> How is the platform not a total failure based on this? Doesn't everyone of the guys not in that top 20 percentile turn around and tell everyone it is garbage?
Yeah it is total garbage. Even when you put in all the work to get matches and arrange dates (which takes a ton of work), it's still basically a blind date, so when you actually meet there's still only a small chance that you will actually match.
And you always get worse matches, as a man, through the apps compared to real life. You will pay a price for that convenience of swiping.
There's an increased risk for women when they let men bypass that filter of being sociable and brave enough to befriend people in real life social situations.
If a woman can already go to a bar and easily pick out a guy, and easily judge the men, why would they use a dating app? It only makes sense if they somehow would get better matches there, so the men will have to lower their standards as a result of that convenience.
I just see online dating, and classified ads in the paper before that, as a way for people who don't fit the social norm to meet. And that's fine. But I don't see any reason for everyone to start doing that, and people who are normally sociable will just have a worse experience.
Haha the people who think that bill gates and jeff bezos is actually sitting on that money in cash, LOL
Think also a bit about who is benefitting and making money from instigating this type of jealousy, being exploited as an unpaid click puppet is even worse than being a warehouse worker.
> Think also a bit about who is benefitting and making money from instigating this type of jealousy
I'll bite. Who? Who has the money, power, and motivation to secretly manipulate the pliable masses to turn against the billionaires, for their own nefarious ends?
> I'll bite. Who? Who has the money, power, and motivation to secretly manipulate the pliable masses to turn against the billionaires, for their own nefarious ends?
Everyone who is not a billionaire, but still currently holds a privileged position compared to the pliable masses, will benefit from such propaganda of over simplified "injustice", because if will deflect attention away from their own privilege and keep them safe.
You will see this most clearly if you look at ivory tower academics or cultural elite, who love to hate rich capitalists for being greedy, to get the "people" on their side to avoid having their own privilege under scrutiny, which in reality is often just as greedy and selfish.
This is just false, people happily "exploit" themselves to make more money, and it makes perfect sense because society is based completely on exploitation, your job as well as anyone's.
Middle class people want to project misery and suffering that don't exist, on unwilling "workers", just to validate their own silly middle class job.
If you really believe in unions, then fight for a union in your own workplace.
No, capitalism is based on exploitation, and it's true that current society is neck-deep in neoliberalism but that hasn't always been true. Other organizations existed, that were completely horizontal, without hierarchies and exploitation. Those are not in human nature, as was documented by these guys: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56269264-the-dawn-of-eve...
> If you really believe in unions, then fight for a union in your own workplace.
I believe work is the creator of riches, and such riches are to be redistributed by those who made it, by remembering that we all depend on each other so there can't be personal property if it harms someone else or the environment. Unions are a step in this direction and I do fight for them but it's only the first step.
You don't have any better alternative to capitalism, that's just crackpot preaching. Trust me when I say that the "workers" are not interested in overthrowing capitalism, you will have to recruit your cult members somewhere else.
Of course I have alternativeas, but I feel like you don't want to discuss.
I don't know how you can be so condescending as to say you know everything there is to know about workers and I don't. Workers want to have an easier life than what they have right now, and capitalism will not help them
> I don't know how you can be so condescending as to say you know everything there is to know about workers and I don't.
Because I am working class.
Workers are way too close to reality to ever get seduced by such ideas, they create things with their own hands, so they understand perfectly well that this needs to be done, to create any value for anyone.
It's only sheltered middle class people with bullshit jobs who come up with the idea that we could somehow just get rid of this annoying work.
> Workers are way too close to reality to ever get seduced by such ideas, they create things with their own hands, so they understand perfectly well that this needs to be done, to create any value for anyone.
You're perfectly describing why workers are interested in overthrowing capitalism, because workers produce the riches, create the value and know what it's worth. Why should the value be given to said bullshit jobs so they can do whatever they want with it including not giving workers their fair share ?
> because workers produce the riches, create the value and know what it's worth. Why should the value be given to said bullshit jobs so they can do whatever they want with it including not giving workers their fair share ?
Workers only play one part in this, not the whole. The factory was built by someone who had a design for it, and you need investments, with returns for that to ever happen.
The "workers" never build any factories, it's impossible to get a large amount of people to pull in the same direction and realise such an idea, without having a central single point of leadership.
