7 ms·

Eight Years of College Lets Finns Hide from Labor Market

25 points by T-A 12y ago

Scoundreller 12y ago
"The state also provides grants of as much as 500 euros ($670) a month plus meal support and loans of as much as 400 euros a month. While education is a safe haven for students, the economy suffers when they put off joining the job market and don’t have skills the labor market needs, said Hannu Kaseva, an economist at ETLA research institute in Helsinki." The first part sounds like classic labour market whining about having to compete for employees. Improve your working conditions and compensation and individuals will choose your organization instead of education. If organizations require a particular skill, why do they not develop it themselves, why should the individual take the risk for their benefit? I too reside in a jurisdiction that fails to train a sufficient number of its own health care workers, a problem that the Finns have. I suspect the Finnish schools are full, as are ours, they and we just failed to create enough seats. I consider not having to work to survive to be a pinnacle of humanity. Health care is already free of charge in most of the modern world without having to prove one's worth to anyone, why not extend that to food/water/shelter/tertiary education?
- snitko 12y ago
  > Health care is already free of charge in most of the modern world This is completely and utterly incorrect. It's not free. Doctors and nurses are getting paid. Equipment is purchased. Drugs are prescribed. Who is paying for it? Taxpayers. Therefore it's not free. What you meant to say is that now everyone has an access to healthcare. But when you think about it, is it truly a pinnacle of humanity if good things (treating people) are achieved by doing bad things (stealing from people by threatening them with jail time and confiscation if they refuse to pay taxes)? Is it truly a pinnacle of humanity that we treat people yet simultaneously we also kill thousands of people in wars using the same tax money? Is it really okay that I have to subsidize a treatment of a smoker who ignored health advice for a number of years? Or a fast food consumer who ate at McDonalds every day and now has diabetes? Why should I subsidize their treatment and not spend more money on my kids, for example? You have no moral right to claim I OWE these people money. You can kindly ask me to help them out, but if I refuse, you shall not be able to jail me and confiscate my property.
  - GregorStocks 12y ago
    But it is free of charge, which is what the post you're replying to actually said.
    - chrismeller 12y ago
      No, it's not, which is what the post you're replying to actually said. You are paying for it, somehow, even if you are not paying an invoice every time you go to the doctor. The money is not simply created out of thin air, the doctors and nurses do not work for free out of the goodness of their hearts. If, as the original comment suggests, no one should have to "work to survive" in any way, where is the motivation for anyone to do it? The students are already hiding so they don't have to compete for jobs in a tight job market, what's to encourage them ever to do so? At some point you run out of people working and paying those taxes so that everyone else can live for free.
      - rtpg 12y ago
        Why is it taken as a necessity that everyone needs to work?
        chrismeller 12y ago
        It is the default nature of human existence. If you do not work to find food, you starve. The things we work to "find" ("buy", now) have changed, but the imperative is the same. I think the real question is why do you think it is not a necessity for you to work, while others do?
        ArkyBeagle 12y ago
        But production of goods is on rails. And accelerating. We have small legions of Zero Marginal Product workers. Some of these folks are people with whom I used to work. There, as they say but for the grace of $DEITY... Can't shoot 'em. But it's a pretty safe bet they can't work, at least not in a manner that is an improvement over digging holes and filling them back up.
- reillyse 12y ago
  I'd be in agreement. I think tertiary education should be free of charge, I think by mid way through the next century we'll view free continuing education in the same manner as we view primary and secondary education at the moment, i.e. as a right.
  - Gustomaximus 12y ago
    One can hope but in places like Australia and the UK we are actually seeing a regression from largely free and supported education to a user paid model.
    - chrismeller 12y ago
      Is it? I haven't heard anything about it, could you share a link?
      - Gustomaximus 12y ago
        This search should give you a good mix of stories for Australia. It's a bit of a hot topic lately as 'bulk billed' GP's, which basically means the government picks up the fee is being challenged. The current government is attempting to bring in a minimum fee. This combined with a private health system which is increasing being encouraged and allowed to offer a 2 tier system is concerning for those that believe in universal health care. You will find similar stories for the UK with a quick search, albeit done under a different guise as they are more about moving to privatise parts of the NHS. https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=private+health+australia&tbm=nws https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=...
