EPTWhy South Korea is one of the unhappiest countries - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
meatbox
Australia349 Posts
| ||
|
drbrown
Sweden442 Posts
On April 02 2012 22:48 meatbox wrote: Polt studies at the most prestigious university in South Korea and still finds the time to be a pro gamer! Good Now we just need to clone Polt, that way South Korea wont have any problems. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On April 02 2012 22:48 meatbox wrote: Polt studies at the most prestigious university in South Korea and still finds the time to be a pro gamer! And how much time do you think he actually spends in classes/doing work? | ||
|
empty.bottle
685 Posts
On April 02 2012 22:49 drbrown wrote: Good Now we just need to clone Polt, that way South Korea wont have any problems. That would lead to Sc2 viewer unhappiness, since all the matches would be TvT. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On April 02 2012 22:44 Zato-1 wrote: I hope no one's taking the article at face value, because it's so full of judgment values without any shred of supporting evidence it gives me a headache. Bank deregulation and opening the stock market lead to South Korea being one of the unhappiest countries in the world? Then why has nothing of the sort happened with other developed countries which have taken similar steps? I get the article's main argument: small amounts of welfare benefits have bad consequences for the country as a whole. But without any supporting evidence other than spurious linking to the country's happiness, I call bullshit. You want to claim correlation between the two? Make a graph and list all of the OECD countries, their level of happiness and welfare spending as a percentage of GDP. Even then you wouldn't show causality. Instead, the article relies on feel-good anecdotal evidence, to reach a conclusion... the conclusion being, from a left-leaning UK newspaper, that the UK shouldn't cut welfare spending. Give me a break. Because no country was in the same position that korea was in at the end of the 1990's? He's not saying that deregulation and cutting benefits will have these consequences either, just that the consequences of them can just as well be negative as positive. Chang isn't opposed to free markets in general, but the believes that they're only for the common good (ie. economic development/progress) when there is an even playing field. I can't believe the ease with which people are dismissing a world class economist without even bothering to read a book he wrote. This is the fortune cookie version of his argument and he would not (and does not) present this argument the same way in an academic context. Deregulation and free markets at times fuck entire countries over completely. Just look at current day Mongolia, or 1990's Peru. Hell, just look at the way SK developed itself economically, free markets had nothing to do with it. That part of the 'free market' approach doesn't nearly get the attention it deserves in our current economical and political climate, where if anything is taken at face value its the myth that 'markets will solve everything'. | ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
On April 02 2012 18:22 Ectrid wrote: And that's why capitalistic systems like this work so good. You don't need any physical pressure like a whip, all you need to do is install a system were people have to life in fear and out of fear they work their asses off. I call that slavery. I'm with you in this one. "You came for us as children, while we slept Robbed us of our youth, our innocence Don't think that we've forgotten, don't think that we'll forget You, you've got a number, you've got a name You can run, you can hide but never close your eyes Beware the sands of time, they're on our side " (Revengeance - Tragedy) Let's hope that the sands of time are indeed on our side. | ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
On April 02 2012 18:22 Ectrid wrote: And that's why capitalistic systems like this work so good. You don't need any physical pressure like a whip, all you need to do is install a system were people have to life in fear and out of fear they work their asses off. I call that slavery. well that took a turn for the worse i thought this was a feel good comment on how the america is great and capitalism is good | ||
|
Nevermind86
Somalia429 Posts
My opinion is: Living in a true neoliberal country [Venezuela, but Colombia and especially in Mexico this is true] which I think the US is not because americans have welfare, quality education and a lot of social 'nets' to protect citizens, neoliberalism just like communism and any other government system needs a lot of propaganda for the people to believe it works, neoliberal propaganda includes myths like hardcore individuality, respect of your profession is only true if you earn a lot of money doing it, too much competition in the work place, the only way to live and be happy is having a ton of money and then show you how Lady Gaga did it and what not, using your time only to have succes monetarily and after years and years you finally achieve it, and then what? If it's not what you expected it's going to be pretty depressing investing all those years of study to realize that after you graduate and 'are free' your top CEO position demands 11 hours of work a day, you are old and your best years are behind and all the ladies chase you because you have money... depressing. What to do at that point give it all up? too harsh, I could see why if someone failed could commit suicide... some just enjoy the sex that comes with money but is it really that good? | ||
|
Netsky
Australia1155 Posts
On April 02 2012 22:48 meatbox wrote: Polt studies at the most prestigious university in South Korea and still finds the time to be a pro gamer! Polt hasn't been studying at all since late last year. He is on a one-year study break. http://www.aceresport.com/uk/content/88.htm It gets a bit old how people spread misinformation, like Leenock being in school etc. | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
Of course, it is a serious matter that South-Koreans are not very happy, it's just that a bursting bubble is never a reason to sustain it. LOL, the other posters made me laugh even more. On April 02 2012 21:48 NebuLoSa wrote: LOLOLOLwho was he? i googled and only found some articles but too tired to read them through since he writes in korean alot. was he a korean with alot of paranoia towards japanese or am i totally off here? this is actually quite true. don't want to start a debate about that here but obviously this has gone too far (atleast that's how most of us 'westerners' feel about it). can't be healthy in any way.. ( T-T ) Sorry guys, i'm officially ashamed of being a westerner now. I didn't know westerners were completely ignorant :') | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
It's not just these two countries. China and many Southeast Asian countries with significant East Asian influences place too much of an emphasis on hours worked and/or studied as a measure of productivity. Japan and South Korea are just the ones who took it to the farthest extremes. Compared to what I'm doing at work now in the US, many of the things that are responsible for all the extra hours are just busywork. That and the fear of being the first in the office to go home from work, so they spend a lot of time waiting for somebody else to go home first. School kids study for long hours because they are being asked to memorize all sorts of crap. A decade or so ago, I went to a Chinese school in the Philippines that had increasing numbers of Korean immigrants. You wouldn't believe how many teachers asked us to memorize stuff and used the "what if you get stuck on a deserted island" reasoning for it. When I went to the US for university, there's more of an emphasis on finding references and solving problems on open book exams. Japan's economy is in a rut because people are working too much and don't have the time to spend their money. They're just too tired to go out after work. The money doesn't circulate and they're too dependent on exports to buy the stuff they make. South Korea's heading down a similar path. | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1017 Posts
