[buran77]

> The healthcare and social service systems would not be able to function without the mandatory and voluntary unpaid 9 months work of the 17 - 19 year olds before they hit off for university.

Interesting take. Is there any supporting official position on this or just personal opinion?

If true I find it very scary that a country's health and social services systems would crumble were it not for the 3 months per year the teenagers of the country contribute. How do these systems handle the rest of the 9 months every year when the teenagers are unavailable on account of being in school. Why would a healthy society operate at the very limit of crashing down because the natality dropped or parents/teenagers start refusing to provide this service?

Now I've dealt with a lot of trainees in my life. All university graduates, including with PhDs. They all take weeks to months full time on the job until they're ready to do anything productive in the simplest of jobs. I can't imagine teenagers being or becoming anywhere near productive enough in 3 months per year (with 9 month breaks) to support a country's healthcare system from collapsing. And that's not even touching on the topic that you're forcing children to give up what's probably the last carefree time of their lives to do a job they may not want and are definitely not prepared to do.

[ChuckNorris89]

> Is there any supporting official position on this or just personal opinion?

The government figures and claims are supporting this opinion. In fact, it's been the government's opinion, not mine. I'm just quoting it.

>If true I find it very scary that a country's health and social service systems would crumble were it not for the 3 months per year the teenagers of the country contribut

9 months not 3, and yes, that's socialized care for you and an aging population when you have too many people in need of care, and too little contributions into the system since the economy has stagnated post 2008 and taxes are already high enough and no more money can be obtained this way. And it's not just healthcare work, but all social services like kindergartens, retirement homes, refugees homes, etc. that make use of 9 months of teenage labor.

> I can't imagine teenagers being or becoming anywhere near productive enough in 3 months per year

You don't need too long training to be qualified to drive an ambulance or perform CPR. At least not here. Teenagers are quite smart and quick learners if you treat them well.

>you're forcing children to give up what's probably the last carefree time of their lives to do a job they may not want and are definitely not prepared to do.

The military service is forced nation-wide (a system kept through democratic vote), while doing social public civil work is the alternative choice if you feel the military is not for you.

And the children get paid for it, and for many it's the camaraderie and opportunity to meet other young people from other parts of the country/city and make life long friends or meet future spouses while learning useful social and life skills and feeling a sense of self worth for contributing to society, especially in the context of the west having a loneliness and depression epidemic among teens. It's also an opportunity for silver spoon kids of privilege families to get to interact with the lower classes of society and soo how others live, through this kind of work.

You're making it sounds like they're prisoners for life, but they're still free to go binge drinking and care free sex in the south of Spain after.

[buran77]

> The government figures and claims are supporting this opinion. In fact, it's been the government's opinion, not mine. I'm just quoting it.

I believe you but since you're passing this on then you/they must also have more than some words in support. When critical systems would collapse were it not for teenagers being asked to work a job it calls into question both the competence of the leadership to lead and of the people to choose them. There's a reason most countries don't do this beyond basic apprenticeships on limited scale. What happens if this year teenagers start looking more towards the military following events like the war in Ukraine, do those civil services come tumbling down? You and the government make this sound like a country being driven at the edge of collapse.

> You don't need too long training to be qualified to drive an ambulance or perform CPR.

Right? Who could be more qualified to operate a critical emergency vehicle or bring someone back to life than a person who until yesterday wasn't allowed even to vote. What a thing to say...

> The military service is forced nation-wide

Mandatory military conscription is an act of desperation in the face of potential national annihilation. Most countries abolished it and even the ones who kept it start at 18. Is the Austrian civil service conscription an equally desperate move? Or an attempt to raise a "working generation" from as young an age as possible while giving those kids the alternatives "this or the military"?

> and for many it's the camaraderie and opportunity to meet other young people from other parts of the country/city and make life long friends or meet future spouses.

Sure, except literally not because they'd get the very same by going to school or university. They don't need to be forced into a job they don't want because the country will fail otherwise unless it's the only way they'd do it. The only incontestable reason is because it's mandatory, everything else is rationalizing and looking for a silver lining.

[qwytw]

> Mandatory military conscription is an act of desperation in the face of potential national annihilation

Most neutral European countries like Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria have maintained it to one degree or another. I don't think it's generally viewed as 'an act of desperation' by most people in those countries or even that unpopular.