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    In the form I think you mean this, it's nonsense, but it's worth pointing out that you can get free continuing education in most fields right now through the internet.
    - logicchains 12y ago
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  > Health care is already free of charge in most of the modern world [...] why not extend that to food/water/shelter/tertiary education? Because we don't want to support a permanent underclass of parasites? As you adjust the rules of society to favor having children and not working at the expense of those who work and delay their children, you'll find that the demographics of society adjust to the new rules. Or, in the words of Kipling: In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the gods of the copybook headings said: If you don't work you die.
  - bronbron 12y ago
    > Because we don't want to support a permanent underclass of parasites? Why do you think that would happen?
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      I covered that in the original comment, immediately after the part you quote. >> As you adjust the rules of society to favor having children and not working at the expense of those who work and delay their children, you'll find that the demographics of society adjust to the new rules. What's more, it's already happening right now, so a better question might be "why do you think making this lifestyle more attractive would make the problem worse"
      - bronbron 12y ago
        You just supposed that to be true without really explaining WHY you think that's true. > What's more, it's already happening right now No it's not. The birth rate in the US has been steadily declining over the last century. Unemployment rates over the last 80 years oscillate around 6-7% pretty consistently. So... why do you think that?
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >Because we don't want to support a permanent underclass of parasites? Yeah, just the permanent parasitic overlords. >Or, in the words of Kipling: Yeah, the poet laureate of the Imperial parasites roaching off the hard labor of billions working as they slaves in colonies like India and elsewhere...
- htns 12y ago
  That's actually a very weak part of the article. Finnish state unemployment benefits, even for the people refusing to seek employment, are bigger than students' grants. You are uneligible for unemployment benefits as long as you are eligible for students' grants. So while the grants may sound high to some, they are actually a scheme to discourage you from taking too much time studying.
freyrs3 12y ago
If I recall from Linus Torvald's biography, he took advantage of his 8 years at university to write his first prototype of what would later become the Linux kernel. Sounds like the Finnish system liberated him to work to pursue important work without having to worry about basic economic concerns.
- chrismeller 12y ago
  I think we can all agree that Torvalds is the exception, not the rule. Plenty of people, especially those who are younger and don't have families, spend their evenings and weekends working on side projects after work. I don't really see a compelling argument in your point...
  - DickingAround 12y ago
    I don't currently hold this opinion but I'll argue it for the sake of discovery: But what if all we need is the exceptions? Torvald's contribution is many times greater than a single regular person working. Perhaps the total value generated goes up as long as we find and win the exceptional cases like him?
    - chrismeller 12y ago
      Likewise, I don't know that I believe this, you just triggered a half-formed thought: The basis of this discussion was that everyone should be provided as much free education as they want with no qualifications. If we acknowledge that Torvalds' contribution is greater than that of a regular working person, aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot? If that's the case, then what argument can we make for subsidizing, say, a History degree? I know several people who have them and none of them are doing anything remotely related to the field. In that case it would seem that the education was unimportant (given the vaguely quantifiable criteria we've established), so why should we have paid for it?
  - graeme 12y ago
    >Plenty of people, especially those who are younger and don't have families, spend their evenings and weekends working on side projects after work. I don't really see a compelling argument in your point... You haven't really responded to the argument. The question is not whether people spend time on side projects when working. Instead, the question is, would MORE people spend time on side projects with more school, and would they spend MORE time doing so? I had so much more free time in school. Though on the other hand I had no idea where to direct it.

