#pol #uspol #squidgame

source

If you're talking about foreign labour exploitation' n such, numerically an equaling of global labour standards of living would not destroy rich social democracies, having only an effect equivalent to the GFC. Of course, any realistic plan would have this occur over many years, not overnight.

The Nordics, Sweden especially, prove that self-determination by colonized indigenous peoples and social democracy can easily coexist. Efficacy of scale or not, I care about the efficacy of eliminating the civil emergency that is poverty in New Zealand, don't you?

yo liberty party when you get a majority in parliament please implement a universal welfare state thx bye

That is, if we want to eliminate poverty en masse. I'm not against mutual aid or charity in and of themselves, but the idea that they can alleviate poverty to nearly the same extent as transfers while maintaining standards of living, when that's not backed by the numbers, just doesn't play out well

and/or miraculously be the society that adopts what is effectively democratic insurance for workers at by far the largest scale in the history of the advanced world (when the vast majority of not only today's poor, but those who without the welfare state would be the market poor, ie. non-workers)

I think it's both far more likely and effective to adopt the systems of existing social democracies, practically eliminating poverty, than for nearly our entire society to miraculously become the most charitable in the history of the advanced world by a wide margin (1/2)

it seems to me that when governments gave universal cheques to seniors, their material hardship went down drastically.

the state could literally abolish the civil emergency that is poverty in new zealand tomorrow if they implemented the right universal welfare policies

universal welfare state >

1. Preferred PM argument still stands, 2. Would you be fine with him being DPM in 2017-2020?, 3. He was still finance minister in 2017-2020; DPM comparatively isn't a massive role, 4. 'This person is too unpopular to have the role' is usually about current popularity rather than electoral mandate

By this logic, Robertson, preferred PM of less than 1% of the country, representing a party 73% of the country didn't support, was 'somehow' Deputy PM and made some of the country's largest financial decisions in recent history. Despite that, you and I would probably agree he was fine in both roles

I like the idea of making political parties almost like public utilities, where anyone who simply self-identifies with a party can be a member and contribute to deciding who the representatives will be before a national election

I dunno man in the literal sense that seems like giving minority interests a voice

other than, y'know, the one from today

Most I find promise to resign if something DOES happen, eg. resign rather than raise the super age, and because they're pretty specific, they don't tend to have to resign. Could you provide some examples of someone SAYING they will resign if X doesn't happen, X not happening, and them not resigning?

Labour said they're interested in adding more 'labour' to the party so I expect their sectoral bargaining and unemployment insurance policies will probably play a bigger role next time around

they're not

they're not

they won't be there

they're not

TPU won't be there though?

it's not true

No; read beforehand

~0.00125-0.01% minus the productivity commission sure sounds expensive

and again i'm skeptical of the idea that being a social democrat is contradictory to the spirit of cyberpunk and that's somehow the way cyberpunk needs to be interpreted culturally

importantly, i said incredibly clearly that designers saying "this is the intended way to experience our game" is completely fine and good. This is just semantics but someone playing cyberpunk 5E with a billion homebrew/misinterpreted rules is not playing incorrectly, just not in their best interest

appreciate the conciseness