natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
8. By 29 years of age, 50 percent of the young people managing their own households have at least one child, while this percentage of young people living with their parents is as low as 15 percent. 
8. V 29. letu starosti ima vsaj enega otroka 50 odstotkov mladih, ki živijo v samostojnem gospodinjstvu, takih med mladimi, ki živijo pri starših, pa je le dobrih 15 odstotkov.
9. Regardless of age, young people in Slovenia assess their residential standard as acceptable, as only 1.6 per cent state that their living conditions are poor or very poor. 
9. Mladi v Sloveniji ne glede na starost svoj bivanjski standard ocenjujejo kot zadovoljiv, saj jih le 1,6 odstotka izraža mnenje, da so stanovanjske razmere, v katerih živijo, slabe oziroma zelo slabe.
10.6 Sources used 
10.6 Uporabljeni viri
Aassve, A., Iacovou, M., and Mencarini, L. (2006). 
Aassve, A., Iacovou, M., in Mencarini, L. (2006).
Currie, C. et al. (2004): Young people's health in context. 
Currie, C., in drugi (2004): Young people's health in context.
Fieldwork: August 
Fieldwork:
Sage Publishing Company. 
to Adulthood: Leaving and Returning Home.
Ministry of Education and Sports, Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Youth: Social Protection Institute. 
Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport, Urad Republike Slovenije za mladino: Inštitut Republike Slovenije za socialno varstvo.
London & New York: Roudtledge. 
Vertot, N. (2009).
Vertot, N. (2009). 
Mladi v Sloveniji.
Mladi v Sloveniji. 
Ljubljana: Statistični urad Republike Slovenije.
Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. 
De Jong Gierveld, J., Liefbroer, A.C., & Beekink, E. (1991).
Mandič, S. (2007). 
Nilsson, K., inStrandh, M. (1999).
Družboslovne razprave XXIII (54): 7-24. 
‘'Leaving the Nest: The Impact of Family Structure.''
Novak, M. (2005). 
Canadian Social Trends, Statistics Canada, Autumn.
Canadian Social Trends, Statistics Canada, Autumn. 
Aggregate File Producer: ASEP/JDS, Madrid.
Aquilino, W. (1991). 
Novak, M. (2005).
Journal of Marriage and the Family 
Boyd, M., in D. Norris (1995).
Vodopivec, K. (2008). 
H., in Clark, W. A. V. (2000).
Anthropological Notebooks. 
Vodopivec, K. (2008).
11 Globalisation and youth mobility 
11 Globalizacija in mobilnost mladih
11.1 What is globalisation and what does this phenomenon mean for young people 
11.1 Kaj je globalizacija in kaj ta pojem pomeni za mlade
Globalisation has without a doubt become the most used, and certainly the most abused, misunderstood and politically most effective, disputed and striking word of the last few years. 
Globalizacija je nedvomno postala najbolj uporabljana, prav gotovo pa tudi najbolj zlorabljena, napačno razumljena ter politično najučinkovitejša, najspornejša in najudarnejša beseda zadnjih nekaj let.
The looseness and slipperiness of the concept, whose generality does not permit a single clear definition, can be a very useful quality, especially when its singular dimension is emphasised because of subjective interests and goals. 
Ohlapnost in izmuzljivost pojma, ki zaradi sebi lastne vseobčosti ne omogoča trdne, enopomenske opredelitve, zna biti namreč zelo primerna lastnost, še posebej kadar se zaradi subjektivnih interesov in ciljev želi poudariti zgolj njena posebna razsežnost.
“MTV is everywhere, not just on MTV. 
»MTV je povsod, ne samo na MTV.
McDonald's is everywhere, not just at McDonald's.” 
McDonald's je povsod ne samo v McDonald'su.
“Yeah, I think the main goal of globalisation is training individuals to serve [the interests of] capital.” 
»Ja, jaz mislim, da je glavni cilj globalizacije vzgoja posameznika, ki bo služil kapitalu.
The majority of young people connect the phenomenon of globalisation with “civilising” as well as “destructive” processes (Guillen 2001) (see graph below). 