25 points by T-A 12y ago

"The state also provides grants of as much as 500 euros ($670) a month plus meal support and loans of as much as 400 euros a month. While education is a safe haven for students, the economy suffers when they put off joining the job market and don’t have skills the labor market needs, said Hannu Kaseva, an economist at ETLA research institute in Helsinki." The first part sounds like classic labour market whining about having to compete for employees. Improve your working conditions and compensation and individuals will choose your organization instead of education. If organizations require a particular skill, why do they not develop it themselves, why should the individual take the risk for their benefit? I too reside in a jurisdiction that fails to train a sufficient number of its own health care workers, a problem that the Finns have. I suspect the Finnish schools are full, as are ours, they and we just failed to create enough seats. I consider not having to work to survive to be a pinnacle of humanity. Health care is already free of charge in most of the modern world without having to prove one's worth to anyone, why not extend that to food/water/shelter/tertiary education?

snitko 12y ago
> Health care is already free of charge in most of the modern world This is completely and utterly incorrect. It's not free. Doctors and nurses are getting paid. Equipment is purchased. Drugs are prescribed. Who is paying for it? Taxpayers. Therefore it's not free. What you meant to say is that now everyone has an access to healthcare. But when you think about it, is it truly a pinnacle of humanity if good things (treating people) are achieved by doing bad things (stealing from people by threatening them with jail time and confiscation if they refuse to pay taxes)? Is it truly a pinnacle of humanity that we treat people yet simultaneously we also kill thousands of people in wars using the same tax money? Is it really okay that I have to subsidize a treatment of a smoker who ignored health advice for a number of years? Or a fast food consumer who ate at McDonalds every day and now has diabetes? Why should I subsidize their treatment and not spend more money on my kids, for example? You have no moral right to claim I OWE these people money. You can kindly ask me to help them out, but if I refuse, you shall not be able to jail me and confiscate my property.
- GregorStocks 12y ago
  But it is free of charge, which is what the post you're replying to actually said.
  - chrismeller 12y ago
    No, it's not, which is what the post you're replying to actually said. You are paying for it, somehow, even if you are not paying an invoice every time you go to the doctor. The money is not simply created out of thin air, the doctors and nurses do not work for free out of the goodness of their hearts. If, as the original comment suggests, no one should have to "work to survive" in any way, where is the motivation for anyone to do it? The students are already hiding so they don't have to compete for jobs in a tight job market, what's to encourage them ever to do so? At some point you run out of people working and paying those taxes so that everyone else can live for free.
    - rtpg 12y ago
      Why is it taken as a necessity that everyone needs to work?
      - chrismeller 12y ago
        It is the default nature of human existence. If you do not work to find food, you starve. The things we work to "find" ("buy", now) have changed, but the imperative is the same. I think the real question is why do you think it is not a necessity for you to work, while others do?
        ArkyBeagle 12y ago
        But production of goods is on rails. And accelerating. We have small legions of Zero Marginal Product workers. Some of these folks are people with whom I used to work. There, as they say but for the grace of $DEITY... Can't shoot 'em. But it's a pretty safe bet they can't work, at least not in a manner that is an improvement over digging holes and filling them back up.
reillyse 12y ago
I'd be in agreement. I think tertiary education should be free of charge, I think by mid way through the next century we'll view free continuing education in the same manner as we view primary and secondary education at the moment, i.e. as a right.
- Gustomaximus 12y ago
  One can hope but in places like Australia and the UK we are actually seeing a regression from largely free and supported education to a user paid model.
  - chrismeller 12y ago
    Is it? I haven't heard anything about it, could you share a link?
    - Gustomaximus 12y ago
      This search should give you a good mix of stories for Australia. It's a bit of a hot topic lately as 'bulk billed' GP's, which basically means the government picks up the fee is being challenged. The current government is attempting to bring in a minimum fee. This combined with a private health system which is increasing being encouraged and allowed to offer a 2 tier system is concerning for those that believe in universal health care. You will find similar stories for the UK with a quick search, albeit done under a different guise as they are more about moving to privatise parts of the NHS. https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=private+health+australia&tbm=nws https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=...
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  In the form I think you mean this, it's nonsense, but it's worth pointing out that you can get free continuing education in most fields right now through the internet.
  - logicchains 12y ago
thaumasiotes 12y ago
> Health care is already free of charge in most of the modern world [...] why not extend that to food/water/shelter/tertiary education? Because we don't want to support a permanent underclass of parasites? As you adjust the rules of society to favor having children and not working at the expense of those who work and delay their children, you'll find that the demographics of society adjust to the new rules. Or, in the words of Kipling: In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the gods of the copybook headings said: If you don't work you die.
- bronbron 12y ago
  > Because we don't want to support a permanent underclass of parasites? Why do you think that would happen?
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    I covered that in the original comment, immediately after the part you quote. >> As you adjust the rules of society to favor having children and not working at the expense of those who work and delay their children, you'll find that the demographics of society adjust to the new rules. What's more, it's already happening right now, so a better question might be "why do you think making this lifestyle more attractive would make the problem worse"
    - bronbron 12y ago
      You just supposed that to be true without really explaining WHY you think that's true. > What's more, it's already happening right now No it's not. The birth rate in the US has been steadily declining over the last century. Unemployment rates over the last 80 years oscillate around 6-7% pretty consistently. So... why do you think that?
- coldtea 12y ago
  >Because we don't want to support a permanent underclass of parasites? Yeah, just the permanent parasitic overlords. >Or, in the words of Kipling: Yeah, the poet laureate of the Imperial parasites roaching off the hard labor of billions working as they slaves in colonies like India and elsewhere...
htns 12y ago
That's actually a very weak part of the article. Finnish state unemployment benefits, even for the people refusing to seek employment, are bigger than students' grants. You are uneligible for unemployment benefits as long as you are eligible for students' grants. So while the grants may sound high to some, they are actually a scheme to discourage you from taking too much time studying.

freyrs3 12y ago

If I recall from Linus Torvald's biography, he took advantage of his 8 years at university to write his first prototype of what would later become the Linux kernel. Sounds like the Finnish system liberated him to work to pursue important work without having to worry about basic economic concerns.

chrismeller 12y ago
I think we can all agree that Torvalds is the exception, not the rule. Plenty of people, especially those who are younger and don't have families, spend their evenings and weekends working on side projects after work. I don't really see a compelling argument in your point...
- DickingAround 12y ago
  I don't currently hold this opinion but I'll argue it for the sake of discovery: But what if all we need is the exceptions? Torvald's contribution is many times greater than a single regular person working. Perhaps the total value generated goes up as long as we find and win the exceptional cases like him?
  - chrismeller 12y ago
    Likewise, I don't know that I believe this, you just triggered a half-formed thought: The basis of this discussion was that everyone should be provided as much free education as they want with no qualifications. If we acknowledge that Torvalds' contribution is greater than that of a regular working person, aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot? If that's the case, then what argument can we make for subsidizing, say, a History degree? I know several people who have them and none of them are doing anything remotely related to the field. In that case it would seem that the education was unimportant (given the vaguely quantifiable criteria we've established), so why should we have paid for it?
- graeme 12y ago
  >Plenty of people, especially those who are younger and don't have families, spend their evenings and weekends working on side projects after work. I don't really see a compelling argument in your point... You haven't really responded to the argument. The question is not whether people spend time on side projects when working. Instead, the question is, would MORE people spend time on side projects with more school, and would they spend MORE time doing so? I had so much more free time in school. Though on the other hand I had no idea where to direct it.