My Foresight
Whatever you see in the next 20 years to come in this country blame the bi-partisan mishandling of ASUU strike.
Let me drop some rough statistics to see what I'm thinking right now.
Almost all the people that participated including me are just waiting to graduate in order to apply for job abroad.
As I'm typing this, I received two mesaages, one is telling me to add her name in those leaving, another is telling me his lecturer in Biochemistry is leaving the country very soon.
There are some that wanted to stay and work in Nigeria despite the odds, but what changes their minds?
The government will suffer the greatest loss as it provide the facilities that trained these students. It spend so much to see these students are well trained hoping that it would benefit from their expertise. But what happen at the end? They leave.
Do you know who's one year victim? He's that person that assumed he'll graduate at the age of 30. This man is at the brink of losing his NYSC certificate. In Nigeria if you're above 30 years of age you won't go for service.
He's victim of circumstance.
This is just how our system operates, so clumsy 🤧.
Who's to be blamed? ASUU or FG, that's not for me to judge.
But I've a strong reason to leave Nigeria so far and I've a strong reason to take my children abroad if I've the means.
More from Economy
$600/wk Unemployment Insurance cannot deliver the benefits of a $600/wk Job Guarantee. From the outset, I should say JG is not a replacement for UI, no matter what you may have heard. I’ll get to this later, but read this long 🧶 w/ that in mind.
Automatic stabilization: Both $600/wk UI and JG will provide counter cyclical spending. But UI will be weaker. Counter-cyclical stabilization is not just about the absence of income. It is also about the transmission and structure of economy
Firms don't like to hire the unemployed. Mass and long-term unemployment make the problem worse. JG would recover labor markets much faster than a UI of the same amount, both b/c of the higher direct, induced & tertiary employment effects & b/c of private firm hiring preferences.
JG stabilizes spending patterns better. Uncertain job prospects may mean more cautious spending from the unemployed compared to those w/ guaranteed jobs.
UI is temporary, which makes matters worse. Even if it were permanent, it still won't resolve the problem of job scarcity.
Nations who once achieved tight full employment through active labor market policies demonstrate that unemployment does NOT fluctuate the same way it does w/o them. Direct employment, ELR type policies diminish drastically/even eliminate these amplitudes (eg postwar Japan/Sweden)
Surprised so many smart people bought into the idea that $600/wk UI is the same as $600/wk job guarantee (or better) or that JG jobs must be inherently inessential. I\u2019ve addressed this many times & will post a thread later. Trying not to spend precious family time on Twitter.
— Pavlina R Tcherneva (@ptcherneva) December 29, 2020
Automatic stabilization: Both $600/wk UI and JG will provide counter cyclical spending. But UI will be weaker. Counter-cyclical stabilization is not just about the absence of income. It is also about the transmission and structure of economy
Firms don't like to hire the unemployed. Mass and long-term unemployment make the problem worse. JG would recover labor markets much faster than a UI of the same amount, both b/c of the higher direct, induced & tertiary employment effects & b/c of private firm hiring preferences.
JG stabilizes spending patterns better. Uncertain job prospects may mean more cautious spending from the unemployed compared to those w/ guaranteed jobs.
UI is temporary, which makes matters worse. Even if it were permanent, it still won't resolve the problem of job scarcity.
Nations who once achieved tight full employment through active labor market policies demonstrate that unemployment does NOT fluctuate the same way it does w/o them. Direct employment, ELR type policies diminish drastically/even eliminate these amplitudes (eg postwar Japan/Sweden)
