They can, and many do succeed. In the US right now, education is a proxy for class, so saying the uneducated Chinese can succeed is like saying the Chinese lower class can succeed, which isn't necessary true. It requires capital to start a business, not education.
I don't believe the issue is US-vs-nonUS. I believethe issue is internet "capital" concentration, which will emerge regardless of national origin. There is a networking effect that makes it difficult to start a successful platform, and those in power will eventually work to maintain or strengthen their power.
This is true. However, online media is becoming more and more concentrated(and manipulated) as well. Facebook, Reddit, Tumblr, Google, and 4chan all make up a large chunk of our online media, and it should be apparent to most people at this point that each of those sites are either controlled by a company, country, or PR team. It wouldn't surprise me if we start seeing a decline in trust of online media in the future, too.
I meant my country as a group of people, not our government. I don't care about my government, it has failed me, but my country is full of everyday people just trying to get by. Because we are of a same or similar culture, and because we live in closer proximity, it's only natural that I care about them more than people of other countries.
It is related to the declining quality of life Americans are experiencing. If the economy was still incredibly unequal but quality of life was still going up, there wouldn't be nearly as much disdain for the rich as there is right now.
This is all well and good if you live in a wealthy family in the US. However, the global economy means nothing to me if my entire family is seeing a declining quality of life, I have to wait for years and go tens of thousands of dollars in debt to find a good job, and I live in fear of getting sick because I don't know how I'll afford it. That's why my priorities are for my family first, country second, and global "community" last.
If globalization is needed so badly to lift the world, we need to find a way to change it in a way that doesn't destabilize us in the process.
Right, and that should be obvious to any reader. My point is that this is an issue that is asymmetric between the sexes. Acting like it's not just makes it seem like we're trying too hard to ignore genders when they exist and affect us.
Speaking of one group is not ignoring the other. Nobody said that sexual harassment against men is okay. It's okay to recognize that social norms affect the genders asymmetrically and structure language around that.
You are right. I guess I should have said "you can't punish away a cultural problem." Using legislation to change the culture itself can certainly work if done right.
You can't legislate away a cultural problem. See the drug wars, anti discrimination laws, and others. If we're going to be so cheap that we can't add bicycle infrastructure then we need to at least fund a public awareness campaign and possibly start teaching our kids about it.
Theoretically this is true, but look at how it's worked in practice. Manufacturing was shipped to places like China and Mexico where the minimum wage and quality of life is much lower. When considering these things, should we consider the theory of globalization, or the reality of what is happening?
The reason legislation like this isn't helping our country at the moment is because of globalization. Labor laws may help the workers, but it's a net negative if those laws just lead to the outsourcing of jobs. We need to choose between globalization for maximal gains for the rich, or protectionism for quality of life for our workers. At the moment, a middle ground doesn't seem possible.
What makes that idea difficult is the fact that profits have become decoupled from contribution to society. Anymore, most corporate gains aren't being passed along to the workers, just to the owners. Granted, the equation shifts with small businesses compared to large ones, but the idea that business = improvement is a bit simplistic.
The problem is acting like definitions are fluid when we're not. If I write a huge paragraph about how black people are violent, but mention in one sentence that I'm talking about black people as a symbol for power and not as a race, that doesn't change the fact that I just talked about an entire race as a whole. It's still ignorant, and blurring the line between race and culture is a dangerous rabbit hole.
You're implying that all white men have a sense of entitlement and power, an assumption that is racist and sexist, much like saying black people all like watermelon or women all are overly emotional. You're blurring the line between cultural differences and racial differences which, if left unchallenged, lead to discrimination. There are millions of white men that aren't in a position of power or don't get ahead because of their skin color. In fact, due to affirmative action policies, if anything white men are being pushed out. What makes you think white men are privileged when as a whole, they've been seeing a decline in income?
Edit: to those downvoting me, could you please explain why?
If they do that, they might as well remove the videos, since they have the same goal in mind. Look at the quarantined subreddits on Reddit. While the company gets to say it allows free speech, it basically removed those subreddits from existence, thus successfully controlling the narrative. Do we really want large corporations to intentionally guide the direction of our culture? Personally, I don't. In the end, a corporation would guide it in a direction that favors itself and its donors.