Večina mladih pojem globalizacije povezuje s »civilizacijskimi«, pa tudi »destruktivnimi procesi« (Guilen, 2001) (gl. grafikon spodaj).
Put another way, young people's attitude towards globalisation is reflected in the title Globalisation: Neither Hell Nor Paradise. 
Ali drugače, mladi v svojem odnosu do globalizacije poosebljajo stališče, ki ga pod naslovom Globalizacija: Ne pekel ne nebesa izrazi Svetličič (2000).118
Graph 113: What young people (15-25) associate with the phenomenon of globalisation, Youth 2010 and Shell 2010 
Grafikon 113: Kaj mladi (15-25 let) povezujejo s pojmom globalizacija, Mladina 2010 in Shell 2010
Economic well-being 
Gospodarsko blaginjo
Peace 
Mirom
Democracy 
Demokracijo
Cultural diversity 
Kulturno raznolikostjo
Freedom to travel, study and work Yes 
Svobodo pri potovanjih, študiju in delu Da
Positive connotation Average level of agreement: Youth 2010 = 57.3%; Shell 2010 = 67.6% Negative connotation Average level of agreement: Youth 2010 = 58.6%; Shell 2010 = 55.7% 
Pozitivna konotacija Povprečna raven strinjanja: Mladina 2010 = 57,3%; Shell 2010 = 67,6% Negativna konotacija Povprečna raven strinjanja: Mladina 2010 = 58,6%; Shell 2010 = 55,7%
Higher crime rate 
Višjo stopnjo kriminala
Poverty and underdevelopment 
Revščino in nerazvitostjo
Unemployment 
Brezposelnostjo
Pollution 
Onesnaženjem okolja
Loss of one's own culture 
Izgubo lastne kulture
Increased uncertainty 
Večanjem negotovosti
Youth 2010 Shell 2010 
Mladina 2010 Shell 2010
As can be seen from the graph, in comparison with their German peers (Shell 2010), Slovenian youth on average associate globalisation more often with economic growth, and more rarely with other non-material categories such as e.g. peace, democracy, cultural diversity and mobility. 
Kot je razvidno iz grafikona, slovenska mladina v primerjavi z nemškimi vrstniki (Shell, 2010) v povprečju pogosteje povezuje globalizacijo z gospodarsko rastjo, redkeje pa z drugimi nematerialnimi kategorijami, kot so npr. mir, demokracija, kulturna različnost in mobilnost.
This is also the main reason why the average level of agreement with the idea that globalisation has positive effects among Slovenian youth (57.3 per cent) is lower than that of German youth (67.6 per cent). 
To je tudi glavni razlog, zakaj je povprečna raven strinjanja, da ima globalizacija pozitivne učinke pri slovenski mladini (57,3 odstotka), nižja kot pri nemški mladini (67,6 odstotka).
On the 
Na drugi strani slovenska mladina
other hand, Slovenian youth more often associate the phenomenon of globalisation with negative outcomes than do German youth, although the difference here is smaller. 
pojem globalizacije pogosteje povezuje z negativnimi izidi, kot to velja za nemško mladino, čeprav je razlika tu manjša.
We should point out here that Slovenian youth associate globalisation less often with the loss of their own culture than do German youth (47 per cent vs. 55 per cent). 
Pri tem je treba opozoriti, da slovenska mladina v primerjavi z nemško globalizacijo redkeje povezuje z izgubo lastne kulture (47 odstotkov v primerjavi s 55 odstotki).
Slovenian youth have an ambivalent a itude towards globalisation. 
Mladi v Sloveniji imajo do globalizacije protisloven odnos.
They associate it with “civilising” (democratisation, freedom to work, travel and study) as well as “destructive” processes (cultural colonialism, pollution, poverty, crime). 
Povezujejo jo s »civilizacijskimi« (demokratizacija, svoboda pri delu, potovanjih in študiju), pa tudi z »destruktivnimi procesi« (kulturni kolonializem, onesnaževanje okolja, revščina, kriminal).
11.2 Mobility and its signiﬁ cance for the individual and society 
Odveč je poudarjati, da je pojem mobilnosti119 tesno povezan s pojmom globalizacije, saj npr.
