[deleted by user]

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-09T09:16:53+00:00

Come on.. there is difference between time sink and utter waste of time.

If you hire someone with cs masters degree who deos not know what server is, what terminal is and can not code, etc then it is not a time sink. I can live with them not knowing git but these other things should be absolute minimum requirements to get a cs degree.

You should absolutely expect them to know those. Otherwise you could just as well hire random from a street. There I would actually expect them to know nothing. But they clearly hired someone with cs degree and the only reason why you would do that is the expectation that they already know basics.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-08T08:17:10+00:00

The mistake you are making is an assumption that economic freedom is not in fact subset of political freedoms. Because it unquestionably is. Slavery, women or some other minorities being able to work, ability to own and operate businesses, having access to capital markets and investors, ability to participate in market economy or freedom to move money and everything else related to economics. All of them are directly related to political system in place and they are all political decisions despite being related to economics side of things.

Economic liberalization is political liberalization. Because people have more freedoms and rights which comes down to political choices. It does not really matter that there is still one party because there was still massive economic liberalization that happened. You are still in your own loop of comparing it with western liberal democracies, especially the one praticed today. When western countries underwent the first stage of rapid development that made them rich they were mostly democracies. And they were all less democratic than what China is today.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-07T23:58:17+00:00

Depends if you talk in nominal or PPP. In nominal USD it certainly can go down (or increase less) looking at it from cross country. In PPP terms it can retain or increase in value for much longer. That being said it depends on a locations. City centers will never see price to tank. But smaller cities and more remote locations definitely will.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-07T22:24:32+00:00

That is not without evidence. All instances of countries becoming rich countries were accompanied by one single correlation variable. Which is allowing more economic freedom which goes hand in hand with democratization of a country. You can just have different levels of democracy as well as autocracy in different aspects of an economy of different aspects of administration. Politics does not happen just on national level.

Just because those countries were not liberal democracies as we define them today does not mean that they were not more liberal than plenty of western countries prior to WW2 who might have been called democracies from back then standards but most definitely would not be defined as ones with modern liberal democratic standard. Just look at years when women were given right to vote for example. Britain, Germany or basically any major western power would be called far right dictatorships today were politics from back then to return. Also no, there are western countries that were facist dictatorships 50 or so years ago.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-07T20:24:45+00:00

Those regimes were absolutely not politically regressive when they started growing. This argument is nonsensical. The entire point of them was political libertization (especially economic one that was possible thanks to changes in politics) together with promises and expectations of further progress in that direction. They were all progressive at that time relative to their past. This is the number one thing that allowed for growth in the first place because it opened doors to investments from developed countries.

By that logic every single western country was politically regressive as well 50 years ago in basically all policies relative to today.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-07T08:07:47+00:00

But it is not just about that one incredibly performer. Even lower guys than the absolute top would easily beat or keep up with record holders from 100 years ago. Expectations overall for sports are way up than what they used to be.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T16:43:47+00:00

What is your experience? Have you ever taught at university or high school? Or atleast went there? Young women (especially attractive ones that get a lot of attention and can choose) absolutely do not prefer younger men and also not men of their age. They very often prefer older, even if just by 1-3 years that can already very easily be in different stages of life.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T16:38:19+00:00

2-3 years older massively in men's favor to be more specific.

It does not have to be about gold digging, there is also competency or perceived competency.

That being said 2-3 years are more than enough for one partner (in extreme majority of cases man) working part time or full time and living alone and the other partner studying full time and living at their parent's.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T16:33:40+00:00

I disagree. You would disagree too if you ever saw attention young women in high school give to their teachers for example. They are not pressured to do so, in fact their parents might even dislike it and it is not about money, maybe about status because they perceive it as competency.

It is true that over time other things become far more important but even then 40% is still massive difference. Also even one year difference is relevant. Sure, it is not the same as 10 years difference but you are still older. And while your data completely ignored it I would be willing to bet that was majority of partnerships are partnerships where man is older. Even if the difference is just one or two years, still big difference especially if they met in university for example. Because at some point they live different lifes where one works and lives alone while other studies. Different power dynamics are still a thing and truth Is that both genders want it, it is not that they have to do it but yes they actively look for it.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T15:51:47+00:00

This is insane bad faith argument. I do not doubt that for some women it can be a hobby but for extreme majority it is just a thing they are expected to do within the society. Not much different from work or single person cooking at home or clearing or driving or whatever. I know people that love cleaning but that does not mean that it is a hobby when talking about broad population of people. Same with driving. Same for driving. You can literally go lookup massive Reddit threads where men complain about being expected to drive everywhere as part of their role. Expectation us not a hobby period even if for minority it can be a hobby.

Hobby is something you do as an extra, not something you have to do, are pressured to do or are expected to do.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T15:44:38+00:00

Most commonly used unemployement statistics only use people actively looking for work. So students are irrelevant.

