don't talk about exceptional cases where-- Yeah, exactly.

Because you don't make political decisions on the situation of Johnny and Maria, who live till 130.

And they've made it all their life, and they eat on the apples.

Every politician, every public economist, they only look at numbers.

And we are numbers.

Yeah, sad to say we are numbers.

What are the numbers saying?

So that's how you can make discussions on making changes or designing societies, right?

You can only look at statistics.

I know many people hate the statistics probably in university or high school, depending if you have statistics in high school.

But they are a lot more important than you imagine, to be honest.

They kind of read the future and tell us about the past a lot.

But also, as an expert, I go into the statistics 10-mark page and I get a lot of insights, things that I am completely ignorant about.

And it makes a lot of sense to me, even though the numbers reflect 2022 or 2023 maximum.

But it kind of gives an idea, right?

It takes time.

But it's also like giving high-level information about how many expats live in Denmark and average income, a lot of these topics, everything that you want to know.

I would say it's-- I'm very happy with how good we are at collecting information here and presenting it publicly.

Because I have a hard time finding other EU countries who can present to me up to the last few, how many Romanians live where, how many-- No, seriously.

How do you compare data with Denmark and other countries?

Is it fine enough that you have a lot of information about, what is it, immigrants?

Yeah.

I wouldn't call it immigrants.

I don't like that word.

I would just say-- It's a good-- yeah, international.

According to that graph, it's labelled as immigrants due to work, immigrants due to asylum.

And then there are different classification.

But it paints an overview of where people come from.

And everything is live.

But yeah, with a quarter or a half yearly delay, I'll say the latest data was actually 2023-ish.

And also about jobs.

Yeah, first quarter of 2024.

Yes, you're right.

I think it's fine enough to be honest.

And I like that.

It gives me a very good picture of what's the situation.

We, for example, my own community in Denmark.

And where are they coming?

And what are they doing?

And so on.

But as I said, now the discussion further on will be about what should we freeze retirement age at 70, or should we allow it to follow expectancy age?

And that's the question here.

The government wants to freeze it.

But many economists have come and said, well, if you freeze it, it's going to cost $40 billion kroners a year.

Why?

Because the ratio of elderly compared to working people will be much, much higher.

And that will only increase with every decade.

And the number of children is lower with every decade.

So there's too few people working to pay for the pensions of people living in 2060 or 2050.

Going on retirement on 2060, 2060.

Simply the number of people getting pension is too high.

It's a huge burden for the state.

So I understand why they want to freeze to 70, because people will start losing trust in, OK, should I even bother to pay pension in Denmark if 74 sounds horribly long?

Send horribly far.

So that's why I understand the government's thinking.

But also I understand that the reason why they made this agreement in 2006 was that they had to find a solution to the pension crisis.

There was a huge debate 10 years ago about pension crisis in Europe.

Many countries will be simply defaulting on it by 2040, roughly around there.

So Denmark actually among the few countries in Europe who found a solution to it, simply you live longer, then you retire later.

Contribute more.

It's a good model or not.

I mean, I still cannot imagine a 74-year-old, I don't know, a nurse making an injection.

That can really work fire.

So I don't know.

I mean, some of us-- I'm a consultant, right?

I can do my work till I'm 74.

No problem.

But if I am going on the factory line and I beat-- I think I will not be able to beat as hard when I'm 74, right?

And many other situations.

I think there's jobs that simply-- either we-- I think a more fair way to look at it, just a personal opinion, would be to differentiate between the work you do.

If you do a certain type of work, is it possible to actually retire at 74?

No.

Then when?

When is it biologically possible to be able to work a certain job or not?

But then it opens up a whole Pandora box of various lobbying interests.

The nurse union will fight with the electrician union.

Because you know, we are in Denmark.

We are organized here.

People fight for their interests.

But I'm curious to know what sort of jobs will be in the future.

For example, as a start point, even in India, IT is booming and it is still in India.

IT is booming.

But there's also certain age groups which are thriving in IT.

For example, a graduate, and then until the age of 35, he owns IT and he has a lot of experience.

He gets into a lot of corporate ladder leadership roles.

And at a certain point where it is 35, 40-ish, then the trend goes back to the youngsters.

And they hire youngsters and they get into those ladders.

So there is a threshold for IT, people who thrive in IT.

And do you think the same will exist in Denmark that are you hireable after 50-ish?

And what are the jobs that will be available for people at 50-plus in the future?

And this is again going to be a debate for the countries because what sort of jobs will the government be able to provide for 60-plus people in the age where technology is trying to shape?

And there's going to be a battle between opportunity versus people having to find jobs.

