Serafikettu - The austerity policy pursued by the Finns, which cuts student subsidies, is a sign that they know nothing about economic efficiency. Stupidity is the most expensive expense, so here is my reform.

The austerity policy pursued by the Finns, which cuts student subsidies, is a sign that they know nothing about economic efficiency. Stupidity is the most expensive expense, so here is my reform.

If Finns knew anything about efficiency and how much stupidity costs society, they wouldn't cut student subsidies, force them to go into debt and go to work to waste intellectually gifted people's precious time.

Decision-makers should read Plato's Republic. In same way, as in ideal social policy, the smart and the stupid have their places and purposes. Every cobbler must stick to his own last.

The Finnish government, in its brilliant mathematical skills, sees that we will make significant savings when students are reduced to doing some shitty job meant for stupid people. Actually, it's just the opposite. Who are these smart students taking stupid people's jobs from? Stupid people.

So which one is more expensive? The fact that the student is studying for a maximum of about a decade and adopts a profound scientific worldview with which he can be useful to society and move this world forward? Or the fact that the students are taking the jobs of stupid while they themselves do not have time to familiarize themselves with the content of their studies due to the time-consuming shitty job that then stretches the studies. And at the same time they are displacing stupid people who will be permanently marginalized, causing costs of many millions of euros per person when no stupid person can get a job because of a non-existent CV, because intellectually overqualified students are taking their jobs.

A job as a cashier in a store is not intended for a student, but for someone whose brains aren't good enough for university.

"Hey, these students are getting work experience that will be useful for the future," hey, we're not working class or lower middle class, so we don't need this work experience because our work is completely different from yours. Why the fuck does a humanist, mathematician, or historian with doctorate need blue-collar experience? At most just to remind them that if they don't study hard, they will end up in this shithole.

If you're going to defend your doctorate and start a career as a researcher, they couldn't be more interested in your work history, they are interested in a one thing, which is that whether or not you are smart based on your doctoral thesis.

Are you worried about funding your research? No problem, for example in philosophy you don't need any funding at all because you don't have to pay anyone but yourself. If you can already live in Helsinki, you'll be fine. If you need funding, like in medical research, a doctor's salary is enough to organize the research and if the money runs out, for example, due to expensive equipment, any grant foundation is happy to fund the research, because medicine is one of the most respected scientific field in the world. No, you idiots don't have to worry about how we're going to fund things regardless, even if work history is slim. The virtue of fools is diligence, the virtue of the smart is wisdom. We'll make it because we're smart.

I can't think of anything else to motivate this than the weaponized Protestant work ethic. Powerful but stupid people, especially democratic representatives elected by the stupid masses, who feel envy towards scientists when they do work they enjoy and that brings more to society than their postmodern political circle jerking. These powerful stupid people should understand that the fact that they are in a shitty job for stupid people is due to their own choices. Then they complain when scientists are right and they are wrong, and science is believed to be a conspiracy. People would listen to you if you were a scientist and not a stupid politician. Read fucking books, and you could become a scientist yourself someday.

I would reform the system so that I would provide student aid in a larger amount and in a tiered manner according to the level of education. Vocational school students would receive the least, polytechnic students the second least, upper secondary students the normal amount, university master's students the second most, and doctoral researchers the most. It would create economic incentives to adopt a scientific worldview.

So, what's stopping them from embracing this policy? Democracy itself.