many people in the comments seem to take the word loser too seriously. "losing is normal". loser country = country for the people winner country = country for the rich
flobb91 Well, maybe he just used the wrong semantics, maybe he just related a word with very strong connotations in a topic that does not fit. In my opinion, he should have used different words for his analogy/examples, and not use these words and then making us look like confused, crazy lunatics for not understanding his not very precise comparison.
I think many people in the comment section didn't get the real meaning behind the video. They, so beautifully described the economic psychology that prevails in the mentioned "winner countries" where there exist a cut throat competition like the winning sperm, where only one can survive, though in this scenario it is the small fraction of population that can live the luxuries. Most viewers would have been shocked at the list of "loser countries" which are some of the best places to live in and to a large extent, developed. So the equation from the video is: winner countries = best for few loser countries = best for all And the best part is that there is no communist angle to any of those "LC". They openly embrace capitalism and believe in equal opportunities for all.
I thought Brazil would be first. It's certainly ahead of the US in terms of giving the middle finger to the poor. Here in Brazil, if you're poor, you work as a slave, the salary is a joke, you have no health, no education, no chance of ascending, no rights, everybody looks down on you as it was your fault and the military police beats you up and pick up your stuff from time to time.
It is what people want to think of them that is not true that finds best place to run when they have no money. It is that scenario of, "So you want us to believe there is honey in that honey pot, huh?" Hmmm "Let's go there, I am hungry"
I feel you bro. This video makes me feel very depressed. The feeling of not being capable of changing anything here is so strong that any effort to improve a service or something that goes against what the government wants (surprisingly backed up by lots of people) useless. Such a huge country should not have the power so centralized. Countries wih many people like Brazil, US, India and China might do better off decentralizing its government. Unfortunately, for each of us, we will keep struggling to survive and live at least a not completely wasted life sustaining the "winners'" luxuries.
Well you're a minority in that thought. Any discussion on independence of Regions or states or at least a different federative pact triggers a mindless accusation of racism or eugenics on over 90% of Brazilians on the Internet. I believe we could do a lot better if we acted as small independent regions in a confederacy, like it happens in the EU or at least if we gave regions more legal and fiscal autonomy, like in the US. Anything but a virtual Aristocracy with the court in Brasilia plundering the states and giving back inneffective services.
fuck yeah! that is why you see some peeps in this country missing teeth and poor as fuck, but still insisting that universal health care is a bad idea.
Intelligent Dating Exactly, hence why Trump is our President. Somehow Americans identify themselves with him even though he is nothing like us. They claim he wasnt part of the establishment even though its clear he is.
Unfortunately a million $/£ doesnt bring the security it once did. Nowadays its not even enough to pay off your mortgage in many areas. However once youve made your first million making the second one is alot easier!. Cold comfort i know but its better than nothing
Why does the [american] far right always resort to name calling when presented with different ideas?? Always consider there's a chance you might be wrong, and analise ideas that oppose your own, if you were right after all you'll easily find the incongruences. You will live a much happy and productive life
It's very interesting how all the "loser" countries include countries with a high rate of happiness, and "winner" countries have an increasing trend in suicide. I'm probably just in a dark place trying to rationalize my feelings though.
Jiac While I do agree that the loser countries are also the ones that tend to be classified as the happiest ones, they're paradoxically also the ones with higher suicide rates. If memory serves me right, Finland, Denmark and The Netherlands are all very high on the list of per capita suicide. Also, I'm sorry to hear that you're in a dark place. But hey, take this with a pinch of salt from someone that is in a light place; all the growth happens in the dark places. Stay strong!
Jiac it's not the countries that are winning or losing, some are about supporting those who are already doing well too the detriment of the rest, others are about ensuring that society is comfortable and works even for the "losers" (just used to mean "ordinary people")
Thats anecdotaly true, maybe its because the winner countries are much more competitive and have higher evnirnomental pressures on average people. its a double edged sword, Id still rather live in a "winner" country - high risk high reward.