I think the problem here is that India can afford to exchange people again and again.

You have a lot of young people, a lot of cohort-saving people.

We don't have that luxury in Denmark.

In Denmark, you see more often government and municipalities asking elderly people to come back to work or say, please stay a few longer, a few more years.

That is true.

So I wouldn't say we have this situation where we can simply-- Yeah, you're 40 now.

Now go do something else.

We'll take someone to do your job.

I don't see it here, honestly speaking.

And I see here, if you have a job that you know how to do well, then most likely they will want you to stay there until you're 74.

That is actually good to know because then you at least have a security that you have a job.

Government jobs in India have the stability.

The private companies, I don't think so.

It's also a competitive landscape that people always look for fresh ideas and cheap labour force.

And then this good combination, every company wants it.

He is cheap to hire.

He or she is cheap to hire, but also creative enough to explore new boundaries and come out of those stereotypes.

But I have this experience working in India.

And the older you get, you also become more insecure.

Will I be hireable if I go to another company?

So I'll stay with this company as long as I wish to.

And yeah, I've seen this many, many, many people that I met.

But now you believe in your marketing here, you don't have to go through such-- That is a nice question.

I actually think like I had this conversation with my mom many, many months ago.

My mom always wanted me to work in a government job.

Because government job in India is the most secure job you can ever find.

You can retire in a government job.

You get good benefits, pension, just like the Danish promises.

And it's also like a sign of a good son that he is doing his duties properly.

And parents' dream is to get a good job, a decent job, a government job.

But I don't like working in a government job because I haven't seen challenges in the jobs that I've applied for.

So it's always interesting for me to work with private companies.

But when I came to Denmark, when I worked for big companies, it feels like a government job.

Because of course, I am now thinking about job security.

I'm now thinking about my family responsibilities.

And now I need security.

Back in the days when I was younger, it was just challenges and something exciting to play with.

But now I started feeling like what I would do is to have a secured income so to balance out my responsibilities.

And I realized my mom was right at certain point that stability and monthly income is important.

And I told my mom, now I'm in a government company, even though it is not a government company.

It's a pretty stable environment.

And I think it's a good point that you made that people are not just fired because of their age.

Or yeah, but that's a good interesting point that you brought out.

If people are fired because of their age, they will just lend them with a huge lawsuit from the people fired.

And they can go home with a very nice severance pay.

So it would be shocked if someone does that.

But look, I'm now in the position of being a business owner.

So when I find good people, I want them to stay as long as physically possible.

So in Denmark, it's more about you losing your best employees to other companies and searching for better opportunities out there.

So there's two perspectives here.

Me as a business owner, I want you to stay as long as possible.

You as an employee, we want to move away after three years to a different job so your salary can keep increasing faster.

So in Denmark, I will actually encourage you that-- again, now I am taking the side of the employees-- I will encourage you that you change your job after two, three years because you will have a higher, faster increase on your salary than if you wait for your salary to increase at the same job.

Simply that's the reality of it.

So we are in a market where we have an unemployment rate of barely 2%-- what, we have 80,000 people who don't have a job.

It's extremely low.

It's a market where it's not about-- it's literally you choose-- obviously, if you're capable.

I'm not talking now that there are still situations where some people don't fit in the market because there are simply too many of the same profile.

Or yes, there are mismatches.

So some people will not feel themselves that they're fitting this.

Oh, there's 2% unemployment rate.

Why in the hell I cannot find a job?

So just because there's a very low unemployment rate, you also have taken with relation smaller numbers.

Like how many people with your profile are needed on the market?

Is it already over-saturated?

Is it a good number?

Because if you're a nurse, people will be like beating at the door and say, please come and work for me.

If you are a cybersecurity expert, again, there's like thousands of them needed in the country right now, especially that we are attacked like crazy every day in our infrastructure.

Yeah, yeah, current situation.

It depends what you can do.

Like every time I see an IT professional, I say, go in cybersecurity.

That's your most-- if you want to make-- In demand, job. --a 100% salary per month, in three years to now, go in cybersecurity.

I cannot advise a better-- That is true.

The experts listening to this conversation, I think you already heard from nurses that the most in-demand job right now is in IT and it's also in cybersecurity.

Absolutely.

It's not-- I agree.

Just-- sorry, no.

In IT, cybersecurity, but it's not the most in demand.

The most in demand is still health care by far.

Yeah, but in sectors, right?

And in IT, cybersecurity by far, yes.

We could the situation in the global geopolitical situation.

Yes, yes.

Yeah, of course, pharmaceutical will always be there.

Yeah, of course.