On April 02 2012 22:59 Derez wrote: Because no country was in the same position that korea was in at the end of the 1990's? He's not saying that deregulation and cutting benefits will have these consequences either, just that the consequences of them can just as well be negative as positive. Chang isn't opposed to free markets in general, but the believes that they're only for the common good (ie. economic development/progress) when there is an even playing field. I can't believe the ease with which people are dismissing a world class economist without even bothering to read a book he wrote. This is the fortune cookie version of his argument and he would not (and does not) present this argument the same way in an academic context. Deregulation and free markets at times fuck entire countries over completely. Just look at current day Mongolia, or 1990's Peru. Hell, just look at the way SK developed itself economically, free markets had nothing to do with it. That part of the 'free market' approach doesn't nearly get the attention it deserves in our current economical and political climate, where if anything is taken at face value its the myth that 'markets will solve everything'. I agree with your point that the commentator is worth respecting (though asking someone to read his book in order to respond to his newspaper article is a bit much), but current day Mongolia isn't a perfect example to back up your point: The Economist Report on Mongolia Even with a cynical view, Mongolia has a chance to do very very well out of the capitalist system. | ||
|
Sinedd
Poland7052 Posts
WHAT ?! its my DREAM just to go there ! or Japan ! let alone live in one of those.. damn.. some people just dont appreciate the awesomeness of their country ! | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Not enough welfare = more people committing suicide? So why do countries like Mexico with low safety nets have 12% of the suicide rate compared to South Korea? What a crock of crap article conjured by an anti-capitalist to push socialist agendas without using any facts to back up his argument. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10781 Posts
People sleeping while standing (if they can't sit down) was a very common sight, from rather young guys (they were more often absorbed into some handheld Iphone/TV whatever) to older ones that looked like business man.... That tells more than thousand studies about a country and it's work mentality... No, it is or should not be normal that people just "shut down" as soon as they get a little break from work because they are to tired. I don't think this correlates directly with capitalism, but it corelates with a failure in SKoreas developement which follows capitalist ideology. Let's fix it: Give the people some time to live whiteout immediatly risking poverty and they will be happier (and mroe productive/less ill... In general better off)... (Rocket Science!!) | ||
|
Nevermind86
Somalia429 Posts
On April 02 2012 23:18 Tien wrote: Not enough welfare = more people committing suicide? So why do countries like Mexico with low safety nets have 12% of the suicide rate compared to South Korea? Have you lived in Mexico?, That's why they have football and la virgen de Guadalupe for. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On April 02 2012 23:18 Tien wrote: There's like zero logic in this thread and the article. Use your head people. Not enough welfare = more people committing suicide? So why do countries like Mexico with low safety nets have 12% of the suicide rate compared to South Korea? What a crock of crap article conjured by an anti-capitalist to push socialist agendas without using any facts to back up his argument. This isn't even close to what the article is implying. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On April 02 2012 22:44 Zato-1 wrote: I hope no one's taking the article at face value, because it's so full of judgment values without any shred of supporting evidence it gives me a headache. Bank deregulation and opening the stock market lead to South Korea being one of the unhappiest countries in the world? Then why has nothing of the sort happened with other developed countries which have taken similar steps? I get the article's main argument: small amounts of welfare benefits have bad consequences for the country as a whole. But without any supporting evidence other than spurious linking to the country's happiness, I call bullshit. You want to claim correlation between the two? Make a graph and list all of the OECD countries, their level of happiness and welfare spending as a percentage of GDP. Even then you wouldn't show causality. Instead, the article relies on feel-good anecdotal evidence, to reach a conclusion... the conclusion being, from a left-leaning UK newspaper, that the UK shouldn't cut welfare spending. Give me a break. Exactly. When using his examples of why the suicide rate is higher, and applying it to other countries, it all falls apart and holds zero weight. People suiciding more in South Korea has nothing to do with how much safety net welfare the country possesses. But he managed to get an emotional response from the anti-capitalist and bleeding heart crowd, which is typical. | ||
|
TheDraken
United States640 Posts
if you ask me it's more of a cultural perception thing. the country needs to realize people are more than their test scores. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6243 Posts
On April 02 2012 22:59 Derez wrote: Because no country was in the same position that korea was in at the end of the 1990's? He's not saying that deregulation and cutting benefits will have these consequences either, just that the consequences of them can just as well be negative as positive. Chang isn't opposed to free markets in general, but the believes that they're only for the common good (ie. economic development/progress) when there is an even playing field. I can't believe the ease with which people are dismissing a world class economist without even bothering to read a book he wrote. This is the fortune cookie version of his argument and he would not (and does not) present this argument the same way in an academic context. Deregulation and free markets at times fuck entire countries over completely. Just look at current day Mongolia, or 1990's Peru. Hell, just look at the way SK developed itself economically, free markets had nothing to do with it. That part of the 'free market' approach doesn't nearly get the attention it deserves in our current economical and political climate, where if anything is taken at face value its the myth that 'markets will solve everything'. Free market is good for the world as a whole but doesn't have to be good for a country in particular. Basically you're saying your own countries growth is more important than the worlds growth. And it's not like SK is the only country to be protectionist every trade block has trade barriers and all which screw over people somewhere else in the world. | ||
| ||