Jiac of course i would be happier in loser countries,i don't need to do a damn shit and the success people will pay for all my creature comfort,who wouldn't be happy
I grew up in a small village in the Dominican Republic. We got our water from the river, walk to school, and practice daily fasting 😊. Also, we were able to enjoy the stars since we lacked electricity. I was happy. Then I moved to New York, USA. And learned that I was poor.
I dont think Germany or Switzerland are loser countries. They are more balanced, that is right. But competition in public and private universities can be hard, also at a professional level. They have a lot of good things, but societies, no matter which one are made for people that can stand up for themselves, adults lets say that can have a job and hold a life. THe video just puts in black and white losers and winners, I think it is more complex than that.
Thank you for the always constructive approach to the different issues There is always a loving perspective behind these “pills”, these talks are literally pills of love
Is it a coincidence that 4 of the 5 winner countries have a population of 200+ million while 4 of the 5 loser countries have a population of less than 20 million?
Judging at first sight only, yes. It is. Correlation doesn't imply causation. If you want to build a case over the argument, you have to go deeper on it and explain why a less populated country would fare better than a more populated country in regards to institutional organization, political culture and overall human development.
One reason I believe is that it becomes more difficult for politicians to be corrupted in less populated countries without being closely monitored by their electors
Good insight. I'd also point out that the "loser" countries have very homogenous populations and thus generally shared ethics. I get tired of hearing how wonderful Scandinavian countries are. I used to live in Norway, and, yeah, socialism works there because hard work and cooperation have been their core principles for centuries. And, with a low population and less diversity, they are like a tight little family that keep each other in line.
When you realize the loser countries are also known as some of the best places to live on Earth and how the winner countries are often really poor/corrupt. I like the alternative meaning of this video, really puts your definition of winner and loser to the test.
with many people involved not everyone can be a winner, most people will always be losers, if you make it so losers arent in the dirt with a boot over their head and give them decent lives then yeah, youve made the vast majority of people happy
Ok, the winners are the one percent and there is no chance you will ever get there, life is what you make of it. I f you wanna be happy study, get a degree and build a happy family and have nice memories, cause at the end even if you have all that money it won't be what you take to the grave, btw youre a loser
The achievements of children of 'losers' are more rewarding. How can one ever be truly satisfied by accomplishments bought with the wealth of their parents. If losers become winners that's success, if winners win it's expected so they must win more. -Thoughts of comfort for my fellow losers.
It's remarkable. English is not my mother tongue, but the word "loser" is branding its way in my mind. Even if I understand that losers are people and winners are rich and rare.
Winners or Losers are determined relatively. It does not really matter how much society advances in general and for everybody as a baseline, the relative differences remain. It is even so that in loser countries the general advance is higher in total because more people benefit. This is where the term Gross National Happiness comes from. So the people who work 70 hours a week are losers. They will always be so, with or without iphones.
Nope, you're just wrong. Countries, where the "winners" live the best, are also the ones where the "losers" live the best. Fyi, the Netherlands has the most wealth inequality in the world
I'm glad you understand how crappy certain governments can be, which sucks cause if russia were fair for the people and they lived in peace without corruption it would be marvelous, sad.
The premise is wrong. Winners vs. losers is not a realistic description of people and their countries. It is really about libertarian vs. socialist. Libertarian countries have far more economic freedom and civil liberties then socialist countries do, however you are better off being a poor person in a socialist country because of the government provided amenities. The standard of living of the poor in socialist countries is only marginally better than the poor in libertarian countries. If you are middle class or wealthy you are better off in a libertarian country. That is the reason why American's don't move to 'loser' euro countries. In fact, it is often the other way around.
If I could speak Danish or Swedish or German I'd love to try living in one of those countries.... Americans... They aren't known for their abilities with languages are they? And the Danes and the Swedes - they often speak English very well - plus they have benefited from the superior educations provided by their 'loser' economies. Maybe that would explain your observation.
it's good for me to live in a loser country so that I do not get the idea or dream that I could be a winner but instead know my place. thanks TSOL for getting me back to the ground and telling me to just keep on whatever I'm doing because no one gives a horses ass. thumbs up
The problem is that if people don't want to be winners, society can become less productive. That's the fine line between helpful social programs and marxist policies which do not promote success. You want to help people without making them dependent completely on the government.
