Ffs, why can't we at least have less work to do if we have lower salaries in the first place
.
Rich Countries, Short Weeks: Europe’s East-West Labour Divide
Ffs, why can't we at least have less work to do if we have lower salaries in the first place
.
Productivity matters.
Communist countries ended up working more than capitalist ones jfl
They are rich not because of productivity. Climate, geolocation, natural resources, as well as colonial history, matter.
They are also higher in IQ.
In Western Europe, capitalism developed over centuries and became much more humanized over time, thanks to social democracy and trade unions. In Eastern Europe, this process was interrupted by 45 years of communism, followed by a wild market capitalism.
So are Asians. Besides, Western Europe and US act like cartels at geopolitical levels, ready to hit you with sanctions if you don't worship foids enough.
The transition from communism to capitalism is very painful, very painful.
Therefore, communism must be avoided at all costs, as it will inevitably lead to an even more terrifying version of capitalism.
based
Asians haven't been creative and innovative like Western Europeans have. Sanctions and geopolitics are not the reason for Western Europe's success. Western Europe's success is attributed to their industrialization, high quality services, and high productivity. Other countries don't have this.
There is simply a historical Track , and most countries have the same standard of living they had two centuries ago. Only the Japanese were able to overcome it on their own, and the Koreans and Taiwanese did so thanks to the Cold War.
And here I saw a map for 1938 by the Belgian-Swiss economic historian Paul Bairoch (he also conducted a number of studies together with Fernand Braudel).
The map shows per capita GDP (using PPP, as some original economists prefer) in constant 1960 dollars.
Per capita GDP at PPP in constant 1960 dollars (according to Maddison's calculations).
If your country was poor two centuries ago, there is a 90% chance that it will be poor in this century.
Beyond over. Socioeconomic mobility is a lie.
Western Europe is currently wealthier coz America spent trillions of dollars bailing their asses while Eastern Europe was getting robbed. Now we see what happens when America doesn’t fund their countries.
south Europe is basically the new Disneyland.
People also develop complacency and many altogether prefer being unemployed or not doing any work, mass complacency after a certain standard of living stays
It's undeniable the industrialization (industrial revolution more specifically) changed the game for Western Europe. But the current Western Europeans cannot be credited for the current geopolitical dominance they enjoy. The West's hegemony established in the age of industrial revolution has been maintained by US and NATO via various geopolitical means. Post WWII, Asian countries like Japan and Singapore became US' puppets. US invaded IRAQ to impede their growth in the name of liberating them. NATO has been involved in Eastern Europe conflicts for years now. US have been supplying Pakistan to keep India in check. They have been supplying Pissrael to have control over Middle East. And now you also have Jewkrain.
You're seriously implying that European white whores doing one-hour (That's right. I have a few friends who work for European companies who can attest to that.) of bs computer typing jobs or some bs social work is why they are so rich and powerful.
Hmm! I wonder why you conveniently chose a gap of two centuries.
I really wonder why
Yeah but they have built up a margin from their past efforts, but yes that margin has been almost eaten up now and these younger generations are about to fall into poverty when the bubble bursts. This is just the civilizational cycle.
Those two things really come hand-in-hand I'd say. As much as they try to rig the world system, I'd say that their actual influence on the world has scaled pretty well with their share of world GDP over time:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mNxWcfK6sY
Depends on how you'd define said fall into poverty. Stagnation and being further overtaken by still dynamic economies (USA, China, etc.,) for sure, but the idea a surprising number of people on the internet have that something will happen and WEs standards of living, salaries, and so on will fall seems just delusional to me, the development, technology and so on won't just disappear.
The colonized countries never recovered from their days of being dominated by first, colonialism and secondly the Western Europe's global economic dominance. Heard from a lot of old folks in my country how the British textile industry royally fucked the Indian market. After that, Nukes and Globalization happened. Basically, any kind of major escalation post WW era became impossible, thus tipping the scale in their favor became virtually impossible for the impoverished countries like ours. Then add in to that the festering of corruption in the wake of extreme poverty which only exacerbated the issue.
I mean it has been going down for a while though. The housing crisis in Europe is even worse than it is US. The unemployment is on the rise. Like if your country's citizens are still homeless, going into debt, and are forced live paycheck to paycheck despite housing a population several times smaller than Rest of the World, there's something severely wrong going on with your country.
But I agree with you though, they were hit by the 2008 economic disaster, yet they are still standing strong. Leaders of countries like India, China, or ME ones have too much personal greed at stake to end their relationship with West. It's why I have so much respect for a country like Afghanistan. The social (racial and gender) conflicts are rising in the West, but the East hasn't been immune to that either, thanks to globalization. Unless Eastern leaders grow some pairs, I don't see this Western hegemony ending, albeit the empire is rotting.
Last edited:
You don't really need a major escalation to turn the tables around though. In fact, I'd say the economic rebalancing we've seen in Eurasia at least in the last few decades has contributed to WEs' relative geopolitical decline even more than most hypothetical wars would've.
Population alone has very little to do with it though, it's really mostly about GDP/incomes per person, and the state of housing in Europe correlates with that (and other signs of wealth and abundance) pretty well.
Share of people aged 25-29 living with their parents in Europe by country
Above EU average: Balkan shitholes, PIIGS countries and non-Czech Slavs. Below EU average: Nordics, German speakers, Beneluxers, and Czechs, Hungarians and the Baltics as the token poor(er) countries Tfw there are still people who believe that GDP per capita is a useless indicator that doesn't...
incels.is
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
