totally OT:
re: "rich countries will be forced to help poor countries":
The rich have been able to ignore the chaos and suffering in poor countries, for centuries. The main difference now, is that those poor countries (and, in the future, every ethnic/political faction within those countries), is going to have access to weapons of mass destruction. This will be very effective blackmail, used by anyone who doesn't have a stake in the status quo. Today Pakistan has the Bomb. Tomorrow, Uganda? The Palestinians? The Tibetans?
For most of history, there have been a few rich countries, a lot of poor countries, and a (very) few countries making the transition from poor to rich. Today, the countries in transition are mostly in East Asia and central/E. Europe.
re: "I know of many couples among my friends who make in excess of $150k~250k/year each. And they have to work 50~70 hour weeks for that. Every single one of them would love to be able to take in less than half of that money in exchange for 25 hour weeks so that they can spend time together and live their lives. Guess what? That is not possible."
With the unemployment rate below 4%, workers can get whatever work situation they want, and employers have to adjust. If workers wanted fewer hours, they could make it happen. The problem is not employers, but rather how people define their self-worth. Today, every adult (almost all men, and, since the rise of feminism, most women as well) defines themselves by what they do outside of the home. "Being Home" is equivalent to "doing nothing". We define ourselves, first by our job, second by our hobbies, and last as parents/homemakers. As long as we put those relative values on home vs. work, people will continue to work 70 hours/week (and complain about it, since we are, after all, only human). |