114 Although mobility can roughly be divided into social and geographic, in this chapter we will speak only about geographic mobility, where the phenomenon, unless explicitly stated otherwise, refers to cross-border mobility. 
119 Čeprav je v grobem mobilnost mogoče ločiti na socialno in geografsko, bo v tem poglavju govor le o geografski mobilnosti, pri čemer se pojem, razen kadar to ni izrecno omenjeno, nanaša na čezmejno mobilnost.
It is simultaneously its expression, result and fuel, where the mobility of people is frequently addressed from the point of view of the positive effects it is supposed to have on the well-being of individuals and society as a whole. 
Tako Bertoncini s sodelavci (2008) na primeru mladih ugotavlja, da mobilnost mladih pripomore k njihovi splošni sposobnosti prilagajanja; natančneje, k njihovi lažji (re)integraciji na (nad)nacionalni trg dela (glej tudi Findlay et al., 2006).
Thus Bertoncini et al. (2008) conclude that youth mobility contributes to their general ability to adapt, or more precisely to their easier (re)integration into the (supra)national labour market (see also Findlay et al. 2006). 
Mobilnost naj bi namreč posameznikom omogočala, da pridobijo znanje in veščine, ki jih danes od njih zahteva svetovno gospodarstvo oziroma svetovni trg dela - znanje tujih jezikov, odprtost, strpnost do drugačnosti, pripravljenost na medkulturni dialog in sposobnost čezmejnega sodelovanja.
Mobility supposedly allows the individual to acquire the knowledge and skills currently demanded by the global economy or the global labour market - knowledge of foreign languages, open-mindedness, tolerance, preparedness for intercultural dialogue and the capacity for cross-border cooperation. 
Študija Kinga in Ruiz-Gelicesa (2003) je tako na primeru mobilnosti študentov pokazala, da so mobilni študenti po končanem študiju pogosteje zasedali bolje plačana mesta, da so se pogosteje prijavljali na delovna mesta v tujini in da so svojo kariero pogosteje videli v mednarodnem okolju.
Here we should in particular point out that mobility with direct contact increases independence, leads to improved understanding of and therefore solidarity with and tolerance of “others”, which can be understood as a necessary condition for coexistence and peace and not just in the national or European space, but also in the world as a whole (for more on this see e.g. Deutsch et al. 1968; Findlay et al. 2006; Fligstein 2008; Sigalas 2010). 
Pri tem je treba opozoriti predvsem na to, da mobilnost z neposrednim stikom krepi samostojnost, da vodi do boljšega razumevanja ter s tem do solidarnosti in strpnosti do »drugačnih«, ki ju je mogoče razumeti kot nujni pogoj za sožitje in mir ne le v nacionalnem ali evropskem prostoru, ampak tudi v svetu kot celoti (več o tem glej npr.
The Council of the European Union Resolution on a renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field 2010-2018 
Deutsch et al., 1968; Findlay et al., 2006; Fligstein, 2008; Sigalas, 2010).
(Official Journal of the EU/C311, 2009) can also be understood from this perspective, since mobility is referred to in it directly and primarily in connection with the understanding of differentness, respect for human rights, strengthening European identity and the idea of European citizenship etc. 
S tega vidika je mogoče razumeti tudi Resolucijo sveta Evropske unije o prenovljenem okviru za evropsko sodelovanje na področju mladine 2010-2018 (Uradni list EU/C311, 2009), saj se v njej mobilnost omenja ravno in predvsem v povezavi z razumevanjem drugačnosti, spoštovanjem človekovih pravic, krepitvijo evropske identitete in idejo evropskega državljanstva ipd.
The idea that mobility also has multilateral positive effects is also demonstrated by the opinions of the young people who were included in the qualitative part of that survey. 
Da ima mobilnost večsmerne pozitivne vplive, kažejo tudi mnenja mladih, ki so bili vključeni v kvalitativni del te raziskave.
Young people who have direct experience with mobility describe their experience as extremely positive and believe that everybody should take advantage of this possibility: 
Mladi, ki imajo neposredno izkušnjo z mobilnostjo, jo namreč opisujejo kot izjemno pozitivno in zagovarjajo stališče, da je to možnost, ki jo mora izkoristiti vsak:
“In 2003 I went to Germany to do practical work for 6 months, and if I hadn't needed a visa, I'd have stayed there.” 