I mean, what's also good-- I mean, if you have any sort of job that somehow can fit within pharma production, yeah, right, we becoming a pharma state, a country where pharmaceutical companies are thriving, getting bigger and bigger.

So any sort of profile fitted with such a company, there are jobs out there.

From what I know, there's 3,000 new jobs being opened north of Copenhagen.

Crazy, crazy openings.

I would say there's a list in LinkedIn.

If you go and check, they are hiring like crazy.

They need more people.

And they're actually finding it difficult to find within Denmark.

So they're actually hiring from outside Denmark, Europeans.

And they're even further receiving out of non-European.

Yeah.

But here comes the topic.

It's about positive list that is published every six months.

And you mentioned about the in demand jobs, right?

And I've seen this positive list.

They also change quite frequently.

If you see the current demand is, of course, all these management jobs and also a specialist in pharmaceuticals and specialist in IT.

And there's a lot of relation between positive list and also jobs that are posted in work in Denmark page and also LinkedIn jobs.

Yeah, yeah.

And for the ones who are Europeans and following this podcast, what is a positive list, right?

Because you guys don't know what that is.

We don't have to care about that.

Seriously?

OK.

As Europeans, we have the right to move to Denmark whenever we please.

OK.

That's our is.

We don't have to fulfil some requirements.

You have extra privileges.

I could see that.

Yeah, that's what I said.

Yes.

Yes, we have extra privilege.

So as a non-European, unfortunately, you need to be able to get a visa to come to Denmark.

Exactly.

You need to fit in one of the many programs that are out there.

And one of them is positive list.

So if you can work a certain job that is on that list, you can actually work it for a lower salary than the minimum required for non-Europeans.

Actually, the only minimum salary we have in Denmark is for non-Europeans, who are not on the positive list.

So if you're in a positive list, you can get a normal salary that is for the others in the country as well.

But if you're not on the positive list, I still want to come here.

And a company wants to hire you.

They have to give you a very extravagant salary of more than 400,000 trans per year, which, to be honest, for most of us Europeans, is a lot of money.

We don't get that much.

OK.

That's interesting topic.

That thing, I think we should talk about it sometime in the future.

I'm extra curious about how that works.

And maybe you could actually have a podcast by that topic itself.

With interest of time, what do we talk more about, Narcis?

You wanted to ask me about the driver's license.

Oh, yeah.

You want to get a driver's license now, right?

Yeah, let me get to the point.

I think after five and a half years in Denmark, I decided finally to get my driver's license.

I've actually-- Seriously?

OK, why are you?

You are Romanian, and I think you already are part of EU.

You still want to get a driver's license?

How does it work for you?

I have one.

OK.

I never took one in my life.

So I am taking my first driver's license ever.

My god.

OK.

Wow.

That also makes sense that you never depended on driving.

Is it because you never thought you would want to drive somewhere or in general, or you don't want to-- I never really liked it.

So it's a personal choice there.

But I also was able to manage with trains.

Train trains.

I've been all over Europe, not even flying.

So simply by train, unless I've been all around Europe a few times.

But that shows that how connected these cities are with public transports and flights and trains, which is also one of the things that I really inspired.

Even that is the same feeling that I had.

A lot of people ask me, you don't have a driver's license.

I said, when I had a good public transport that goes to my work, and when I have a good flight that could fly to all the tourist destination, I really haven't had that as my first priority.

My first priority was always to get through the permanent residency and language.

And these were the numbers that were really important for me.

For the people who are Europeans, again, this is something you're not used to.

I have to remind that.

But that's the fun part of it, right?

Remember, permanent residency is the thing that you get automatically after five years in Denmark.

They actually have to go through a test.

It doesn't come automatically.

We have to go to the grind.

We have to grind and then finish all the exams that are relevant.

And for the Europeans listening, again, this is the journey of an expat trying to integrate.

And he takes at least five, six years on an average to actually get to a stage where he is a permanent resident.

And he could enjoy some of the benefits that Europeans enjoy in Denmark.

And I think it's a challenge, a lot of expats face.

And I'm making videos to educate people on how I was able to do it.

Feel free to check out with also a lot of expats stories that Narcis is also publishing in his weekly news letters about how you could educate yourself and try to thrive in this economy.

But getting back to this driver's license, Narcis, I'm surprised that you are trying for a driving license.

My story is a bit different.

I have an engine driving license.

I've seen people in my company exchange licenses.

So they had a Canadian license.

They gave them Canadian license.

They got the Danish license.

Nothing, just a one day process.

I've seen a Norwegian guy exchange licenses.

I've seen South American countries, some of them, not all exchange licenses.

