The worldview that makes the comedy class
Yesterday, somebody posted in my blog a comment in which they quoted a recent article in a Finnish newspaper, about unemployment in Sweden. Of course I can't tell for sure if this was a real article or a parody, but there is actually a good chance that it is true, knowing what I know about the Nordic countries. Either way, this snippet is so funny and says so much with only a few words that I think that I'll translate it for my non-Finnish readers to laugh at.
Tina Carlsson, 36, hasn't held a steady job for over sixteen years now. She does not show up in the unemployment statistics, because officially she is temporarily on a sickness leave that the government officials practically forced her to take. Carlsson's time these days is spent in organizing the next election campaign for the Leftist Union. She lives in a comfortable house that she, as a single mother, bought a few years ago.
Jari Vaarma links to the article "Kahden kerroksen aikuisia"
that is unfortunately available only in Finnish, but I can summarize
the central points of this and many other similar articles in one
paragraph. This article asks why the adolescent phase seems to keep
growing longer so that many twenty- and even thirtysomething Finnish
adults only aimlessly drift in their lives without a steady job or
education because they can't maintain interest to anything for longer
than a few months. They pay little attention to money or budgeting but
simply buy what they feel like, even if they can't really afford it.
But they will most certainly not buy a home, start a family or lay down
any kind of roots. Since these people consider themselves special and
intellectual, they think that normal grunt work is beneath them, and if
they don't get to job/play as symbol analysts who work in comfortable
offices and have the freedom to create and do whatever they feel like,
they will much rather say "screw this" and live on welfare and
unemployment benefits instead, or the generous student subsidies that
the Finnish government pays to all students who have managed to get
accepted to any postsecondary school. This is especially true for the
humanities students who constantly switch majors and "search for
themselves" when they mostly laze around and take maybe one or two
credits each year, getting to the thesis writing when they approach
their thirtieth birthday.
But I think that I'll let Jari say the
rest, since his post so nicely illustrates the truth of certain
almost-cliched saying that is usually attributed to Winston Churchill.
Of course this is only one man's view from the present-day Europe and
especially the Nordic countries. But as I can personally testify,
compared to the Nordic countries, even Canada is practically
Libertopia, and once the productive and cognitively blessed Finns who
are capable of future time orientation realize that they can get a much
better deal elsewhere, and the ratio of freeloaders to productives
keeps tilting towards the former group, the whole Finnish system will
necessarily have to change. I will certainly look forward to the
tearful wailing from the free riders left behind when this happens. So
here is what Jari says, with a few clarifying comments of mine in
brackets:
For me, this constant "drifting" and "searching for themselves" is a completely incomprehensible and intolerable phenomenon. I immensely despise those losers who "don't know what they want" and thus live on other people's money long into their adulthood.
I know many people who graduated [with a Master's] before they turned 25, got steady jobs, married and had children. Some of them are building a house for themselves, others are writing Ph.D. theses. For some reason, these people mainly vote for Kokoomus [the Finnish conservative party]. I tip my hat for these people. These people sustain the society.
It has been crystal clear for me for years what I want for my life: a steady job, wife, children and a house. In this order. The current way of doing things that means being single until you are 35, chronically avoiding any kind of commitments and keeping all doors open represents, in my opinion, a truly sick way of life.
The real problem is with the system itself. I'd rather see a society that makes these dreamers choose between a "shit job" [a common Finnish expression for any low-paid minimum-wage work with little freedom or prospects of promotion] and concrete starvation. If you can't otherwise get food or housing, you would gladly work even in a sucky job. That's how simple it is.
At this moment, the state and its welfare transfers guarantee that the basic needs of this gang and even more are satisfied. Work just doesn't pay. Those who work have to shoulder the burden of massive taxes. Money is transferred to bums and scoundrels instead of the truly needy. And I can't really blame these bums --- I would take stuff for free if I could.
If you subsidize something, you will get more of it. The bliss of social democracy is constantly creating more and more single-parent families, chronically unemployed people, ten-yeared students, crime, collapsing social cohesion and brain drain abroad. This is why I support shutting down the public sector and the welfare state.
The Western civilization [European, really] is currently facing disgusting choices. It is clear that its current ideals cannot be supported in the long run. The European civilization and the welfare state in the form that we know it is unavoidably marching towards ruin. The next generation will show us the direction that it will go.