»2003 sem šla v Nemčijo na prakso za 6 mesecev…če ne bi bilo vize, bi ostala tam.
“Studying abroad rules. 
(Maja, 30 let, brezposelna diplomantka)
11.3 Obstacles to mobility 
(Mojca, 23 let, uspešna študentka psihologije)
They can roughly be divided into two groups, objective and subjective. 
V grobem jih je mogoče razdeliti na dve skupini, na objektivne in subjektivne.
While the objective can be associated primarily with the absence of legal and economic capacities or opportunities (e.g. difficulties with recognition of qualifications, high cost of mobility) and the lack of institutional support (provision of information about opportunities, potential benefits etc.), the subjective can be associated primarily with young people's attitudes towards mobility (i.e. subjective perceptions of the benefits or rewards and potential dangers, ideas about and attitudes towards others etc.). 
Medtem ko je objektivne mogoče povezati predvsem z odsotnostjo zakonitih in ekonomskih (z)možnosti (npr. težave s priznavanjem pridobljenih kvalifikacij, visoki ekonomski stroški mobilnosti) ter pomanjkanjem institucionalne podpore (obveščanje glede možnosti, morebitnih koristi ipd.), je subjektivne mogoče povezati predvsem z odnosom mladih do mobilnosti (tj.
According to data from the United Nations, the objective obstacles are the largest for the poorly educated, and smaller for the young, particularly for 
s subjektivno zaznavo koristi oziroma nagrad ter morebitnih nevarnosti, predstavami in stališči do drugačnosti ipd.).
115 The word society is used here in the sense of the human community, which is not limited to national borders (specifically, the society that comprises the European Union). 
Objektivne ovire naj bi bile po podatkih Združenih narodov največje za tiste slabo izobražene, manjše pa predvsem za mlade, še posebej za študente (HDR, 2009: 2).
We should not forget that mobility can have entirely negative effects on national society, particularly the phenomenon usually referred to as “brain drain” or “forced mobility” (Bertoncini et al. 2008). 
Sicer pa o omejitvah mobilnosti ljudi dovolj zgovorno govori podatek, da se delež migrantov v celotnem (tj. svetovnem) prebivalstvi kljub nižjim stroškom, ki so povezani z mobilnostjo, ni spremenil že petdeset let.
In his opinion, one of the crucial tasks of national and supranational institutions in the European Union is therefore to present the concrete effects of mobility to young people more clearly, while continuing to remove the objective obstacles and simultaneously endeavouring to include everything from programmes for learning foreign languages and various initiatives intended to increase intercultural awareness to international scholarships, exchanges of practice and other forms of exchange. 
Po njegovem mnenju je zato ena ključnih nalog nacionalnih in nadnacionalnih institucij v Evropski uniji predvsem ta, da se mladim bolje predstavijo konkretni učinki mobilnosti, ob tem pa se še naprej odpravljajo objektivne ovire ob hkratnih prizadevanjih za vključevanje vse od programov učenja tujih jezikov, različnih spodbud v smislu krepitve medkulturne zavesti do programov mednarodnih štipendij, praks in drugih oblik izmenjav.
When we speak of youth mobility, we cannot ignore the question of student mobility, since students comprise a significant part of the youth in the majority of European countries. 
Ko govorimo o mobilnosti mladih, se seveda ni mogoče izogniti vprašanju mobilnosti študentov, saj so v večini evropskih držav študenti pomemben del mladih.
According to data from the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, in the 2008/09 school year nearly half of everyone from 19 to 24 years of age was enrolled in tertiary education (Vertot 2009), and this study indicates that the enrolment of young people in tertiary education is a pronouncedly positive trend. 
Po podatkih Statističnega urada RS je bila v šolskem letu 2008/09 skoraj polovica vseh, starih od 19 do 24 let, vključena v terciarno izobraževanje (Vertot , 2009), kot je razvidno iz te študije, pa vključevanja mladih v terciarno izobraževanje kaže izrazito pozitiven trend.
