The government’s decisions once again hit those with the least room to maneuver.
The proposed reform of social assistance would also affect young people in aftercare services—young people whose starting points in life have been anything but equal.
Previously, young people in aftercare had a subjective right to receive social assistance during their studies without being required to take out a student loan. This was not a privilege but a deliberate societal decision: a recognition that these young people do not begin adulthood from the same starting line as others. Now this right is being removed.
Aftercare clients are young people whose life paths have often been difficult. Their backgrounds frequently include insecurity, broken relationships, poverty, mental health challenges and weak support networks. The structures supporting them are fragile—or sometimes do not exist at all. This is precisely why they have been clients of child protection services and later of aftercare. Society stepped in when no one else could.
Entering adulthood without safety nets
These young people begin adulthood from a significant disadvantage. Many do not have families who can help cover financial setbacks, assist with a rental deposit, or step in if things do not go according to plan during their studies. That is why it is society’s responsibility to ensure they have the best possible conditions to build an independent life, regardless of the circumstances they come from.
Receiving social assistance without being forced into debt during studies has been one concrete way to support them. It has allowed them to focus on their education without constant fear of indebtedness. It has been a way to break the cycle of intergenerational disadvantage instead of passing it on to the next generation.
In Finland, there is frequent discussion about intergenerational disadvantage, yet at the same time decisions are made that in practice reinforce it. Disadvantage does not arise in a vacuum, nor is it solved by demanding more “responsibility” from those in the weakest position when their options are already limited. When a young person is forced to take on debt just to secure basic support, the risks accumulate precisely for those least able to carry them.
Why does the government want to further weaken the position of those who are already in a fragile and vulnerable situation? What logic is there in seeking savings from young people who have no safety nets, assets or families to support them?
The welfare state is measured by actions, not words
The measure of a welfare state is not how it treats the strong and successful, but how it treats those who have no voice, power or alternatives. If society withdraws from its responsibility precisely when support is needed most, it is no longer encouragement—it is indifference.
This is not about a single benefit but about a value choice. The welfare state is not meant to force the weakest to pay the highest price. It exists to ensure that no one falls so far that they cannot return. If we are not willing to take care of the most vulnerable young people, what ultimately remains of the welfare state other than a beautiful phrase in ceremonial speeches?
At this point, cutting costs is not economic policy. It is an abdication of responsibility.