I’m glad I don’t live in Finland

Published on March 10, 2009 By Draginol In Politics

In Finland, how much you make determines the amount of a fine.

For instance, a Finnish millionaire recently got a 112,000-euro speeding ticket (he was about 10 over). That’s because the fine is calculated using what he earned last year.

So the guy who inherits his wealth and sits on his butt is fine. But the guy who’s working his rear end off gets penalized more.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, a young person should get more time in prison because he has more life available to him than an old person.

I understand the rationale – you want the punishment to be felt equally by all citizens. But this flies in the face of the concept of all people are equal in the eyes of the law. If the concern is that speeding is such a big deal (or any given crime) then lock them up. But looking at how much someone earns as a means to determining punishment is repellent.

Consider this: Two people making the same amount per hour. One person chooses to work part time. The other person chooses to work 60 hours a week. Both are caught speeding. The person who works more ends up having to pay more.

It creates a society that punishes achievement. Luckily for Finland, it has a population of 5 million and is largely homogenous. So it can get away with this kind of thinly veiled class warfare.

In the United States, by contrast, such policies would be a disaster.

But take a look at how left-wing Digg users react:

http://digg.com/autos/Finnish_millionaire_gets_111_888_euro_speeding_ticket

Comments (Page 4)

Leauki

on Mar 19, 2009

It doesn't matter that much though - there are not enough hours in a day to be able to explain away much of the difference in earnings by hours worked alone, even if including 'preparation time' as hours worked.

That's if you ignore what I said about income going up if you have learned more.

Generally, I found, income goes up if you work longer hours and/or if you invest more time in becoming better at what you do.

40 hours per week for 10 dollars an hour gets you 400 dollars.

50 hours per week for 10 dollars an hour gets you 500 dollars.

And this is where you continue with the calculations, at some point arriving at a point where you run out of hours, I assume.

But that's not it.

50 hours per week for 10 dollars an hour plus 10 hours a week work-related study gets you 500 dollars.

But a year later they will pay you 20 dollars an hour, and you can go back to 40 hours per week plus 10 hours for study.

And that's where most people seem to fail. It's between the "more hours now, more money now" and the "more hours now, more money later" part of the plan that any people fail. Draginol would call this the "delayed gratification" effect and he explain to you why some people are able to work hard and delay gratification (i.e. success or payment) while others cannot.

Personally, I am bad at delaying gratification. But I have two other factors to play with that allow me some success career-wise. Most things I want are either more expensive than I can afford or so cheap that I can buy them and still come out ahead. That's one trick that allows me to move forward without delaying gratification. The other trick is that I actually like my job and enjoy learning for it. Hence investing those extra hours do not take away from my "gratification time".

Either way, income differences have to do with how much time one invests in working. It's just that that isn't all.

But a McDonald's worker who also spends a few hours every week doing something else that is productive will eventually make more money, including per hour.

Draginol

on Mar 19, 2009

taltamir

reply 18

Not that I've ever seen someone's income increase by working long hours for salaried jobs either

Research indicates it doesn't increase... cutting down hours you get the exact same amount of work, because workers care more and are less tired.

That's not strictly true. Research shows you get diminishing returns.

But a person working 60 hours a week still gets more done on average than someone working 40 hours per week. It's just that it's not a linear progression.

taltamir

on Mar 19, 2009

he MIGHT, he might not...

I had worked at a job where there was noone directly supervising me before (from home). Originally I replaced a team of 3 people... I kept on inventing new time saving methods. I started off doing 7 hours a day. I ended up doing triple the work in under 2 hours. Since all the bosses saw was me handling more work, and not how many hours it TOOK me to do the work, it was smooth sailing, and I had a huge incentive to efficientize myself.

Cikomyr

on Mar 20, 2009

That's the best kind of boss. He looks at how much work you achieve, not how much hours you are at your workstation.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!