With regard to obstacles to student mobility, we have to take account of the findings of Schnitzer and Zempel-Gino (2002) and Findlay et al. (2006). 
Pri ovirah, ki se nanašajo na mobilnost študentov, je treba opozoriti na ugotovitve Schnitzerja in Zempel-Ginota (2002) ter Findleyja in sodelavcev (2006).
While the former find that “upper-class white girls” are represented above average in student mobility programmes (ibid.: 115), Findlay et al. (2006) find that in Great Britain a full 80 per cent of students list a lack of financial resources as an obstacle to mobility, primarily the fear that upon their return they would lose their part-time employment and with it the income that allows them to study at domestic universities. 
Medtem ko prva dva na primeru študentske mobilnosti ugotavljata, da so v programih študentske mobilnosti nadpovprečno zastopana »bela dekleta iz višjih slojev« (prav tam: 115), pa Findlay s sodelavci (2006) ugotavlja, da je v Veliki Britaniji kar 80 odstotkov študentov kot oviro za mobilnost navedlo pomanjkanje finančnih virov, predvsem v smislu strahu, da bi po vrnitvi izgubili delne zaposlitve in s tem dohodek, ki jim omogoča študij na domači univerzi.
However, the same research indicated that the second-most pressing concern was that of (lack of knowledge of) languages, followed by non-recognition of coursework, extension of studies, leaving partners and families, and nearly half expressed concerns about living in a foreign country/culture (ibid.: 305). 
Sicer je ta ista raziskava pokazala še, da je na drugem mestu skrb zaradi (neznanja) jezika, sledila pa je skrb zaradi nepriznavanja vsebin, podaljšanja študija, zapustitve partnerja in družine, skoraj polovica pa jih je izrazila tudi skrb zaradi življenja v drugi državi/kulturi (prav tam: 305).
From this we could conclude that measures whose objective is to increase student mobility should include not just greater financial incentives, but also support of the non-material advantages or benefits that mobility brings, which was also mentioned by one of the interviewees. 
Od tod je mogoče torej sklepati, da je treba med ukrepe, katerih cilj je okrepitev mobilnosti študentov, vključiti ne samo več finančnih spodbud, ampak je treba spodbujati tudi nematerialne prednosti oziroma koristi, ki jih mobilnost prinaša, na kar je sicer opozoril tudi eden od intervjuvancev.
»I think young people (students) don't really know of all the possibilities. 
»Po mojem mladi (študentje) sploh ne vejo, kaj vse jim je omogočeno.
These programmes should be more heavily advertised… more presentations. 
Več je potrebno reklame za te programe… več prezentacij.
Plus we should establish closer links (with education institutions abroad) in order to take better advantage of our ECTSs.” 
Pa bolj bi se morali povezati (z izobraževalnimi institucijami iz tujine) s tujino, da bi lahko lažje unovčili ECTS-je.
11.4 Youth mobility and obstacles in Slovenia 
(Jona, 25 let, redni obiskovalec mladinskega zbirališča Pekarna)
But study mobility is just a part of something that could be called general mobility. 
Toda študijska mobilnost je le del nečesa, kar bi lahko imenovali splošna mobilnosti.
In this study we measured this by asking young people whether and how often in the past year they had been abroad (excluding holidays and shopping trips). 
To smo v tej študiji merili tako, da smo mlade povprašali, ali in kolikokrat so bili v preteklem letu (izključujoč počitnikovanje in nakupovanje) v tujini.
The results indicated that “only” a quarter had not been abroad in the past year (“only” because it will be made clear below that other indicators of mobility give a substantially different picture), which means that more than 75 per cent of young people experience “otherness” in one way or another (see graph below). 
Izsledki so pokazali, da »le« četrtina mladih v preteklem letu ni bila v tujini (»le« zato, ker bo iz nadaljevanja razvidno, da drugi kazalniki mobilnosti kažejo precej drugačno sliko), kar pomeni, da ima več kot 75 odstotkov mladih tako ali drugačno izkušnjo »drugačnosti« (grafikon spodaj).
