Lithuanians get killed at their workplaces more often than their counterparts in other European Union member state. The State Labour Inspectorate maintains that half of these deaths could have been averted if labour had been organised appropriately and if every third worker killed had been sober.
Lithuania also stands out in the number of deaths on the roads. In 2004, 218 deaths were registered per one million of Lithuanian citizens. More lethal car accidents, 222, were recorded only in Latvia. This number is twice the EU average and four times higher than the figures announced by Great Britain, Holland or Sweden.
Moreover, Lithuania scores in terms of its emigrating population per 1,000 residents. Migrating Lithuanians are ready to depart and toil. Some Lithuanians are unbelievably bold when emigrating – they’d barely go from capital Vilnius to Klaipėda, the country’s third largest city, without having a job, speaking the language or knowing an alternative way out. Although credible calculations are not available, the fact is certain that a large number of emigrants did not have a concrete job upon leaving Lithuania and often didn’t speak the language of the country of their destination. It can be assumed that an absolute majority of emigrants from Lithuania, the country that has no tradition of learning the Spanish language, did not speak Spanish at all. Emigrants in Spain are the largest Lithuanian community in the non-English speaking world.
All these situations testify Lithuanians’ surprising tolerance towards insecurity. Their weakened sense of self-preservation and an alienated fright of death. The campaign against the plight on roads will not be effective if, merely, physical road infrastructure is improved – no matter how shabby it is at the moment – and penalties are tightened. The number of victims at work will not be cut down by intimidating and sanctioning employers, and information campaigns about the dangers of illegal employment will not discourage those set for emigration. Politicians have business to do not just with physical security or its reinforcement but also with a conscious choice to ignore or avoid such security.
To describe such behaviour, economics – the science explaining an individual’s activity – applies the theory of time preference which states that an individual always evaluates the existing, not would-be consumption. People are different in how much time they are willing to wait. By accepting to postpone consumption to the future, they receive interest. Those who abstain from consuming time, money and commodities today and keep them for the future may expect juicier returns in the future. Most conspicuously, children are the most impatient individuals, incapable to “save” a sweet intended for tomorrow. Laziness and idleness are also a form of consuming spare time in advance, rather than saving it for the future. Causes of patience or its absence abound, but the trend towards choosing to experience pleasure earlier, to consume quicker and to confide in the grace of God at later times increases during the years of wars, crises and natural cataclysms because the prospects not just of property saved but also of the man himself are obscure.
Fatalities at workplaces and on the roads and reckless migration prompt that these people are prone to getting things and consuming them today, whereas the boundary of future prospects is close to a minimum. Preference is given to immediate consumption in circumstances when people see no future. An individual who agrees not to run a risk and safeguard himself at work and to keep to a safe speed limit receives health or life as interest.
Psychologists put forth various explanations for the Lithuanian suicide statistics. Big numbers of those who have laid hands on themselves demonstrate that people in Lithuania do not see future prospects. Again, we are number one in Europe as regards suicide statistics – 90 suicides committed by males of the age between 20 and 44 calculating per 100,000 male population. Lithuania is also in the lead in suicides of females of the same age group.
The common denominator for all of these problems – evaluation of the near future – shows that neither of them can be solved as an isolated issue and that all of them can be tackled only by way of motivational changes, rather than harder safety helmets, heavier penalties or prohibition to speak about the deceased.
