> That productivity boost in turn leads to more jobs created for more poor people.
So your take is that giving more money to the property owner will produce more jobs for poor people? As in trickle-down economics?
219 karma · joined February 14, 2021
So your take is that giving more money to the property owner will produce more jobs for poor people? As in trickle-down economics?
Well, in Sweden the price for that would be $160. You seem to be kicking downwards by reflex.
> Are you claiming "workers rights" are a major causal factor for (not Western Europe, but Nordic) countries happiness?
Yes, and like rings on the water organized labour creates the other ones. Why do you think even rich corporations like Amazon fight against them otherwise? Organized labour can combine their forces and make universal demands, like they did in the Nordics. Glad midsommar!
From the introduction in your first link:
Through reviewing the existing studies, theories, and data behind the World Happiness Report, we find that the most prominent explanations include factors related to the quality of institutions, such as reliable and _extensive welfare benefits_, low corruption, and well-functioning democracy and state institutions.
Under Welfare state generosity:
In a longitudinal study of 18 industrial countries from 1971-2002, Pacek and Radcliff examine welfare state generosity by using an index capturing the extent of emancipation from market dependency in terms of pensions, income maintenance for the ill or disabled, and unemployment benefits, finding that welfare state generosity exerts a positive and significant impact on life satisfaction.[21]
It's funny how people just invent shallow concepts like this and it always end up doing nothing but protecting - and extending - the privileges of the wealthy. It's just a predetermined outcome looking for a theory to justify it.
That's just utterly naive or politically biased. The profit motive is what causes those regulations in the first place! It has always been like that, especially in the states.
Don't try and create some sort of a fairy tale place where the profit motive won't try to rig regulations in their favor, they will always try to, this is what the incentive to make more and more profit creates.
This isn't true when feeding people is the _100% priority_, like in a big crisis, as a major war. The market flies out of the window and doesn't return before after the war is over since it just can't reliably produce goods in way that is appropriate for a crisis.
When the crisis is over however, the game of profit based production is restarted again.
An example would be that an old school democratic socialist since the 80ths or whatever shouldn't be seen as an extremist now just because the window has shifted so far to the right with Trump etc.
It's just not. There's no way using the historical understanding of Anarchism where the following scenario wouldn't be seen as completely absurd:
"Hi HeckFeck! Yeah, this is an anarchist society, we have no state and no rulers, well, except for Fred. He owns all the Water. He inherited the rights from his great grand father that bought it for grains from the starving citizens, yeah, he owns all the land too. Anyway, welcome to Fred's coal mine, grab your hat."
> "We've tried the 'rawr girl power, women can do everything men can do' culture, and the result is scores of women being used and taken advantage of because they were not capable, emotionally/temperamentally, to be their own advocate in sex and dating interactions."
"We've tried" = subjective
"rawr girl power, women can do everything men can do' culture" = subjective
"the result" = subjective
"because they were not capable, emotionally/temperamentally" = subjective
"in sex and dating interactions" = subjective
If you think your first reply was based on objective facts you're delusional. It's full of your subjective assumptions:
> "We've tried the 'rawr girl power, women can do everything men can do' culture, and the result is scores of women being used and taken advantage of because they were not capable, emotionally/temperamentally, to be their own advocate in sex and dating interactions."
How surprising, I wonder why.
> Opinion polls don't tell us what the truth is about anything except opinions.
If you honestly believe that there's some sort of objective "exactly here is the line, don't cross it!" I feel bad for you.
> the facts I am presenting
Facts? It was a blatantly fact-free reply with your subjective "takes"; - "maybe the old times was better because I think women can't handle this new reality".
Adults can "read between the lines". Putting all your statements together draws a perfectly clear misogynistic narrative. No amount of deflection by trying to rebrand each point individually will make that go anyway.
So you've just pulled it out of thin air. What I figured. It's just victim blaming through misogynistic prejudices.
Clubs usually make sure to not have important players on a soon-to-expire-contract, and if they do, they rather sell that player than let the contract expire.
There are more complex cases where some players have multiple owners to their rights etc. Another more common case is that previous clubs usually have some sort of cut of future transfer fees as compensation for their "development" of the player.
Loans are basically "We got this young player John Talent contracted, but we can't give him enough first team experience atm due to competition in the team, so we'll loan him out to a club in a less competitive league where he'll gain it". So that club will pay some amount for that loan during a year.
Uhm, so what? Players move between clubs all the time in football.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever to an avid, European, football fan like me at least