Except history demonstrated the opposite. Most of the socio-economical conquests of the working class happened in the 20th century well before the Reagan/Thatcher era that imposed ultra-liberism as worldwide dominant doctrine. The fact that corporations could not move production elsewhere at whim, but were forced to keep it where the goods were consumed, was actually a major contributing factor to the success of these struggles. Once international free-trade deals took place, a slow but constant erosion of the working class rights started. To the point where blue-collar America ends up voting Trump (misguided, I agree, but they do have a point in supporting protectionism).
The picture you paint is a bit too rosy, to say the least. Wages are low because there's a different definition on what constitutes "minimum living standard". It's true that generally speaking industrialization leads to class awareness, and subsequent social strife. That's how it worked in the Western world. However production is now mostly in countries with authoritarian regimes which don't see well things like unions, strikes and salary demands. Those countries already attract foreign corporations by offering tax-free zones that won't enforce the already poor local regulations, if wages were to rise too much, corporations would just move production elsewhere, because if there's something that is never in short supply, is exploitable poor masses. The only way to effectively contrast this phenomenon is to build trade barriers between countries with too big wage gap. Because remember: Apple cannot survive without selling iPhones in the US.
What I think is not up to you to state, Or even guess. I just prefer a fair redistribution of wealth. Right now much of the world's wealth is removed from active economy by few super-rich, who use it to either gamble in the financial markets, or simply sit on it like freakin' Smaug, On the other end, those who produce the products or services where the wealth comes from are denied the right to a dignified life.
Ecological operators are also predominantly male. Given that the job requires little skill or education, it seems a much more attainable target for short-term gender equality.
That someone else probably got the broadcasting rights even before Netflix entered that particular market. Here in italy Netflix doesn't show House of Cards because they sold the rights to Sky years before they started in 2015.
I know about this, but it's a problem that poses itself only when you dismantle an old plant, or otherwise substitute materials in a running one, so the amount and frequency of waste is much lower, plus we're talking of nuclear isotopes of otherwise stable materials, activated by the neutron flux. Once the flux stops, they tend to decay pretty quickly. I'm not saying that the waste problem goes away, just that it's manageable within a lifetime.
If, of course, you choose to ignore the tiny little problem of nuclear waste, for which the current policy is "it's not my generation's problem". Call back when we have viable fusion power.
It actually happened to me too, plus TPB lately is literally invaded by fake torrents advertising the latest blockbusters, which I'm pretty sure are actually serving malware. They get removed quickly enough, but some of them seemed to already have thousands of peers.
Slashdot Mirror
Except history demonstrated the opposite. Most of the socio-economical conquests of the working class happened in the 20th century well before the Reagan/Thatcher era that imposed ultra-liberism as worldwide dominant doctrine. The fact that corporations could not move production elsewhere at whim, but were forced to keep it where the goods were consumed, was actually a major contributing factor to the success of these struggles. Once international free-trade deals took place, a slow but constant erosion of the working class rights started. To the point where blue-collar America ends up voting Trump (misguided, I agree, but they do have a point in supporting protectionism).
The picture you paint is a bit too rosy, to say the least.
Wages are low because there's a different definition on what constitutes "minimum living standard". It's true that generally speaking industrialization leads to class awareness, and subsequent social strife. That's how it worked in the Western world. However production is now mostly in countries with authoritarian regimes which don't see well things like unions, strikes and salary demands. Those countries already attract foreign corporations by offering tax-free zones that won't enforce the already poor local regulations, if wages were to rise too much, corporations would just move production elsewhere, because if there's something that is never in short supply, is exploitable poor masses.
The only way to effectively contrast this phenomenon is to build trade barriers between countries with too big wage gap. Because remember: Apple cannot survive without selling iPhones in the US.
What I think is not up to you to state, Or even guess.
I just prefer a fair redistribution of wealth. Right now much of the world's wealth is removed from active economy by few super-rich, who use it to either gamble in the financial markets, or simply sit on it like freakin' Smaug, On the other end, those who produce the products or services where the wealth comes from are denied the right to a dignified life.
Ask yourself why those wages are so low.
Exploiting foreign underpaid workforce is, instead, perfectly acceptable.
Half the profits.
When Ayn Rand gets cancer, she uses public health care.
According to this study, smoking enhances evolution by increasing random mutation!
This kind of tribunals have been and will be used this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_v._Uruguay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement#NAFTA_Chapter_11
CETA includes exactly the same ISDS, as the summary states. Now before you judge others' reading skills...
With all its obvious and widely discussed downsides, Nazism was nothing like an ultra-liberist capitalism.
All 5 of you?
If pointing out hypocrisy through sarcasm is called like that these days, so be it.
In other times, it used to be called satire.
I was just pointing out that gender gap seems to matter only in attractive careers.
Sadly, my application to an ecological operator job would actually worsen the gender gap, so I'll abstain.
Ecological operators are also predominantly male. Given that the job requires little skill or education, it seems a much more attainable target for short-term gender equality.
That someone else probably got the broadcasting rights even before Netflix entered that particular market. Here in italy Netflix doesn't show House of Cards because they sold the rights to Sky years before they started in 2015.
Not true. I certain areas, broadcasting rights probably already belong to someone else.
I know about this, but it's a problem that poses itself only when you dismantle an old plant, or otherwise substitute materials in a running one, so the amount and frequency of waste is much lower, plus we're talking of nuclear isotopes of otherwise stable materials, activated by the neutron flux. Once the flux stops, they tend to decay pretty quickly. I'm not saying that the waste problem goes away, just that it's manageable within a lifetime.
If, of course, you choose to ignore the tiny little problem of nuclear waste, for which the current policy is "it's not my generation's problem".
Call back when we have viable fusion power.
Serbia is not in the EU.
Did you miss the part where Roy died?
It actually happened to me too, plus TPB lately is literally invaded by fake torrents advertising the latest blockbusters, which I'm pretty sure are actually serving malware. They get removed quickly enough, but some of them seemed to already have thousands of peers.
We are really sorry for your virility issues.