I
have nothing to add to this, really. Few people are inherently as
tragicomical as those who complain that they don't get to enjoy the
security and the material lifestyle of the middle class, even though
these people explicitly reject and even mock the mainstream middle
class values such as heterosexual marriage, education, work ethic,
saving and planning for the future and other "square" things that these
"edgy" hipsters only find ridiculous.
And as my readers should
know by now, I like being smart, funny, obnoxious, and independent, and
I love mocking the stupid as much as the next person. I therefore
refuse to meekly apologize for my devilishly wicked sense of humor, and
promise my readers that I will keep mocking these sorry-ass losers and
highlighting the predictable consequences of their chosen lifestyle
whenever I happen to encounter them! This will happen quite often,
since as a rule, every leftist seems to eventually reveal himself be a
loser in his personal life, drifting powerlessly from one crisis to
another, his prenumeric brain unable to grasp any kind of cause and
effect between his worldview and his reality.
She played the race card
Posted by Loki on the run | 1:23 PM
Hmmm... There were plenty of suitable gentlemanly and comfortable though low paid jobs still in 80's. The search for my true self was pleasurable then and time not totally wasted. Monitoring plant room temperatures at nights and adjusting something a little if needed wasn't exactly exhausting. Automation and economic recession wiped out those luxurious jobs where you could read the whole world's classic literature while being practically paid while doing it. Then there suddenly were only real shit jobs left, of which I had my share. Then I decided to jump out and quickly found out that becoming a doctor might satisfy the intellectual challenge and my economic needs. Finding one self wasn't very difficult when wading in dungarees knee deep in butchery waste. Genuine thanks to the student grant system tailored for those with a long working history then.
Posted by Catilina | 1:56 PM
About Tina Carlson: It appears to be true. I searched the archives of Helsingin Sabomat and found an article (that would require registration, but part of it is visible):
Go see it:
http://www.hs.fi/haku/?kaikkiSanat=ruotsi+ty%C3%B6tt%C3%B6myys
(First article in the maksullinen lehti section).
As for Jari Vaarma's article: I also don't much respect those people he described. But the thing is, it's not just invidual failing, but an economic choice that the society has made: High minimum wage and other "job security" measures ensure that employers won't hire people who lack education (and most good education choices are limited) or good job history (which means a vicious circle of unemployment).
Basically I'm saying - with the expection of few "bohemian" humanist science majors - most people who loudly proclaim that they won't take shit jobs in fact can't get even shit jobs, and are pretending that their pathetic situation is something to be proud of. Statistical reality of health problems and suicide associated with long-term unemployment certainly supports this.I pity those people, not hate.
This is why I think the current welfare state needs to transform, it has no future, and tragically it creates plenty of people who have no future (the chronically unemployed etc.). IMO the relative minority of unemployed people who are that by choice pales in front of the cold fact that our economy simply doesn't make it worthwhile to hire some people (people who like being unemployed/drifting are probably exceptions to the rule). Abolish the minimum wage and greatly reduce unemployment benefits and other government subsidies, and let the invisible hand do its work.
(Ps. Sorry 'bout the correction habit. Neurotic habit, trying to grow out of it)
Posted by Tuomas | 9:36 PM
The Economist has a piece on the "Swedish Model" today, with a little tour around Scandinavia. Seems to be on the same general wavelength as you are :
The Swedish Model
Good blog.
Alastair Sherringham
London UK
Posted by Alastair Sherringham | 2:26 PM
The Western civilization [European, really] is currently facing disgusting choices. It is clear that its current ideals cannot be supported in the long run. The European civilization and the welfare state in the form that we know it is unavoidably marching towards ruin.
The problem with this sort of cant is, that we have heard these doomsday prophesies for too long, and somehow the expected catastrophe always seems to fail to materialize. Here's Robert A. Heinlein from the year 1980:
...constitutional democratic republics so heavily tinged with socialism ("welfare state") that all of them are tottering on the brink of bankruptcy and collapse.
Heinlein is dead now and welfare state is still there in some form. Now, I don't say this in itself is an argument, but I do think Jari's attitude is unconstructive and counterproductive in the peculiarly Finnish way Tommi has often mentioned, i.e. people are supposed to be mortally afraid of a catastrophe of some kind or the other being just round the corner. Now that I have seen some of flourishing private business life from inside and even venture to say I have some idea how and why it flourishes, I tend to think that if we, as a nation, have a problem, it is not the welfare state, it is that very attitude. For, to put it bluntly, you do not make money with that attitude.
Posted by Panu | 12:00 AM