Graph 114: General mobility of young people (15-29) - frequency of travel abroad in last 12 months (in per cent), Youth 2010 
Grafikon 114: Splošna mobilnost mladih (15-29 let) - pogostost potovanj v tujino v zadnjih 12 mesecih (v odstotkih), Mladina 2010
Not counting holidays on the Croatian cost and shopping trips near the border (up to 50 km), how often have you travelled abroad in the last 12 months? 
Če odmisliš morebitno počitnikovanje na hrvaški obali in nakupovanje v bližini (do 50km) meje, kolikokrat si v zadnjih 12 mesecih potoval v tujino?
Never 
Nobenkrat
1-2 times 
1-2krat
3-5 times 
3-5krat
A detailed analysis showed that there are no statistically significant differences between the sexes with regard to frequency of travelling abroad (p > 0.05), and the same was indicated for comparisons between age groups (15-18, 19-24, 25-29). 
Poglobljena analiza je pokazala, da glede pogostosti potovanja med spoloma ni statistično značilnih razlik (p > 0,05), enako pa se je izkazalo tudi za primerjave med starostnimi skupinami (15-18, 19-24, 25-29 let).
According to expectations, those who travelled more frequently spent more time abroad, and such mobility is associated with the financial status of the respondents' families (r = 0.12; p < 0.001) as well as their own income level (r = 0.13; p < 0.001). 
Po pričakovanjih so tisti, ki so potovali večkrat, v tujini skupno preživeli več časa, tovrstna mobilnost pa je povezana z gmotnim položajem anketirančeve družine (r = 0,12; p < 0,001), pa tudi z dohodkom, s katerim razpolaga (r = 0,13; p < 0,001).
The experience of foreign countries among young Slovenes is a mass phenomenon regardless of their age or sex, but that experience is usually of short duration. 
Izkušnja tujine je med mladimi v Sloveniji večinski pojav, in to ne glede na starost ali spol, vendar je ta izkušnja večinoma kratkotrajna.
From this data it can be concluded that the experience of foreign countries is a majority phenomenon among Slovenian youth regardless of age or sex. 
Iz teh podatkov je torej mogoče sklepati, da je izkušnja tujine večinski pojav med slovenskimi mladimi, in to ne glede na starost ali spol.
But it's a different picture when you look at the duration of these experiences. 
Drugače je, ko se pogleda trajanje te izkušnje.
According to Eurostat data, this percentage, like those of our neighbouring countries, is nearly negligible. 
Delež takih je po podatkih Eurostata tako kot pri sosednjih državah praktično zanemarljiv.
It fluctuates around 0.25 per cent of young people. 
Giblje se pod 0,25 odstotka mladih.
It should be noted that a growth trend is evident for Slovenia (see graph below). 
Treba pa je omeniti, da je v Sloveniji mogoče zaznati trend naraščanja (grafikon spodaj).
Graph 115: Percentage of young people (15-29) living abroad for a period longer than 12 months 
Grafikon 115: Delež mladih (15-29 let), ki so odšli v tujino za čas, daljši od 12 mesecev
SOURCE: Eurostat - Population and social conditions/Employment and unemployment (Labour Force Survey) 
VIR: Eurostat- Population and social conditions/Employement and unemployement (Labour Force Survey)
Although the percentage of young people (15-29) in Slovenia who go abroad for periods longer than 12 months has grown steadily since 1998, that percentage is still practically negligible (in 2008 it was approx. 0.25 per cent). 
Čeprav v Sloveniji delež mladih (15-29 let), ki v tujino odidejo za čas, daljši od 12 mesecev, vse od leta 1998 narašča, pa je ta delež še vedno praktično zanemarljiv (leta 2008 je znašal pribl.
In calculating the percentage of students, those enrolled in university study programmes were included up to 2007, and after 2007 all tertiary students were included. 
Pri računanju odstotka študentov so do leta 2007 zajeti študenti, ki so vpisani v visokošolske študijske programe, od leta 2007 pa vsi terciarni študenti.
SOURCES: SORS, CMEPIUS and ﬁ gures from the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology 
VIRI: SURS, CMEPIUS in preračuni MVZT