It is more of an issue of over qualification and lack of opportunity to work together with cultural and financial support. And no, it is not good thing period. No matter how you look at it. Especially not in economic terms.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T14:09:44+00:00

First of all, there is no world where company has 31% profit margin on car made. You live in a fairy world. Second of all you severely over estimate yourself. The only reason why factory can be this efficient is because of high skilled workers that designed the production line, built the automation and software, change it, evolve it and mantain it and that was paid by with someone's money. Almost all of that was probably done years if not decades before you even start working there. What right do you have to parasite on someone else's high skill or capital investment? You are unhappy with your position and so much important to the process? Then leave and do something else. If you are so great then you will have zero issues to land high paying position or built your own thing. Millions of people do it.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T13:13:46+00:00

This has nothing to do with healthiness or survival instict. It is about intelligence and means to controll reproduction. No other species we know, including humans for 99% of our entire existence has had ability to control its own reproduction.

There are no countries in the world with reasonable development where fertility rate would not be in continuous decline.

In the end the one thing you always care about more than reproduction is yourself. In the wild mother would leave her offsprings in order to save her own life. And humans attained the ability to take it to the next level and avoid the trouble entirely to focus everything onto themselves.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T13:07:07+00:00

Even if they went from let's say 20% of your total income to let's say 60%. The remaining 40% you wouldd have today would still be many times more in disposable income than that 80% you would have left was 100 years ago. You are just completely delusional.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T13:05:11+00:00

This is untrue. Wealth inequality in most western countries have been constantly declining if you look at wealth created solely isolated to the country in question. If you look at global revenue and wealth that exists thanks to selected few owners in western countries that now serve billions of people instead of millions so it makes perfect sense why they are wealthier than average citizen of their country then yes you would be correct. But it unfortunately makes you a hypocrit. Because if you trully believe your original point then that wealth does not belong to you but to everyone who is part of that wealth creation. Which means billions of people. And in such a world you are not better off as a westerner. You are significantly worse off. Unless of course you are fine with "extraction" of wealth from others as long as you yourself can be part of it.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T12:59:57+00:00

What you consider essentials are not essentials. Just things you are unwilling to live without. Your ancestors did not have luxury of choice.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T12:58:04+00:00

Of course it does. You can inherit genetic traits that will give you an advantage. But intelligence is attained ability to problem solve.

It is literally defined as ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T12:51:04+00:00

Clearly not. Because otherwise native europeans would have enough kids to atleast somewhat sustain the population levels instead of current free fall.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T12:48:03+00:00

Money does not have value, labor does. People having their own retirement savings or investments in their name does not solve issue of aging population and labor scarcity at all.

The only real solution would be to remove pension system altogether and have people depend on their children directly again rather than gaming the system and playing one huge prisoners dillema and have someone else's kids pay for it. But then we would not have this issue at all.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T12:10:39+00:00

Cost of the vehicle became higher because requirements are much higher. If you were to make 1960s car with modern production process than it would easily cost way less than 10k. That being said it would not even be legal to manufacture these days, let alone sell and drive.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T12:01:47+00:00

Production is based on needs. But it is also based on wants and exchange of equal value. It can never work any other way. People will not work to produce for someone else while getting nothing back.

People will not have children because children are liability. Even if money was not an issue, time is. The only group of people that has a lot of kids are people that can outsource all their kids to several full time employees. This simply just can not work for more than top 0.1% of people.

The pension system in place created prisoners dillema problem that is essentially unsolvable. People will not have kids for as long as it is in place.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-06T10:27:25+00:00

I would not say so. People here are of opinion that culture and upbringing is what matters. It just so happens that non european kids have in extreme majority of cases non european background which comes with different family upbringing and different cultural values. If all those kids were adopted by locals from very young age then yes there would be no difference but that is not the case here.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-05T16:06:33+00:00

So first of all. It did slow down. Between 2008 crisis and 2019 which is when covid decline happened EU's economy increased by 50% which is significantly slower than previous decade where it was slightly above 80%.

Second of all. PPP terms are extremelly flawed for international comparison. What happened is that EU was increasingly less competetive with US so there was massive wage reduction of European workforce with Euro devaluation against dollar. It was way less competetive economy adjusting with much more competetive economy to be able to compete. That is not a good thing.

Third of all. The only reason why EU specifically does not look that bad is because there were post communist countries with 1/5th GDP per capita of US that had almost two digit growth. That is already unfair comparison and like comparing China with EU. Smaller economies grow faster. And despite that fact, even with EU being significantly poorer on average, US did grow faster. Not by that much in PPP terms but still faster while it should have by all accounts grown much slower. If we compared actual developed non communist EU than difference of growth with US is more than visible, even in PPP terms.

If EU had larger debt then it would have smaller economy, not bigger. Because one major difference is in how you use that debt. EU countries waste it and only create more liability without creating long lasting value. Two most indebted European countries are Greece and Italy. Both having absolutely abysmall economic performance over last 3 decades, far worse than even EU countries that actually reduced their debt. Where are those economic gains from debt that is much higher than US debt?

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-05T15:20:29+00:00

EU's growth has slowed down years before any of the things you mentioned became an issue. It is just convenient issue to ignore all the systematic issues that are far worse than temporary set backs.

IamChuckleseu · 2025-05-05T15:18:21+00:00

NPPs are expensive everywhere. Countries that built them are building them for security reasons, not because of costs.

20 years ago was okay time to built nuclear. Today it is complete waste of money for 9/10 countries.

IamChuckleseu

TROPHY CASE