And for anyone to take on that leadership and take that risk, there needs to be a reward.
You need to think about the future, not only today. If you share everything with the workers you will just exhaust that resource, and then get outcompeted by others who allow more innovation.
As we have already seen in history for example with the car industry in detroit, or England in the late 1970s. So what is your argument for why it should work this time, and why we should apply the politics of the 1970s? No argument whatsoever other than "trust me, I know a better alternative to capitalism". Sorry but that's just nonsense.
The most important thing for everyone is to be as close as possible to the next jeff bezos. The only way you can have a good job is to be close to
1. innovation or
2. extraction of natural resources.
Because that's how value is created, and how opportunity arise. There is no pie being delivered by "someone else" for ever and ever, that you just have to divide.
Leftist always assume that these opportunities come out of nowhere, and will also last forever.
It leads to stagnation.
Sooner or later you run out of other people's money.
Same here, I really could not care less if some guy has 10 sports cars in a basement somewhere, so what? It seems so incredibly childish and petty to walk around and be angry about that.
And when having a few billionaires comes with the benefit of more jobs, higher salaries and better economy for me and everyone else, then it seems great to me.
How can people prefer an equal society where everyone's poor just to be relieved from their childish jealousy? It's not going ever be fixed anyway, because nature and life is always unfair.
No one is having "childish jealousy", they just want fair treatment and a chance at a good life. No one "prefers a society where everyone's poor", that's just childish and off-putting straw men by you.
Please explain how having a few billionaires "comes with the benefit of more jobs" and stuff for everyone else. How is it better to share the crumbles, instead of the whole bread? Perplexing.
There is no such thing as fair, it's impossible to even define what that would be, and that's the whole point of the free market, that it solves this problem. The more you use these outdated political catch phrases, the more impractical and meaningless things become. Life is unfair, nature is unfair.
> No one "prefers a society where everyone's poor", that's just childish and off-putting straw men by you.
This is demonstrably what happens as we have seen during 100 years of large scale experiments involving millions of people. If you keep pushing socialist politics from the 1970s I'm just going to suspect that the same bad things will happen, as happened then. When there is such a massive body of evidence, why should anyone suddenly start thinking "oh yeah, I bet it works this time, let's try that again"?
> Please explain how having a few billionaires "comes with the benefit of more jobs" and stuff for everyone else.
Because it's the only way to make people pull in the same direction, to create value in a positive bottom line.
> How is it better to share the crumbles, instead of the whole bread? Perplexing.
Because there will be no bread to begin with, if you share the whole bread, because nobody wants to bake a bread when they are forced to give away the whole thing.
If you look at the state of the lower middle class and below today, and think capitalism has done wonders, you're delusional.
Countries with fewer billionaires and more socialistic policies are much, much better to live in today I'd say. Just compare US with EU for instance. So not sure how you can assert that the opposite "demonstrately happens".
Don't you think people would "pull harder" if they themselves actually saw the fruit of their labor?
We're talking about people's livelihoods here, and you still talk about "bottom lines".. I'm not sure if you're trolling or actually hold these views?
Redistribution politics are always destructive and temporary in nature. The EU has not discovered some way to invent free stuff out of thin air. If you push redistribution politics you will cause stagnation and lower productivity.
You can think that's "chill" but sooner or later the outside world will run away from you and you will be outcompeted.
Just look at what happened now to the german car industry, they are so proud of their strong unions, but they get outcompeted by tesla instead who is now building car factories in germany. It almost got killed by the unions in the same way detroit was in the US when the japanese caught up.
Nice sweet union deals with lifetime guarantees of great benefits, mean nothing when the whole company disappears, and the country goes into a recession. It's just putting your head in the sand for a while and pretending that you have found the perfect position where opportunity will last forever.
That's how I see it as well, it's low income/poor people who actually benefit the most from amazon, because they both get higher paid jobs and lower prices.
I would be very very surprised if there is a majority of the people working for amazon that wants to form unions, I'm sure it's just a small minority.
The actual working class people probably really don't want middle class people to "fight" for them in this way, and be used as puppets in their virtue signalling competition.
What exactly about unions is progressive? It was something that came out of the industrial revolution, had its breakthrough in the 1930s, its peak in the 1970s, and has been in steady decline for 40 years, and for good reasons.