But being a non-European country like India, if you just go and hand over your Indian license, they say, I can surrender my Indian license, but I have to go through a theory and a practical exam just like everyone does.

The only difference is I get to take the exam right away.

So I could just surrender my Indian license, get a medical check, and then basically, they do eye test.

And then my general practitioner, the GP, will give a certificate to the examiner, saying that this person is physically fit to take the test.

And that's it.

But the fee is huge.

I would say it's a lot of money because for the exam-- so start with the examination fee will at least come to 1,500 to 2,000 tonneaus.

And I will tell you the numbers split by split now.

So in order to apply for the exam, I think it's a fee the driving license schools charge, which is 300 kroners.

It's free by the government, by the commune.

But the private institutions, they charge 300 kroners roughly to book a slot for you.

And you can actually take the exam many times as you want to.

There's a limit, but you can take multiple times.

This is the theory part.

Every time when you fail, you have to pay 1,000 kroners for the theory again.

That's a lot of money.

So make sure that you pass the first time.

So you end up just paying 300 kroners minimum.

And then the second half of the exam is about practicals where you will be tested with driving skills in real life.

And for the fee part-- so since I understand some Danish, but I wanted to still have an English person to give me instructions.

There is a translator fee.

There is a fee for renting or loaning the car for a couple of hours for the driving test.

And then there is a fee for the exam.

So you put together, you'll sum up around 2,000 kroners for one exam.

And this exam fee is just 2,300 kroners without taking any classes.

Now, when we talk about classes, this is where it gets really interesting.

Because if you haven't really driven before, or if you don't have any licenses, you end up at least paying 15,000 Danish kroners for one person getting a license.

And that's a lot of money.

That's what I'm paying, Aaron.

So there's not special prices for non-Europeans.

That's what everyone pays.

But-- But Danish, everyone pays the same.

Yeah, but if you could drive, but you still pay, that's my paying.

Because I know how to drive.

But I drive in the completely other side.

So I drive in the right side of the car, and now I have to switch over.

So I'm pretty sceptical.

Like, how can I then pass the exam?

So every time I take a test, I pay around 1,000 kroners for sessions.

And now I've played more than like 6,000 Danish kroners for the sessions that I took.

And I felt like I know how to drive, but there are a lot of rules that I have to know.

So it makes sense to go through the process of knowing the rules.

Because driving is one part, but the rules are the most important part.

And one example is that when I drive, I've never given orientation.

Like, you have to turn your body and then give an orientation and see manually that if someone is approaching from the side angle.

Of course, I mean, but in India, to be honest, orientation was not-- I would say I haven't-- of course, I've read in books, but I don't see people do orientation a lot of times.

They look at the rear view mirror.

They look at the central mirror.

But hardly people orient themselves.

And it is a practice that people have to do.

Yes, it's by law.

But are people doing it?

And I also challenge myself to say it is true.

Because when I drive my bike, my bicycle, I still follow rules.

So I think it's important to follow the rules.

But it is also very, very hard to crack the exam, pass the exam in the first attempt.

If I could do that, it will be a miracle for me.

Hoping to pass the first attempt.

I'm also the driving pilot.

So I need to take my exam when driving now.

I passed the theory-- Oh, you passed theory.

Cool.

Congratulations.

Yeah.

Yeah, thanks.

But my luck was that I was supposed to go and take first theory exam.

And then he said to me, well, you need to have some documents with you.

Because I simply went there and said, I'm ready to take my exam.

It's on this hour at this time.

No, no, no.

You need to have your application.

You're driving.

What is that?

I don't have that.

My driving instructor has that.

Go talk to him.

And they were like, no, no, no.

You cannot take the exam.

OK, whatever.

And then while I was waiting to be reprogrammed to take it again, they changed the law.

And they allowed to take it on the computers without having to listen to some person talking.

I was like, oh my god, thank god.

Thank god for that.

Because I cannot listen to that.

Because they were hiring some people with very questionable English level.

They were trying some English from their own perspective.

So I had to listen to them and pretend I understand while I choose the right version in five seconds.

And I was like, someone was looking out for me.

For me to pass, the law has to be changed.

So they changed it.

Now you can just look at the computer screen.

You have written text.

Inshallah.

That's a great-- I actually liked the enthusiasm that you showed, actually.

One of my friends took the theory exam in an analogue way.

And then I took the exam in a digital way, where now I have only screens with touch.

So I have to touch the screen and I took the exam.

I spent less than 25 minutes.

And I was closing my eyes.

No, no, I'm going to fail.

I don't know.

I don't want to see myself-- embarrass myself and throw to the screen.

But luckily, I passed.

And then I know the result now.

And then I left happily.

