It is election night in Finland, which is nothing like election night in the US from what I can gather. Finnish politics in general are far more normal than most countries, with politicians (for the most part) just going about their day, living their life, shopping at the local grocery store with the rest of us schmucks.
What makes this one more interesting perhaps, is that it looks like the "Finns Party" (which is a populist party often associated with anti-immigration policies), will likely become the second most supported party in the country. Which is no surprise really, considering what has happened globally over the last thirty years in this regard, and especially in the last ten. What has generally happened in the past in these cases, emboldened by support for the party, the racists tend to come out of the woodwork and become more vocal.
Fun times.
But, I had an interesting conversation with a colleague last week about the elections and the change in voting behaviors and general sentiment, as we spoke about employment issues. It is an interesting problem that many countries face, where there is an aging population with an increasing number of workplaces open up, not enough people to do the work, not enough people to look after the healthcare needs of the elderly. For most countries, immigration is likely the only solution.
But of course, this comes with its own problems, because obviously immigration is going to have an effect on various aspects of culture, which rubs many people the wrong way. There are also the various stereotypes that get raised in the face of rising immigration - or to immigrants themselves.
You come and steal our women!
This is one I have heard many times when I was younger. Perhaps talking about women as "ours" would be a good place to start unpacking that one.
They come and steal our jobs!
This might be true in some cases, but again, one might want to consider if a person who comes into the country and can't even speak the language can take a local's job - time to reflect. But more than that, in Finland at least, this isn't about working for less, since there are laws in place and illegal immigrants can't work due to the way the system is set up. Corruption is very low here for the most part and there are large fines for any company found underpaying employees. Due to the automation of the system, it is very likely companies would get caught. Plus, it would be far cheaper to send work to other countries anyway, not bring people here, just to underpay them.
But, what my colleague and I were talking about was more around the idea of professional work, the kind of which you need a degree for. This is interesting in Finland, because the education system is largely free for students, which means it is tax funded by people working. However, there are still skill and job vacancies in these areas.
My colleague was saying how a lot of the foreigners who come into the country are going to often go into lower paying work, meaning that they are not going to add as much to society. Yet, like most, he hasn't done the math.
The cost of education in Finland is high, with up to year 12 costing about 250,000 and a bachelor or master's degree another 150 - 250,000 on top. It is about 6 billion in tax money per year. This means that a tertiary educated Finn comes into the employment market with a deficit nearing a quarter million euros, before they have got their first paycheck. In countries like the US, this is pushed to the student through a loan of some kind, meaning that there is an incentive to get a good job and pay it back, but that incentive doesn't exist here and culture is changing.
Young people are less willing to work.
Which obviously exacerbates the problem of labor shortages going forward. And on top of this,. there is also a declining birthrate, meaning not only will they not be working, they won't be having enough children to look after them in their old age either.
The economics don't add up for a bright financial future.
At least at the current rate of things and with the economy that we have in Finland, which is a social democracy. The problem with social democracies (not to be confused with communism) however, is the "social" part, as people are always the weakness. If people do not add value into the community, the community is unable to support the system and the more self-centric people have become, the less responsibility they feel they need take with their community.
This raised another topic from a few weeks ago in a conversation, where I asked at which point I (a foreigner) am seen as adding enough value to be considered part of the community. A lot of people put the "being part" down to the language and culture aspects, but when they complain about immigration, they look at it from an economic standpoint. So, considering that I pay a higher rate of tax than the average Finn and generate even more through my business, am I to be considered part of the financial community?
The problem with this approach is, it isn't easy to tease apart who should be included or not, because it doesn't come with an easy guide, like skin color does. And, if anyone should be upset by immigration of educated people, it should be the countries that have lost educated people from their ranks. There are a lot of Finns for example who work abroad - no one seems to complain about them taking their half-million dollar degrees overseas.
My point is, that looking a little into the future, the financial economy of most countries is going to get increasingly battered, and it isn't going to be because of immigrants, or lack of immigrants. It is going to be because the system is fundamentally broken, as the value countries need to operate are getting taken out by corporations for the most part, not remittances. The less people work in country, the less tax money there is to do things like educate people and then, things will get privatized, in the same way they have in the US,
A shining example of social health....
Cough
The thing that I find interesting about all of the election nonsense is that people still really believe that governments can make the world a better place. This is not to say that it doesn't matter which government there is, because it does, but they are all on the negative side of the spectrum of unhealthy, it is just a factor of how far along. But, people subscribe to them, because it is easier than taking actually responsibility at a local level and ensuring that value is not only being created, but also being distributed to the right areas.
So many people use the "I love my country" line, yet how many are actually taking the actions required to build a robust and stable community through strengthening the local economy? Instead, what most people believe it means is keeping people out of the community - which is a sign of a weak community. A healthy community and economy is one that can welcome people in, and incentivize them to add value and earn their way into the community, so that they too will be a voting stakeholder.
And I think this is part of the reason so much of the immigration policies fail and cause social problems. Because, while they want people to come in and do the jobs that no local wants to do, for cheaper than a local would even consider it, they also don't want them to have stake in the community, to have ownership. They want to keep people out of the loop on purpose, so that as culture naturally changes, they have someone to blame for the loss.
Home is where the heart is.
It is a nice sentiment, but unfortunately,
no one cares about where the heart is, only where the body is from.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