Promoting postwar politics in 2022 is not progressive, it's regressive.
The difference is that amazon is driving innovation which enables you to stay competitive. Unions cause stagnation which will lead to being outcompeted in the long term, even if you could argue a more peaceful existence in the short/medium term, you are just putting on blinders.
This is 100% true. People like to pretend that the higher equality in sweden actually means that rich people share with poor people, but in reality it's the working middle class that pays the price for it.
And it leads to a more classist society with even higher wealth concentration, and real struggles with motivating people to actually perform, because of the lack of opportunity and glass ceiling.
Sweden probably has the poorest middle class of all of the western nations, and way poorer even than many asian and south american countries.
I really can't see how sweden could stay competitive, I think there will be some significant brain drain with the younger generations that can speak fluent english.
I recall chatting with some highly-placed dude in Deutsche Post a few years back. He had come in from the tech industry to unfuck their... well, tech, and was amazed at the level of opulence available to him as a highly-placed public servant.
A full-spec Mercedes S-class limousine with a chauffeur for his exclusive use was just the start. It was nuts.
The marketing is fantastic. Let's all chip in to help each other out, take care of the poor, all that jazz. But sweet baby Jesus doesn't that machine just grease the hell out of its own wheels.
This is not the same thing that the person you were responding to was talking about. Swedish civil servants do not lead extravagant lifestyles, even at the highest levels, nor do politicians (not directly by virtue of being in politics, at any rate, although sometimes indirectly).
What they were saying is that the Swedish system is very friendly to wealthy individuals operating in the private sector, while letting the middle class bear the brunt of subsidizing costs for those with lower income, which is true.
It's doable, but it's also the most time consuming and impractical way of transportation, compared to the other options, so therefor it's bad.
Just because you can find a weird amish guys who insists that riding a horse is great, doesn't make that a good way of transportation, or something that we should start doing more.
> It's doable, but it's also the most time consuming and impractical way of transportation, compared to the other options, so therefor it's bad.
My connection to the center of Stockholm takes 45-60 minutes counting the time to-from stations, I bike the same distance in about 40-45 minutes. I get some exercise, I get to bike to any street I want to in more-or-less the same amount of time. It's bad for you, so just swallow that as a personal opinion but don't come with sweeping statements that "it's therefore bad", this is totally subjective to one's level of discomfort and/or laziness.
I prefer the bike than the great public transportation here for any trip where I won't be carrying more than what my cargo backpack can carry.
I don't agree with the logic of your statement ("it's not perfect for me so therefore bad"), also coming after biking infrastructure is a very weird hill to die on...
> this is totally subjective to one's level of discomfort and/or laziness.
Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad. The whole point of our society is to transcend this. There are a million ways to do exercise and sports, and to spend your life and time and energy. Just because someone doesn't like cycling like you, doesn't make them lazy. That's an unbelievably self centered and arrogant viewpoint.
My logic is that cycling is bad because 1. it's not powerful and 2. it's sensitive to the weather, and 3. most people don't do it. Doesn't matter what you personally like.
This doesn't mean that we should construct infrastructure that actively discourages cycling. The argument isn't "let's force everyone to cycle". It's "let's make cycling so safe and convenient that the ones who would like to do it can do so without risking life and limb jostling in the same lanes as SUVs the size of Abrams tanks."
Let's prioritise what makes for actually efficient transport, and which most people will use, and not prioritise inefficient transports that only a few enthusiasts are using.
Yeah it is total garbage. Even when you put in all the work to get matches and arrange dates (which takes a ton of work), it's still basically a blind date, so when you actually meet there's still only a small chance that you will actually match.
And you always get worse matches, as a man, through the apps compared to real life. You will pay a price for that convenience of swiping.
There's an increased risk for women when they let men bypass that filter of being sociable and brave enough to befriend people in real life social situations.
If a woman can already go to a bar and easily pick out a guy, and easily judge the men, why would they use a dating app? It only makes sense if they somehow would get better matches there, so the men will have to lower their standards as a result of that convenience.
I just see online dating, and classified ads in the paper before that, as a way for people who don't fit the social norm to meet. And that's fine. But I don't see any reason for everyone to start doing that, and people who are normally sociable will just have a worse experience.