Because a couple of months before, the exam used to be where you get the notice from the commune few hours later.

But now you see the result as soon as you finish the exam.

Exactly.

It is embarrassing.

It is also happier if you pass.

Exactly.

And now, funny enough, I was thinking about taking my driving test also on an automatic car.

Because it's a lot easier.

Oh, yeah.

In Denmark, you fail immediately if you do not use orientation every time.

So literally.

I looked at how they grade you and why they can fail you.

And one of the ones who simply immediately fail is if you have had to make a turn or anything and you did not or properly, completely, they can fail you on the spot.

My god.

Orientation is the highest importance.

So I realized for me to be able to do everything and change the gear and everything, it will be too much, too fast.

I'll do too stressed.

So I said, OK, I will take my exam on an automatic car.

And they told me, oh, but if you take it on an automatic car, you'll only be able to drive automatic cars.

Afterwards.

But guess what?

The law has changed.

So now you can also, even if you take it on an automatic car, as long as you have done at least seven hours of driving lessons on a manual car, you can still drive both types afterwards.

That's great news.

Somehow, my journey of taking a driving license has been-- I'm not saying I have influence over legislation.

It's kind of crazy.

You have.

But somehow.

Or maybe they see the frustration that people have.

And they thought, OK, let me relax a bit.

I think it's fair from your point that manual transmission, you find a lot of cars these days with automatic transmission cars.

And especially women prefer automatic cars even in India.

A lot of women, when they buy their first car, they buy gearless cars.

And it's also less hassle.

With traffic, you just keep on changing first and second gears constantly.

It's a transitional thing, right?

And I think it's good that the government decided to relax this, I would say.

To be honest, more and more people buy electric cars.

And all electric cars are automatic.

And that's just the reality.

I think it will be basically just a hobby to go drive a manual car in the future anyway.

For those people, oh, I want a vintage car.

And obviously, that's going to be manual.

I actually like manual cars.

In India, I drive manual cars.

It's also, in a way, pleasing to drive.

Automatic cars, I think the charm is lost in automatic driven cars.

But like you said about the transmission part in a traffic exam or traffic condition, automatic is easy.

You just accelerate, you brake, and then you enjoy the process of driving even in situations, heavy traffic.

And when I trained in automatic car, I realized my left pedal is always looking for a clutch.

And I said, I am now keeping it idle.

I don't have to use my left leg anymore.

And the instructor was telling me, you make sure that you don't overdo what I tell you.

Just use the right leg and try to control.

You have only one option, either to accelerate or to brake.

Which is also decision making is a lot less now.

You don't need to put the clutch.

If you're half clutch, you can still freak out when you change gears and do reverse and stuff.

So I think it's better for-- it's good for most of the beginners who are trying to drive and to learn for the first time.

So-- To be honest, what I'm looking forward for is self-driving cars.

I am a specific fan.

And a fun fact, I used to work for Uber, for Uber headquarters many years ago, down in Krakow.

And I was part of this division where we were discussing about what's next for Uber, right?

And there was self-driving cars test in Los Angeles.

And there was this flying taxes, VTL propulsion that you can go from one part to another.

I love that.

I just-- I'm waiting.

I'm ready.

I'm absolutely ready to ride a car that is driverless.

I mean, we even had in Aalborg a test of a bus without driver.

It ran for a whole month.

In Aalborg?

Oh, accidents?

Yeah.

Oh, wow.

OK.

So we are there.

I feel like if I wait two more years with my driving license, I will take my car.

I just want a driverless car.

So be honest.

I should reconsider your driving license, nurses, now.

I could see that.

So you have no choice now.

No, I think I've heard one of my friend told me-- she told me that I don't know how to put reverse because my car is already automatically parking itself.

She has a Tesla.

And she said, why do you need to drive then?

If a car can drive itself?

And I said, I said, it's too seldom that these days people are buying these automatic cars in Teslas.

Of course, I'm not sure if everybody is turning on the automatic mode to drive them.

But the trust is gaining.

And people are using it for parking, at least.

Because it's parking car in between two cars is also like a challenge in itself.

And if an automatic car can do it easily, then I would rather do it.

And I get the benefit of-- Yeah, of course.

That's why I'm moving forward.

I never been a big fan of driving in the first place.

But I have to because now I'm moved in the suburbs of Alborg.

So I need to be able to drive a car.

You should drive long distances.

Have you tried traveling with someone on a car?

Like a co-pastor?

I mean, imagine we Eastern Europeans, we have to go at least once per year home.

And that's 2000 kilometres away somewhere.

I'm just surprised how did you end up buying a license?

