Early Work vs. University: The Savings Myth

The calculation pitting early savings against degrees: 'In this country, the fool always wins'

Is it really more profitable to drop out at 16 and work than to go through university? The argument sparking this debate claims that a youth starting at 16 with €1,000 a month, saving half of it and spending the rest on vices, reaches 24 with €48,000 in their pocket. With that cushion, they say, one can almost buy an apartment in a small city with barely any mortgage, or in a medium-sized one with half financed. The student, meanwhile, starts at 23 or 24 with €1,200 and not a penny saved, likely sharing a flat in a capital city.

The author of the calculation is clear: in this country, the fool always wins. The thesis isn't that studying is useless, but that the system rewards those who enter the labor market early and punishes those who get trained. A starting point that, like almost everything in economics, falls apart when you scratch beneath the surface.

How much does a young person who starts working at 16 save?

The initial calculation is simple: €500 saved per month for eight years equals €48,000. The figure is arithmetically correct but sociologically debatable. It assumes that a 16-year-old earns €1,000 net per month, receives it continuously for eight years, lives without paying rent or food, and that their only significant expense is leisure. Four assumptions that, together, describe very few people.

Some respond that this profile of an early worker is no slacker. A first-class construction foreman, an electrician, or a plumber aren't types who mess around: they endure early mornings, hours on the road, terrible salaries at the beginning, rain, and heat. And by 50, many arrive with their backs wrecked. Early savings have a physical price that the calculation doesn't account for.

The other side of the mirror isn't idyllic either. It's argued that the average student doesn't start at 24, but later. And that many don't leave university with a job waiting for them, but with a resume and a debt of opportunities. The comparison between the two paths depends on what is measured: the bank balance at 24 or the balance at 40.

Who pays the taxes that sustain subsidies?

The interesting twist comes as time passes. At 40, the one who started at 16 already has the apartment paid off, works under the table, and collects benefits, while the one who studied has barely started paying a mortgage and sustains the former's lifestyle with their taxes. The author's conclusion is that the system rewards laziness and punishes effort.

The most repeated objection is that this portrait mixes two distinct figures. The one who works hard in a trade from 16 isn't the same as the one who cheats, commits crimes, or lives off benefits. Putting both in the same bag is what allows the calculation to work. And some recall that the early worker has also been paying taxes since 16, while the university graduate, if lucky, reaches the minimum required to contribute. The account of who funds whom isn't as clear as it seems.

The mechanic earning €9,000: urban legend or reality?

The classic tale of the plumber and mechanic making big money appears in the discussion. The skeptical response is blunt: if a mechanic earned €12,000 a month or a plumber €20,000, they would live in 500-square-meter mansions with 2,000-square-meter plots found for €450,000. They don't live there. You don't see them on vacation with owned apartments on the coast. The figure doesn't match the lifestyle.

The nuance that holds up is different: the one who earns well in trades is usually the self-employed contractor who charges clients whatever they please, not the employee. The one working for someone else stays at part-time jobs of 12 hours for €1,000. The difference isn't the trade, it's the position in the chain. And that applies equally to the IT specialist and the bricklayer.

Studying guarantees nothing, but neither does not studying

The most repeated conclusion isn't that the early worker wins, but that the narrative selling degrees as a guarantee of employment was false. Attention is drawn to an oversupply of graduates for a limited number of positions, which allows prices to be driven down: either you work as an engineer for €1,000 or you're left out. That is the real trap, not the plumber.

Against that, the solution gaining trinc is early civil service exams: getting a C1 administration qualification at 18 or 19, living on salary, and continuing to study through internal promotion. Neither the heroic degree nor the early dropout. The civil service path as a rational shortcut.

In the end, the question of whether the early worker or the student wins has an uncomfortable answer: the one who gets lucky, the one whose parents support them while they study, or the one who hits the right timing wins. Everything else is literature. And literature, as everyone knows, doesn't pay mortgages.