Andrew GTB ...oh, just like the US banking industry that's too big to fail, so poor working class taxpayers have to constantly bail them out when they intentionally crash the economy to greatly benefit the 1%...without any punishment or repayment. Was that the socialist problem you're talking about? Maybe you were referring to the extra $80 billion dollars the military will receive each year to help terrorize and steal resources from other nations...instead of reinvesting that money to help the citizens with health costs or education.
jb hann How did you infer from that statement that I support corporate welfare? I just think there's a balance that needs to be maintained between welfare and competition. The Nordic model actually isn't socialism, it's a social democracy. A complete socialist Marxist country is one where the proles seize the means of production and all that bullshit.
People with a stronger social safety net take more risks. The millennial generation is full of potential and ideas but they cannot afford to take the risks that bring the rewards, because they are debt slaves. The US operates on negative reinforcement (succeed or die) which is unhealthy and maladaptive. That kind of "motivation" is only sustainable in movies.
With regards to winners, losers and merit I think it's always worth considering how chance has played out in our lives. Nobody chooses to have cancer at a young age. Nobody chooses to grow up in an abusive household. Nobody chooses to be interested in financial analysis over fine arts, even though the sooner will far more often be profitable. Even with innovative individuals there's an element of luck. Being able to come up with a valuable idea is valuable, but in technology it's often only so long as you're the first person to do so. A state for losers is a state that reduces the effect of randomness.
Amazing vid!! I live in Canada. We are a "loser" country (mostly) that is slowly moving into the "winner" list of thanks to a few crooked Prov Premiers 🙄
I find the black and white dichotomy misleading. In many countries the majority are just in the 'middle'. If you're not Bill Gates it doesn't make you a loser.
I think it is important to start off as a "failure". Here is my perception of what a failure is: A person who isn't afraid of making mistakes, and isn't afraid of not getting the best treatment at the start of their "success". So, in that regard... are you a failure?
so yesterday Vox uploaded a video on kinda the same topic, the inequality problem im the U.S. today, I studied the exact same thing in my economics class, and we saw a whole movie about it. Now, TSOL uploads this video? maybe, I should buy a lottery ticket.. (oh, and I live in Denmark :D)
This implies that the "winners" and "losers" have conflicting interests most, yet alone all of the time. Everybody gains from the "winners" achievements. It's also quite absurd to group communist party ruled China and the US together as "countries for winners" whatever that's supposed to be and Switzerland, a country that rejected universal basic income and the minimum wage as a country for losers.
"Everybody gains from the "winners" achievements" - oh really? what do poor people gain from CEOs driving Porsches and having mutliple yachts and holiday residences?
there is nothing wrong with CEOs in general - most organisations need some sort of leadership and with that responsibility comes a claim to earn more than the average worker. but there is no way to justify the fact that the CEOs of some big companies earn more than 1000 times as much as the average worker. do they really work 1000 times harder? is responsibility really worth that much? especially while keeping in mind that most CEOs even receive a huge check when they get fired and don't have to take responsibility for their work anymore at that point. and do they really need all those yachts and porsches? i doubt it. edit: and you avoided my question and started some whataboutism. so let me ask again: how does the average worker from the CEO's company profit from anything if the CEO spends his millions on big houses and expensive cars? it has been proven again and again that "trickle-down economics" don't work - all they do is make the rich even richer.
Ah...the true beauty of unregulated capitalism that's completely controlled by the ruling plutocrats. And their motto is... _Privatize profits, socialize costs_ It's almost as if people want to be enslaved and will gladly hand over control to the wealthy. Especially if it hurts their fellow citizens, because _the neighbor cannot be better off than me_ ...mentality is widespread throughout the states.