Because I think it's one of the mandatory things that we people in India think to have is a driving license.

Because then it's a craze for bikes.

In India, it's a craze for bikes.

Moped's, all these scooters, and two-wheelers racing cars, it's a very craze.

I had the-- I was fortunate to drive a bike.

And also had a fortunate to buy a car and drive a car.

But it's one of the things that people in India invest money in.

And it's other way around here.

There's a lot of cars invested in cars because I think only those rich people own a Harley-Davidson or an infield and drive in the summer only for a few seasons.

But in India, it's other way around.

People are gangsters.

You know, you want to be part of a gang in Denmark of a rocker band, right?

You need to have a motorcycle.

So you don't have to sell your car to a rich man, right?

You maybe sold your house for it.

Yeah.

Harley-Davidson, right?

Yeah.

OK, Narcis, let's jump into the other topic that I wanted to talk about, which is-- so now we have spoken about a thing that was exciting for both of us about the automatic transmission cars.

Let's talk about unhealthy foods.

That is also part of your focus area, as in your newsletter.

It says, according to several health organizations in Denmark, there is a recent regulation about how to place foods, especially those tempting foods and their positions in the stores.

What is it all about?

Well, basically, it's not yet a regulation.

It's a wishful proposal from them because they have realized that a lot of people-- because when you go with the checkout, right, you see a lot of candy, chocolates, snacks, whatever they can push into you last minute.

And many times, you'll just take it.

Or you'll see it at the entry of the-- or you'll see it in the most visible places or next to items that you have to buy.

So let's say that you go a lot for milk, right?

If people buy a lot of milk, then you'll place next to the milk energy drinks, fast food, whatever.

That is very bad because a lot of people have shared-- because they made like a researches on the population.

And a lot of people have said that the only reason they buy that stuff is because of-- they get tempted by it.

Many people don't even take their children to stores because of it.

So it is about-- because you have to think about from a-- yeah, a lot of-- there's two sides here.

One side is the commercial side.

The company should be allowed to do everything possible to make as much profit as possible.

But then you have to think on the other side.

Well, if the public health gets impacted by it and more people use more days in hospitals, putting a strain on our hospitals, right?

That means we need to pay more taxes.

So who's paying?

So we allow companies to make more money, but then we have to pay more taxes to be able to keep our health care system running.

Because we fill up the hospitals because of obesity, right?

I mean, 52% of people in Denmark have obesity.

We are more fat than we should be.

That is a surprising fact.

My assumptions are wrong now.

I think half of Denmark's adult population is overweight, as you could see from the data.

And is it from the Ministry of Health that has been put out?

OK.

This is a picture.

That's interesting.

OK.

So 52% of the population is overweight.

And then never mind talking about the 20%, which are really overweight.

See, really overweight, right?

Yeah.

So I think we kind of got the wrong perspective of what overweight means, because we look at American movies and we see very, very fat people.

And we think, OK, that is what it means to be overweight.

That's not how it works when you look at overweight, right?

They look at what you're expected, like weight, compared to your height.

Right.

Yeah, BMI. 10, 20% more than that.

You're overweight.

Yeah, yeah, right.

The BMI index, right?

And I think that brings us to the topic of supermarkets across the globe.

Like I've noticed in Indian supermarkets, there's a science behind it.

There's human behavioural research going back.

So as human beings, when we take our kids, the last thing that the kid wants is before the cashier, before the area where you go and pay, you always find attractive candies.

You always find the chocolates.

And then you also have things like cigarettes and these beers and wines and exotic collections right next to the cashier.

Because even at that time, they think the human brain has, let's say, capacity to make choices.

And those choices are actually not based on-- it's already-- I've spent so much time walking through the supermarket.

Now you don't have anything to make but to pick something.

So we pick unconsciously and say, what doesn't make a huge difference?

Let me buy this.

Or my kid is asking me for this toy, and then I'm going to add on top of whatever I have.

So I've actually taken up something that I really don't want in the first place.

And because of the human behavioural stuff, you end up having to purchase, let's say, five items which you never wanted in the first place.

And it's always the case.

So not just kids, but it's also adults' behaviour.

So the other day, I went for buying meat.

I went for buying boomers.

I went for buying a rye bread.

You know what I actually came up with.

Apart from whatever I have bought, I actually took the really good-looking, feastable chocolates that was right next to the cashier.

There's also this protein bar, which says 20% is protein, but it's actually 16% is in protein.

But the remaining is also sugar, plus a lot of preservatives.

And then I also took the canned juice, which is not actually an extract from fruit.

But you see the chocolates that I made.

Even though I think that I'm making a healthy choice, it's also my behaviour that is shaped with the surrounding that I see.