Macho status has nothing to do with it. It sounds like you've never lived in one of these small towns that revolve around a single industry. When that industry does poorly or goes away, entire families are damaged. Often times there aren't any other jobs in the area, and many cannot afford the changes required to move to a big city. Because of globalization and the loss of antitrust laws, this loss of economic stability is occurring not just in coal country, but in rural and semi-rural areas across the country. Then people who live in areas of the country that are doing well down play their struggle simply because they don't understand the devastating impact these economic trends are having on families across the nation.
Masculinity is a spectrum, with extreme womanizers on one side and gender-fluid effeminate men on the other side. Where is toxic masculinity defined? Do you feel there should be checks on extreme feminism? If no, why not?
Also, if your goal is diversity, that requires me to consider one's cultural background before discriminating against them. Why wouldn't you do the same for masculine guys?
The idea that hundreds of non-white alt-righters could gather at a college and all act like extremist liberals while not leaking the fact they're alt-righters is pretty absurd to me.
They didn't say they were going to start removing videos with illegal content, they already do that. They said that they were going to start removing videos that don't break any rules, yet the company deems them unsavory. Which is incredibly frustrating since 1) YT has become the center of our changing culture, and 2) not everyone lines up with the PC Californian culture that dominates large multinational corporations.
There's no reason to attack masculinity. I know it's trendy to do so right now, but the gender norms aren't going away yet in some parts of the country still. If politics are involved, it's likely all about money and power.
A great thing about the internet is it's decentralization. If you don't have tons of capital or income, you might consider moving to somewhere with a lower cost of living and making your app there. You can host it nearly anywhere with an internet connection until you hit a global scale, at which point you should be able to go to a more expensive area.
I'm not blaming capitalism, just pointing out that in some industries, monopolies naturally form. If anything, I'm blaming the government for getting taken over by the rich instead of keeping the imbalances in line.
Capital is more than just money. It takes a lot to jump through the regulatory hoops, money requirements, and insurance costs while having competitive prices against other Banks and still make a profit.
Even if it was just a money issue, new banks do still require a fair amount of money for relatively little profit in an industry that is well established. If someone is going to put their capital on the line, why wouldn't they put it in a higher growth industry?
These don't make new bank creation impossible, just unlikely.
> I don't think there's any natural motivation for bank consolidation besides using scale to eek out efficiencies and to gain power and influence.
Motivation has nothing to do with it. The development of power and influence through asymmetric growth in the industry is enough for this to emerge. There are still small banks today, but it's no coincidence that the largest (and thus overall best performing) banks cheat the system. The best performing become large and powerful on their own.
Nah, it's just the nature of capitalism. Industries that require a large amount of startup capital lead to natural monopolies or duopolies. Those who cheat, skirt the law, or lobby to make getting into the industry harder do better than those who follow the spirit of the law. Board of directors exist not to create a balanced society, but to maximize returns on investment for owners and shareholders, and so will always behave as sociopathically as they can get away with. The government is supposed to regulate those industries, but because they buy off the government in the US, the duopoly-forming pressures continue unabated.
My point still stands. People In this thread are talking like $40k/yr salaries are unheard of, yet aren't acknowledging that the economy of the high growth cities is nothing like the rest of the country.
I smoked cigarettes in the past and used ecigs to make cessation easier. When I switched, I used the vape more than cigarettes, but I also had a lot easier of a time quitting the vape(due to the lack of MAOI I believe). Even if people vape more than smoke, it may be worth it if they use it to successfully quit smoking altogether.
Not just in Canada. I'm about to graduate in the third largest city in my state, and I can only find jobs that pay around $35k/yr. The fact is that most new or good paying jobs are being concentrated to only a few areas of the country. They form economic bubbles that are insulated from the fact that most of the country is seeing a decline in quality of life due to lower wages, higher costs, and less worker leverage. This economic ignorance is a big reason why big cities don't understand the rise of Trump.