Graham Stewart Socialized debt is caused by government bailing banks out with taxpayer money, otherwise known as corporate welfare. Which is the exact opposite of free market. Gone are the day days of free market USA, tragically, welcome to Bush and Obama’s America.
jb hann Regulated capitalism that’s completely controlled by the ruling plutocrats. Monopolies need government to regulated capitalism to stop competition, unregulated capitalism would end their monopoly, so they turn to the government to regulate competition out. Just as FDR did with his New Deal that protected monopolies.
Amazing how many people are willfully misunderstanding this piece. The creators are highlighting a psychological trait that can cause people to make poor decisions on certain subjects. The proposed solution is personal research and rationality. The terms 'winner and loser' are not being used because the author enjoys using them, but because they are all too common and speak to our cultural and psychological state. Democracy is not being attacked, communism is not being proposed, they don't need a history lesson and they are not actually themselves equating wealth with success, or vice versa.
where do they get this data, 99% of U.S. population live in poverty (under $2k per year)? That is pure nonsense. Fery few people in Western countries can be justly classified as "losers". If you make enough money to provide food and shelter for yourself, you're definitely NOT a loser; even more so if you can support a family with children! I don't personally care if someone is extremely wealthy or not. However what I DO care about, is large corporations control much of the economy, thus making it much more difficult for an average citizen to start their own business and compete with corporations in the same industries. In my ideal world, starting a reasonably profitable small business shouldn't be much harder than getting a job.
"99% of U.S. population live in poverty (under $2k per year)" They didn't say that. Firstly, they're talking about odds. Secondly, it's $200k, not $2k.
I stand corrected, it is $200,000 per annum. But that is AMPLE money, nearly anywhere in the U.S. (with a few exceptions perhaps some parts of Manhattan etc) Why would they show a dilapidated shack while discussing a 200k income??
Mark Rcca god you are very dense are't you? They mean that it is ridiculous that any one under 200k which is almost every class but rich, are getting all the benefits when the amount of rich people only falls under 1 percent of the population. Sorry but you gotta pay more attention and make more critical assessments.
Interesting discussion. I agree that societies should try to be more well balanced in terms of dealing with social differences, but if the incentives for succeeding professionally are hardly attacked, individual effort can be discouraged. It can cause considerable damage in a long term.
Noble knight if you have a decent phone, computer or other device with access to internet and time to watch and comment this video, you are probably not a loser
Making losing nicer also makes it harder for people to win or even attempt it. There needs to be consequences for actions, but the consequences can't be so bad that they discorage winning. It's a balancing act and considering the fact that most people in the US are still in the top 1% of the world, I'd say we're doing pretty well.
This video is annoying, not only because it is a political opinion passed off as a societal self-help video, but because I don't think the creators of it are as daft as the simplified argument they put forth. Saying people should constantly vote pro-'loser' because it's the immediate self-benefiting option is ignorant of the history of many pro-loser societies throughout history - or in 2017 in many cases if you look outside the video's handpicked, Europe-only 5. Regarding the apparent premise that it is illogical to vote for winners when you're likely to be a 'loser': if we're going to make a case about the personal logic of it all, I vote for pro-winner policies because I think winning should be incentivised. Even though I have aged and slowly grown to accept that I will always be a 'mere' above-average joe, I think pro-winner policies are what is just. In other words, if I was tasked with creating policies for another planet that I was not a part of, and thus where I had no skin in the game, I would generally enact pro-winner policies. This is because, in short - and rolling with the simplicities of winners vs losers - I think winning should be encouraged, not losing. Then, when I vote for policies on my own planet, I think it's illogical for me to change that line of thinking just because I may personally, immediately benefit from pro-loser policies in the short term. Not everybody has to vote in their own immediate interests if they're interested in the overall logicality of the system. The video also ignores that countries are not closed systems only for their inhabitants, but rather global players that people can choose to participate in and contribute to. Pro-winner policies attract winning talent. The top 3 winner countries that this video derides: USA, UK, China. The first 3 countries any highly successful person in the world considers as a place to maximize their career potential: USA, UK, China. Not everybody succeeds, and hyper-competitiveness can fatigue. But interpreting that reality as "I shouldn't even try" is akin to not stepping on the field because you've already accepted defeat. More than anything, I am at least glad that societies of both types exist, because I don't expect everybody to share my opinions. I'm sure feeling stepped on in New York sucks for some as much as feeling suffocated in Copenhagen sucks for others.