And it's not just one supermarket.

It's almost all the supermarkets.

So yeah, you're right.

And one way human beings, with these choices that we make every day, we become, let's say, less healthier.

And along the ministry has every right to say that this is going to be a national problem when people become more-- - It's an epidemic. - Epidemic. - We have obesity epidemic in Denmark.

That's bad.

That's bad because it is proven that people with higher fat content simply are more sick and higher chance to develop chronic diseases.

And it's more likely to use the healthcare system more often. - Diabetes, for example, right?

Yeah.

You know the diabetes capital of the world? - Sorry? - You know diabetes capital of the world?

People with more number of diabetes. - Where? - In the US.

That's the huge market.

The second most market is actually India, growing population, growing diabetes.

And I think Denmark knows this.

So they are actually concerned because I think seen from a Danish population perspective, the majority of the Danish population is workforce, in the workforce.

So there's no one to replace it, right?

And that's also something that countries with less population care about. - Yeah, in here public health is very, very important because simply they looked at other countries and they saw that the healthcare system just simply spiralled out of like crazy, right?

Like look at US and see how much it costs to go to the doctor.

It's crazy, right?

So imagine putting that burden on the people and not on the state.

Because the state will be forced to make choices in the future, okay?

We can't afford this anymore.

What do we do now?

So, and then it's unfair that because a lot of people make bad choices, then the ones who don't make bad choices have to end up paying for healthcare, even though they only use it maybe once in their lifetime.

Because I use it often, ever since I have a child, right?

I go with every little sign, straight to the doctor.

I mean, you don't want to risk it, right?

Imagine if I had to pay every time I went to the doctor.

That would be a huge burden on a new family, right?

So, I feel like, okay, I understand freedom of commerce and I understand that it's, and nobody says to ban these things.

You just put them in places where people, so if I go to buy chips, I will find them.

God, if they're hiding now cigarettes, right?

But if you want them, you will still ask for them at the reception, give me cigarettes.

Straight forward. - And they are right next to the cashier.

So they didn't want to spend more time searching in the last row.

It's probably lying behind besides them.

So, cigarette is not a choice that they have to spend more time.

I think it's, like I said, the water is not at a visible point, but the fresh, the juices, the canned juices and the prime juices, they're all lying close to the path.

So it's also visible in front of people.

And yeah, I think it's a corporate thing.

But yes. - So if supermarkets will be more, because right now it's not a regulation yet, and there will be a huge fight in the future between the interest of the companies and the interest of the state.

So right now the question is, the companies can actually show some steps that they can do better.

Like, I already see that they're putting fruits at the entrance.

This is new for a couple of years only.

The case in the past, right?

So now every time we probably have got used to it, but now when you enter the supermarket, you should be seeing fruits first. - That's good. - Technically, most of them.

I'm not sure if everyone respects this, but there's an unwritten convention, it's not a rule by the state, but it's between themselves, they take a decision that they need to act more in a more healthy way.

So they put actually fruits at the entrance.

So you shouldn't see anything else besides fruits.

Unfortunately, some of them are kind of stealing the way because now they started to put literally at the entrance a few other, let's just say shelves, and you wake up with all sorts of offers in those shelves and various products, which can also be unhealthy foods.

So some of them are still not really fully respecting it, but there is steps in the right direction, right?

But more could be done, right?

Like you said yourself, what if we use this human behaviour of psychology to actually get people to use more healthy choices?

Because as far as I know, healthy options are not necessarily cheaper than unhealthy options. - That is exactly rightly pointed out.

It's also more revenue business.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We can make more revenue out of the healthy choices also.

That is absolutely true. - So we're not pushing more or not. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - To be honest, I would even ban water in supermarkets.

I find it disgusting that I can't buy water.

I mean, water, you have it at your tap, right?

It's perfectly healthy. - Yeah, I would know from coming from a non-European country or country in India, I can't imagine to drink water from the tap.

I first few months when I landed in Denmark, I really doubted.

Everybody says to drink water from the tap, is it really that clean?

And I questioned a lot of stuff, but I've actually noticed it's a good thing that the country is able to supply consumable, drinkable water in the taps.

That is very good news.

But there's also like people have no choices to make.

They want minerals in water and they want water to taste even better.

I think those are the choices that makes like, okay, I want to buy a canned bottle, the water bottle, which has minerals and whatnot.

You can add more amenities to that.

So I haven't really fancy to buy a water bottle in Denmark.

There were only few cases where I went to some communes where by the government, they say, oh, our public municipal supply line has been infected with this.

Call, what do you say?

The levels of bacteria has grown.