[buran77]

Agreed but but that's exactly the point. Sweden and Finland have Russia even pushing them out of neutrality and towards NATO. Switzerland is a big repository of mostly illegal fortunes from all over the world and has to stay neutral to maintain this status, so it makes sense to extend its own defensive capabilities as much as it can. In Norway it's debatable, the obligativity is not enforced. You also have Greece where the conflict with Turkey drives mandatory conscription.

For these countries mandatory military service is very much an act of desperation. Maybe the word doesn't ring the right note in people's heads but it's accurate. If avoiding scenarios like in Ukraine doesn't call for desperate decisions I don't know what does.

But discussing the popularity is moot. The people of those countries understand the necessity driven by external factors. They chose neutrality, not their neighbors, so they have to compromise somewhere out of practical need and the desperation of the alternative. This being said you can only assess the popularity of something when it becomes a free choice rather than obligation.

[ChuckNorris89]

> you can only assess the popularity of something when it becomes a free choice rather than obligation.

Democratic elections and referendums have assessed this and the majority of the population has voted in favor of this system. For better or worse, that's democracy for ya'.

[buran77]

Not sure it's so simple. Most of the voting population is past the age where this affects them and people (I must admit I fall in that trap quite often) have the mentality that "it was done to me and look how well I turned out, so I'll do it to them". The only way to see if people want it is to give them the choice when the time comes.

> the population has voted

But as you said earlier, it's the same population and elected leaders who let critical systems and services degrade to the point where they would stop working without forcing children to work. Even agreeing this doesn't put the people in a bad light decision-wise, in this position it's no longer a choice but a necessity. Hence my incessant question whether the government's statement that "services will fail without child work" is supported by some study or it's just a scare tactic to get people to vote a certain way.

Yes, democracy is about getting the people's vote of confidence. How you earn that confidence is outside the democratic process and could be as simple as "feed them BS".

[ChuckNorris89]

>I believe you but since you're passing this on then you/they must also have more than some words in support.

I am not supporting this, I only said it's how it works here.

>Right? Who could be more qualified to operate a critical emergency vehicle or bring someone back to life than a person who until yesterday wasn't allowed even to vote.

And yet at their age they seem qualified enough for the US to send them to war in the Middle East or give them access to TOP-SECRET military intelligence[1] before they're even allowed to drink beer. You're needlessly discrediting youths for a cheap shot at an argument. Those people who barely got to vote, as you call them, are functioning members of society, who were vetted beforehand and given 3+ months of full time training and supervision by licensed and more experienced personnel before they get to perform CPR. Also, CPR isn't that difficult or risky, especially when you don't live in a society of ambulance chasing lawyers where everyone sues everyone for the slightest inconvenience.

> What a thing to say...

I'm not saying this, the facts are. Austrian healthcare and social system, with all its flaws, does a far better job serving the majority of the population, especially the poor and the vulnerable, than the American one does. But let's not get into that right now.

>Sure, except literally not because they'd get the very same by going to school or university.

They go to school and university anyway except with social work there's no grades or exams you need to study for making the time served there less stressful and more focused on the social and practical experience. Plus it's a more diverse setting than university where you mostly meet people with shared domains and interests as you.

>Mandatory military conscription is an act of desperation in the face of potential national annihilation.

You're false again. I don't support mandatory conscription but it's how neutral non-NATO EU nations get to defend their neutrality and provide a detergent against aggressors. The military also has plenty of uses even in peace times, such as natural disasters and what not.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/27/politics/jack-teixeira-de...

[buran77]

> I am not supporting this

Ugh, "in support" of the veracity of the statement. You wrote that "the healthcare and social service systems would not be able to function" without the work of teenagers. I just wanted to know if you have any solid evidence of this. I will assume not, suspect that this is the usual political bamboozle people fall for when an explanation is needed, and move on.

> And yet at their age they seem qualified enough for the US

I'm not sure why you'd bring this into the discussion. It's devoid of value as far as whataboutism goes but indeed, I agree that it's very wrong in that case too. How about this: some of the US also considers child marriage and subsequent sexual relations, or hard agricultural work legal starting the age of 12. Hitching your wagon to the "others do it too" argument can backfire.

I'm sure those teenagers are functioning members of society but their function isn't to be forced into adult jobs at that age. If they want to pursue a career in this have them watch and learn, like any other teenager is expected in school or university.

> I'm not saying this, the facts are.