The video is not saying "we shouldn't even try" (I use quotation marks because I am quoting) . Rather is is suggesting that we should focus our trying on providing the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.
The fact of the matter is that Germanic peoples have historically organised themselves in a manner distinct from the Anglo-Saxons. Germanic peoples have always been far more egalitarian than any other European societies.
Please, SOL! I'm really curious about how you guys measured and pointed the 5 winner countries. living in brazil, I agree, but I cannot think of statistics that, related to this, make us so close to UK, USA, China... and would be really useful to know what were the parameters of your cut (to use in the debate here)
voting for a party that rewards winners as you would say, is not the same as playing the lottery. There are so many socioeconomic factors that you are willingly overlooking that it's laughable. Please stick to your usual thoughtful content and stay away from politics. Politics is a matter of opinion and yours is not better than others nor should you pretend that it is.
Philosophy is a matter of opinion too. And political-philosophy well that's a thing. Social sciences depend upon interpretation and interpretation is qualified opinion. That's life.
Geoff Smith Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but if you present your option as fact or imply that it is that's a problem. The video never presents itself as a biased opinion but rather uses the same format as the other videos which are mostly non biased and founded in reason and logic. I don't even object to most of what is said in the video. I just think it's arrogant and wrong to compare someone's choice to vote for a party that you don't agree with to the irrationally of someone who plays the lottery.
This video is founded on reason and logic too. It's just that you dislike the conclusion. That is to say that the conclusion of this video is the only possible conclusion. It is an interpretation of evidence, just like all the other videos you do not object to which are also interpretations of evidence and also subjective to a degree. No party or ideology is criticised explicitly in this video. The implication is merely that we should view the world with a realistic understanding of our expectations and not act on overly optimistic delusions that are likely to lead to disappointment in most of our lives in the long term.
In terms of culture, Mexico is very similar to Brasil. Life for tourists and rich people is awesome, but the rest of us struggle with everyday needs like healthcare and education, even food
Though this video comes from a top-down perspective(read: the "ivory tower's" epistemically-privileged eye), it's still excellent. An intelligible five minute explanation of why things, like the Gini coefficient and the Human Development Index are significant. They provide fragments of truth that help inform how we understand the world and our experiences in it*. I often find myself struggling to explain things to laypeople, so these videos are quite helpful...and reassuring to me, as a 'loser'. *not an exhaustive list of virtues
I'm sorry my country has more population than all the "losers" together, have less than 30 years of democracy, have a hard time producing wealth and only 60% of the houses have minimal sanitary conditions. I'm brazilian and didn't finish building my country, and it's harder to build than it is to mantain and share. I didn't know the problem was my "winning-is-not-for-all mentality"!! Count on me to spread the word around here and soon we'll start producing even less wealth to share.
I am from Bangladesh, country of winners. I live in a capital whose population is 20 million people and size is about 180 miles only. Public transport is horrible, the buses are always filled with people, most of the time I have to go to university standing. My university is 15 miles away from my home (as university area is pricy) I have to stand in the bus for about 7 hours daily on average. I hate being in a country of winners.
Kenya is another winner country. Recently the capital wanted to ban public transport because "it's congesting the streets." Everyone was fine with people walking. In fact, anyone who protested was mocked and asked "are you worried your shoes will wear out?" I was worried about wasting time walking. Also people imagine bus lanes as confining buses to their own lanes not as keeping other cars out of the way of buses. Not that there is a single bus lane in the country.
I don't think that the description of those countries by means of the usage of the terms "countries for losers" and "countries for winners" is very accurate. The "countries for losers" make a great effort to sustain high infrastructures for the common people. I live in Switzerland and must say that it is indeed true that public transport is available for everyone, but nevertheless social differences and groups display vast differences. These differences are by no means optimal, neither are they bad. But they should be kept at a mediocre size. I would say that the "countries for losers" are in fact the winning countries.