So we advise not to drink.

And then people issue bottled water.

Otherwise, I think it's free.

But is it the same in rest of Europe?

Or is it in only few select countries in Europe that has? - I have a hard time telling you that to be honest, because I would not remember.

I've been in most of the European countries, but not every European country has good tap water.

No, definitely not.

I think it's only a couple of them who have it, because it's very difficult for especially larger countries to keep the drinking water at a good level.

You know, there is an authority in Denmark who is responsible to keep the drinking water clean.

And they're actually having to do a lot of work to keep it clean.

They're buying, for example, lands around the water, procession plants, so to make sure that farmers don't farm in there and they're paying them off every year to not dump in certain rivers.

There's a lot of money spent to keep the people from poisoning our water.

So it's a lot of work behind it. - It's a really good initiative. - Being water, a tap water, yay, I'm so happy for it.

But out there, there is...

You know that actually around every, let's just say, water work, because that's how it's called, right?

Every water work is owned by its users.

So that means you, for example, are part of a certain water work and then you can go to the yearly general assembly and see, okay, how is the quality being maintained?

What are they doing with the money?

Are they planning...

For example, water work can also decide if the general assembly says, well, let's reduce the price if we make too much money, or let's invest it in increasing the capacity or whatever.

Let's do something with this.

For example, I'm very happy that my...

Not water work, but my district heating, they decided to use the money to produce electricity.

And during those years when it was very expensive, the electricity, they sold the electricity and they made a lot of money.

So that meant that I had an old quarter where I didn't have to pay for heating, because I was part of a very smart district heating who thought about its customers and they were using the money.

So we, as users in Denmark, have a lot of power over our utilities.

Just we never think about it.

So if you are connected to district heating, if you are connected to water, you are part of a group of influence.

So you can go to the yearly general assembly and see what's happening out there.

That's actually interesting.

I think I fall under this gint of the commune.

I'm not sure if I fall under H4 van back, H4 is a main supply range, major parts of Sheldon region.

And there's a lot of plants.

There's one in Givning, there's one in Tospro.

Because I work in these projects when I used to work in my previous company.

But I never realized that they had a union where people could show up and contribute or participate.

Yeah, it's a general sense because it's owned by the users.

So I said it's not owned.

There's not the waterworks are not privately owned in Denmark.

OK.

They are owned by the users.

So if I also they're not owned by the state either.

So for example, if a waterwork can also go bankrupt, if they manage to probably the finances and then people can wake up, they don't have water in a certain area.

It's a model where the state doesn't want to get involved, but they don't want to let private companies take over.

Take over.

Monopolise.

This is the best model in between.

And what do they call this model is?

I don't know if there's a name for it.

Yeah, but it's interesting.

Yeah, I will make some research about it.

It's interesting to know.

I thought it was monopolized by private companies, but it's interesting to see.

Maybe I should dig deep.

There's no official owner.

There's no profits going to someone.

OK.

They can come back to the users if something.

There is a lot of such companies in Denmark.

They are like all democratically owned companies.

That's an interesting topic to actually dive deep into in the future sessions.

Yeah, there is like insurance companies that you can choose like that way.

There is all sorts.

Arla is such a well, no, Arla is a bit different because it's owned by farmers.

And there's a specific people who are those farmers.

Correct, correct, correct.

Now I can connect some dots.

Yeah, cool.

I think we covered a lot of topics for today.

I told you, Arun, you were doubtful about one hour, but you can easily get into one hour of podcasts.

More than an hour, actually.

And I know a lot of our listeners get used to that one hour format.

OK.

So we will start off.

I think first of all, thank you for signing up with this collaboration.

What I actually liked in this interview process or podcast, we were able to share perspectives from different-- as you pointed out in the initial part-- we were able to point out how different we are.

But we also still be able to talk about it and share this knowledge or insights to expats living or trying to get more information, to be more informed about the situation.

And I've learned so much from the weekly articles that you've been posting for almost four years, or more than four years, I'm not sure.

So which is now interesting to-- yeah, so which is now growing into a different platform where we actually talk more about or dive deep into such topics, which is an absolute privilege.

Narcis, thank you so much for being on the first ever conversation around last week in Denmark.

What would you like to say as a closing comments before we end this podcast?

As a closing comment, I can say that let's hope this trial run works well.

And we can get to see the last week in our podcast being alive for as long as possible.

So thank you, Arun, for getting involved and bringing it back to life.

And hopefully, we'll see that the people come back to it.

It was quite popular back last year.

But hopefully, people will find it interesting once again.

So otherwise, thank you so much for listening and watching us.

And see you next week, basically.

See you next week.