Just follow what I'm quoting. You are saying that "You don't need too long training to be qualified to drive an ambulance or perform CPR". You're being dismissive of an entire profession as "a child can do it with a bit of training". It's not helping your argument. You actually need more than a bit of experience before driving any car safely, let alone an emergency vehicle in a critical situation. A teenager shouldn't be pushed in this kind of job. They have 40-50 years to do exactly that once they're just a bit older.

> Austrian healthcare and social system [...] does a far better job [...] than the American one does.

That's great. And again I have to say, how does this comparison help? When is it ever useful to compare to someone not doing a good job? This just says you can do worse. Focus on how to do better.

> You're false again.

And yet you go on to confirm that it's how they defend against aggressors, an indisputably desperate situation. That's exactly what desperation means, doing something to prevent/mitigate one of the worst situations a country can be in.

Now I sense that you made some assumptions about me, given the repeated US references. I'm European, my opinion about what the US is doing on internal social aspects, or external military/political aspects could be better. And I lived and worked in Austria for years many eons ago. I hope that helps you put in context what I said. Let me boil it down: let children be children; at the edge of adulthood let them choose where they go and guide them, don't force them, unless there is a desperate situation; use your critical thinking and don't believe (or worse, promote) the vagaries your government sells you when they want something their way.

Anyway, enlightening talk.

[ChuckNorris89]

> You're being dismissive of an entire profession as "a child can do it with a bit of training". It's not helping your argument.

Nobody is being dismissive of anything. I'm just showing you proof that 17 year olds can also be professionals in that field because what is a professional, but someone who received professional levels of training and got certified. Guess what? So are those 17-19 year old boys and girls to the same standards of much older people.

In fact you're the one being dismissive and ageist because you think young people can't be trained to do a job just because of their age.

> A teenager shouldn't be pushed in this kind of job.

And yet they seem to be doing it just fine. And they are not pushed, they can choose for which service they volunteer. They can work in kindergartens, but many choose emergency services because of the practical life skills learned there, camaraderie, and other personal reasons.

> don't force them, unless there is a desperate situation; use your critical thinking and don't believe (or worse, promote) the vagaries your government sells you when they want something their way.

Nobody is forcing them, and it's not my government as I'm not Austrian, and the government doesn't benefit from this as the kids don't do work for the government but they provide work for their own citizens, neighbors, etc.

It seems strange to outsiders like you and me, but this is the path that the Austrian society has democratically chosen for its kids and it seems to be working for them. Why judge someone else because they're different? School kids in Japan also clean their classrooms instead of janitors.

[tfourb]

Germany used to have a very similar system to Austria's up until a few years ago. Same deal: do military service or "civil service" instead for 9 months. It was in theory compulsory for all male 18 year olds, but getting disqualified on medical grounds was fairly easy. Still, most young men chose to do it and they were an essential part of Germany's health care system and many other social services (and also eco-conservation).

The system was abolished because compulsory military service was not a great fit for the kind of army the politicians wanted anymore and cost a lot of money. The health care and social sector has faced some struggles as a result. While some of the vacancies have been filled by a new voluntary service scheme, overall it has contributed to a lack of service workers and it has increased costs.

I have done civil service and must say it was a fantastic time. Basically anyone I know who did it looks back at the civil service fondly, as it is much like university in terms of the social opportunities, but you get some money on the side. Military service on the other hand was reportedly much more of mixed bag (as you'd expect, I guess).

[panick21_]

> You don't need too long training to be qualified to drive an ambulance or perform CPR. At least not here. Teenagers are quite smart and quick learners if you treat them well.

What? I did civil service in Switzerland and while there are some jobs that require CPR courses to be done before hand, in non is it actually expected that you need it regularly. And for absolutely sure will they not let 18 year old drive ambulances, that's utterly insane.

Can you show me prove that in Austria they let 18 year old civil service people drive ambulances? Because I know for a fact this is not happening in Switzerland.

[ChuckNorris89]

https://www.roteskreuz.at/steiermark/knittelfeld/zivildienst...

https://www.tips.at/nachrichten/linz/leben/550309-zivildiene...

[panick21_]

Neither of these are drivers as far as I can tell.

[konschubert]

That's a false dichotomy.

It's not: Do we get a million teenagers or not?

There is a third option:

Let those teenagers join the workforce, use the revenue from the increased societal productivity to hire more professional workers in the health care system.

[ChuckNorris89]

Sure, but if suddenly cut the students loose from their social duties, you need money now to pay for those who will need to be employed to cover in their places, and you can't wait a few years till those students graduate, get jobs and pay taxes to cover those extra jobs. It's a monetary chicken adnd egg problem.