Kela: How much labour market subsidy do you get?
The labour market subsidy is 37.21 euros per day, and you receive it for 5 days a week. The labour market subsidy is therefore equal to the basic unemployment allowance, and tax is also deducted from it.
It can very well be net positive. Most of an individual’s life cycle costs are concentrated at the beginning and end of life.
An immigrant arriving in Finland as an adult, whose childhood and education costs have been incurred in another country, but who otherwise corresponds to an average Finn, will be cheaper for society than if they had been born in Finland.
Similarly, when it comes to people’s life cycle costs, it is misleading to use the state budget deficit as a point of comparison. As the population increases, for example, the price tag of those fighter jets does not rise, so including them in the average resident’s life cycle costs or net positivity is not sensible.
What percentage of immigrants are like this?
Of course, it also depends on the career and its net benefit to society. In groups where unemployment is many times higher than the average, or the wage level is far below average, a net benefit is not achieved during the entire working life, even without the negative costs of childhood. Of course, there are also large net-negative groups within the native Finnish population, but adding more such groups does not improve the overall situation; instead, it weakens it.
Surely the percentage is completely different if it’s humanitarian vs. labor migration, and that’s how it should be. The problem is also that the measures by which an asylum seeker becomes a productive member of society are likely completely different from those for, for example, a labor migrant.
Unfortunately, these are not sufficiently differentiated in statistics, which easily creates a situation where all immigration is discussed in general terms. As a result, the problems of asylum seekers may disappear into “averages,” and naturally, so do the problems/successes of labor migration. It can also make it difficult, for example, to calculate the lifetime costs of asylum seekers, which could lead to a good discussion about the most effective way to use money to increase global well-being.
As one can see from the Perusta column above, the conflation of concepts is already a completely deliberate action on the part of the Finns Party. With significant funding, they have managed to conduct a study that puts asylum seekers and their problems in the spotlight, and they then use those problems as a justification for why all immigration should be reduced. No actual justifications for this need for reduction
I don’t doubt that deliberate misinterpretation occurs. However, at work, I am constantly surprised by how easily simple statistical data can be misunderstood, especially when it comes to cause-and-effect relationships or when data from two separate statistics needs to be correlated.
In practice, the only way to reduce this kind of misunderstanding in the workplace (where people are generally very smart and misunderstandings don’t drive an agenda) is to ensure consistent terminology and create separate reports based on it. So, for example, if customers are segmented into two very different groups, produce data by segment instead of relying on people to understand averages themselves.
In Finland, many statistics are created where all immigrants are treated as a single group, and quite few where they are disaggregated. This creates fertile ground for misunderstandings, especially since we all suffer from confirmation bias and primarily prefer everything that reinforces existing perceptions.
I bothered to glance at the topic enough to see that in Sweden, rape regulations were expanded in 2018 to cover not only violence/threat of violence but also cases where the victim’s consent to intercourse is absent, in Denmark in 2021, and in Finland in 2023. Also in Poland in 2025.
So yes, rape statistics are good for seeking shock value, but it would be good to open up the comparability of the statistics in the image. How much do the definitions of rape differ between countries, and how has the legislation of the listed countries changed during those fifteen years?
There would be more specific questions about comparability, but I have other things to do.
Interesting statistics. From this, one can certainly draw some conclusions that, as stated, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Syria are quite high in Finland’s statistics. Generally liberal immigration policy, on the other hand, does not seem to have much effect. Hungary, for example, has managed to grow proportionally more than Finland or Denmark. Many countries that are full of immigrants from Africa shine with quite small numbers, although there is also growth.
Portugal and Spain have increased the number of immigrants they take in. In fact, in Spain, this has contributed to economic growth to such an extent that other EU countries are far behind. Immigrants find employment quickly and integrate into society. Spain has received two million immigrants in seven years, and at the same time, unemployment has fallen by 40%. It almost makes one smile when the country has simultaneously invested in renewable energy, contrary to Trump’s instructions. Trump painted a terrible fate at the UN meeting for countries that do not stop immigration and focus on renewable energy.
