amrocha

The “salaryman lifestyle” necessitates low wages. It’s a “lifestyle” because you can’t quit it. You make barely enough money to sustain your family, so that you’re forced to keep working against your will.

If you’re making millions of dollars, you’re not a salaryman. You’re making a choice to sell your labor, but you can always quit and the impact to your livelihood will be minimal.

No they’re not. A “salaryman” earning millions has financial independence in 5 years maximum if they so choose.

Most people are forced to work or starve. These are not the same.

Being “stuck” at a job for a decade, living a life with zero financial worries, does not compare to the average worker who has to work for 40+ years, cannot afford to purchase property, and has to rely on social security in old age when they can’t work anymore.

Claiming these are anywhere comparable is an incredibly lack of perspective.

That’s not support from the chinese government, that’s just good climate policy. Sucks that EVs in the US are held back by the government’s poor climate policy.

The main radical in a character usually dictates how it’s read. General language familiarity tells you which of the readings to use. That’s accurate most of the time, and when it isn’t there’s furigana on the word.

For example, 青 is read as “sei”, and characters that use it as a radical are either read as “sei” or “jou”, such as in 情熱(jounetsu) or 清潔(seiketsu). So when you run into a rare character in a word that uses this same radical, you can assume that it uses a standard reading. For example, the word for fairy, 精霊, isn’t one you run into very often, but when you do you can assume that it’s read as “seirei” based on the radicals, and you’d be correct.

I’m explaining this in length here but with native level proficiency this process happens instantly, as you’re reading.

Japanese should not drop kanji. The only people that think that are foreigners that failed at learning the language. This is not a shared sentiment among japanese speakers.

This is equivalent of saying you studied engineering for 6 months and turns out arches are useless, you can just get rid of arches in all bridges and nothing bad will happen.

Teslas have a reputation for shoddy quality but they’re still sold in the US, i’m sure BYD will be fine

The issue is not the writing system. Japanese phonetics are extremely simple. There’s nothing you can do about that.

Another commenter pointed out the ambiguity in Japanese phonetics which is very true.

Imo, the biggest efficiency gain from kanji comes from reading. Meaning is grasped instantly because you don’t need to worry about phonetics. Pronunciation follows a general set of rules, such that even when encountering new words you can guess at how they’re pronounced, while grasping meaning at a glance.

To compare it to latin languages, the difference is like going from reading everything out loud to reading silently.

Kanji is never going away. I struggle to believe anyone who fully mastered kanji would say something like this.

Kanji is not just “harder”. It’s better.

Mate, idk, now you’re arguing that it’s ok for toddlers to be sniped during war as long as your government claims they were “human shields”.

I literally don’t know what to say to that.

There’s no deception done imo.

Your argument is that it’s ok that Israel has killed this many women and kids because they’re over represented in the population.

Most people’s perspective is that you shouldn’t kill kids and women and target civilians, regardless of anything else.

And you’re ignoring the mountain of evidence of israel deliberately targeting civilians. Just the other day the times published a thorough report on israeli snipers deliberately targeting toddlers. That truth does not square with your “it’s just collateral damage” argument.

Awesome! I'm glad we could come to an agreement

Why would I assume you meant the maximum when you didn't specify?

And would you mind not being a condescending prick? If you had taken a second to google you would know Tokyo had highs of 40+ this summer.

Sounds like you're just trying to make excuses for your awful city.

Guess you ran out of arguments? Hahaha

The daily mean pretty much everywhere sits around low 30s because the night temperatures bring it down. That's intense though!

No it's not

The rest of the world can be like Tokyo, that's the important part.

Weather is not a good enough reason for why we need cars in cities.

Ok, so it's a city planning problem, not a weather problem. I'm glad we agree.

My "anecdote" is the fact that I live in Tokyo where we get extreme weather regularly and yet the vast majority of trips are taken by public transport, walking or biking.

The vast majority of trips are taken by foot or bicycle where I am. Statistically speaking, YOU can do it too.

First off, you're exaggerating. There is no place on earth that averages 40C for 3 months.

Second,I live in Tokyo, where the summer has been miserable with average temperatures of 32C, with regular highs of 36+ with 80% humidity. And yet I walked and biked everywhere and was just fine, and that's true for most of the 40M people that live here as well.

Third, it sounds like you live in a place that's not suitable for humans, you should probably move instead of making the planet even hotter for everyone else by living in your steel boxes with AC.

Alright, I'll respond.

>Not every person is able-bodied enough to walk and bike

And the same goes for cars, except kids can ride bikes, so car accessibility is actually just worse.

>Also, people happen to need to get from A to B when it is cold, dark, raining, extremely hot, snowing, or just some kind of shitty outside

You can walk or cycle in all of those conditions. In fact, I have walked or cycled in all of those conditions in the past 6 months.

>People need to drive to a store for food or supplies that cannot be carried or biked back to the destination

There's very little that can't be carried on a bike or public transport, but you can always rent a car for a couple hours if needed. Let's be real, that's not why 99.9% of people are driving cars.

>People have multiple children that simply cannot walk or bike

Where I live it's common to see mothers cycle with their kids on child seats in their bikes.

>Old people cannot simply walk or bike.

And a lot of them can't drive either.

I can see the political argument against it, but at the end of the day I think that’s a marketing issue. Japan vehemently denies that any allegations of using MMT, but MMT has been very good at predicting japanese economic outcomes.

It’s definitely not mainstream though, I agree with you there, but I would argue that that’s because there’s a lot of people who would have to admit they were wrong for decades if MMT was accepted.

I might be wrong, but my impression is that MMT has been pretty good at predicting economic outcomes.

The main reason I suggested it is because MMT is the only innovation happening in economics, and understanding the core concepts has been very helpful to me.

The only other game in town is synthesis, which has been a dead end for decades and has very poor real world predictive power.

Oh gotcha, you’re one of the deregulation people. I’m guessing you also think drivers licenses are unnecessary?

Ok, I’ll explain it in a few short sentences.

Assume you have a new country with no money. How does anything get done? The central bank needs to issue capital that the government then allocates first.

Eventually this money makes it down to the citizens of the country who spend it. Then the government can tax that money, and that gives it non-inflationary spending room to reallocate those resources.

For example, there’s a car company that’s using up most of the country’s steel supply. But the government wants to shift the country’s manufacturing from cars to other green industries. What the government can do is tax the car company so that it’s not able to use up as much steel, which frees up resources for other industries to utilize.

The same goes for people, since people are a country’s most important resource. Through taxation the government can influence the resource allocation of the country. That doesn’t mean that the government can’t spend without taxes though.

If you want to learn more there’s plenty of resources out there, you can start with Keynes, skip anything from chicago, move on to MMT for the latest theoretical thought.

Well, that’s a risk you take as an investor.

In your example, a stock went up 10x overnight. Mature stocks don’t do that, so you must be investing in something very risky.

What a tax would do is incentivize you to realize some of your gains to pay the tax. If you don’t want to do that and would rather keep gambling, then you’re free to do that. If the stock then crashes and you lose all your money that’s on you.

Obviously you have to think about implementation to make sure you’re not charging a tax that people can’t pay, but that can be figured out.

You arguments so far have been “the number is too big” and “let’s get rid of all taxes” so I don’t feel like you’re very serious about having a discussion.

If you took it as an insult that’s on you. I just stated a fact.

Like the fact that wealth inequality is bad, and we know that it’s bad. It’s just a fact, and if you want to ignore the facts because your opinion doesn’t agree why them that’s ok, but it doesn’t make it any less true.