Spain is doing something right when immigrants integrate into society and do not remain on its fringes causing negative side effects, as in many other countries.
Spain is a good example of a country where immigration benefits everyone, both the immigrants themselves and the Spanish people. People come to Spain specifically to work, not to idle. In Spain, social benefits for immigrants are negligible. The overwhelming majority of arrivals speak Spanish as their mother tongue and share at least partially the Spanish culture. This is likely the most important reason behind good integration. When the labor supply grows, it leads to economic growth, Q.E.D.
Spain is also an example of a country to which Finland should not really be compared when considering the integration of immigrants. The country has gone through about all religions and forms of government at some point during its history, and the country has always been very multicultural. They are quite a few light-years ahead of Finland when it comes to integration, and the results are accordingly.
You speak the truth. It’s a completely different matter to view foreigners when there’s a history of several hundred years of various foreigners brought in, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes by force, versus when “people of different colors” started coming to the backwoods of Finland perhaps in the 90s, and even then not everywhere.
Germany and the Brits are also part of this same group that went through their immigration lessons already in the 60s, and there have been and still are problems there too, partly in the form of what now appears to be orchestrated rioting. Inciting a poorly educated and frustrated group doesn’t require much, if disturbing social peace happens to be of interest…
Let’s wait for Päivi Räsänen’s comment. Will she burn her S-bonus card in front of Prisma?
Thank you and goodbye S-ryhmä.
From now on, I will buy my food and goods from Tokmanni, Puuilo, Halpa-Halli, Säästökuoppa, and some from K-stores.
I’ll
I also have very strict criteria for my investments. I try to invest according to faith based investing values. I wrote more in the thread Vastuullinen sijoittaminen - Sijoittaminen - Inderes forum
For example, Puuilo meets my criteria. Tokmanni also, in a way (one thing bothers me that I won’t go into too much detail about now - but it doesn’t prevent investing).
Tokmanni’s good side is that it participates in Hurstin laupeudentyö (Hurst’s charity work) campaign every year.
Well, I can then reciprocally increase my shopping at S-Group. Great work from S-Group.
It’s truly appalling that Tokmanni conducted that campaign with Unilever even when the latter was being boycotted due to its Russian business operations. A smarter company would have changed partners. Fortunately, the work of more responsible actors than Tokmanni bore fruit, and Unilever exited Russia due to pressure.
Interesting move from S-market.
Of course, I can’t speak for anyone, but since Christians have been mentioned in the chain, I must say that I don’t believe “die-hard Christians” will get upset about this.
We do like co-op stores!
In Fruitland, they consider Jesus a witch and a false messiah, so if any protests arise from this, the voices might echo from the south, provided they find the time from their busy schedules.
Help, we Finns are again considered racist and hill-dwellers enchanted by a witch!
Why bother thinking about what others think; we are, after all, the happiest nation in the world. Thank the Lord.
By the way, it used to be cheap and easy to go to Israel to pick grapefruits and oranges; many acquaintances even visited there during their student years. I wonder if one could still go through WWOOF? Oh, well…
Peace and love, equally for everyone.
[quote=“Marshall, post:234, topic:69575, full:true”]
I bought Kesko B shares in response to S-Group’s idiotic decision to stop buying Israeli products. S-Group will remain boycotted by me until the decision is reversed.
I believe many others will do the same, and it will show in S-Group’s results. And Kesko’s.
[/quote]
In my opinion, that is a principled act by S-Group. After all, Israel’s actions are genocide. In Gaza, there is no stone left unturned as everything has been destroyed. I’m not saying that Hamas’s attack three years ago was justified, but countermeasures should also be proportionate. Furthermore, that will not affect S’s or K’s results in any way.
Could this be S Group’s marketing stunt? Could Chinese products also be removed from shelves on the same grounds?