Winners just have more distractions that are appealing to the senses from our universal aloneness, thoughts, and feelings. Once you learn to embrace those three, you realize being a loser isn't so bad! 🙌
My home county of Australia should be put into the winner category. Which sucks, because my schooling was a complete failure and I can honestly say I was taught nothing.
It's incredible how many people miss the point that the terms "winner" and "loser" in this video are ironic jabs at the concept of meritocracy. The idea that wealthy people had necessarily put more effort (therefore being "winners"), and poor/middle class people are lazy or necessarily had put less effort in their life (therefore being "losers"). Making a "country for losers" isn't about rewarding lazyness or discouraging above average productivity. In fact, i'd say it incentivizes productivity even more: Do you think an average citizen has more chances of developing their abilities and take risks to improve their own lives (or to help/evolve their community) in a poor environment where they have to use most of their time to struggle to survive with some dignity in the long term, or in an environment where the basic needs like housing, transportation, education, etc are guaranteed to work equally well for the majority of the population and they can have some form of safety net?
Problem is that to guarantee those kind of public structures and a social net you have to spend a lot of money, and that money will be obtained only if people have an incentive to work. If the taxes are too high, the rich people will 1. Stop working 2. Flee the country. Only the "losers" will benefit. Therefore, in the long term everything will go to ruin because nobody wants to work for others for free and without counterpart. But by that tome, the government will forbid all opposition, and will claim the country is going perfectly right and we need even more public structures. And when people will want to be lazy, the governement will finally show its true colors: it will force you to work by brute strength. Those countries, and im living in one, can only hold if you have a coherent patriotic hard working group, and a state that is here to give a second chance, not to make you live a the expense of others.
Those 2 terms ("winners" and "losers") strike me as very ill defined and subjective, so entertaining philosophical thoughts without explaining your definitions of these terms first, leads to many not understanding what you want to say.
You seem to be suggesting that the comforts of the finical "winners" is provided for by the government who gives them special treatment over the "losers"... I would suggest that the "Winners" get these things because they can pay for them and that the people or companies that provide the winners these comforts or special treatment are doing so with the goal of separating the "winners" from their money and with a intended end of becoming "winners" themselves.
That's true but that's just business. That's not what the video was about. As regards special treatment yes, that's true. But the video doesn't talk about 'getting things' . If one country taxes high earners 55% and another 53% then yes, comparatively the second country provides special treatment to its high earners. It's a sliding scale as with most things. To make the argument that winners can buy things because they can pay for them is circular and misses the point of the video in my opinion anyway.
This is a very true video, but it would be a better message for the masses, as I think most of the school of life audience is well aware of this reality, as in perhaps more so than other video topics.
Having money often means losing your free time, or doing things you hate. The people who earn a modest living, but are content or doing something that they enjoy or something that still gives them a relatively balanced life are the true winners. Everyone else is basically a slave to the system.
I live in a rich country according to your theory surrounded by millions of poor people and a bunch multimillionaire who wish to become more rich and make poor difficult to sustain...
I'm an unusual Norwegian in the sense that I'd rather live in the US, where the consequences of failure would be greater and the urge and rewards for winning higher. I can't stand the way in which we reward people for being losers and punish people who are high achievers. It's disgusting for me to see the most brilliant, beautiful, strong and competent people of my country cower down and be ashamed of their brilliance, while the losers are encouraged to shame them.
many people in the comments seem to take the word loser too seriously. "losing is normal".
loser country = country for the people
winner country = country for the rich
Thanks for understanding.
flobb91 exactly i think the point
finally someone got the point 👌🏼
Unfortunately some people are just too damn dumb to get that
flobb91 Well, maybe he just used the wrong semantics, maybe he just related a word with very strong connotations in a topic that does not fit. In my opinion, he should have used different words for his analogy/examples, and not use these words and then making us look like confused, crazy lunatics for not understanding his not very precise comparison.
The "winner" societies are based on greed and self interest while the "loser" societies are based on solidarity and compassion.
And institutionalized mediocrity
Lol you guys are on copium
I think many people in the comment section didn't get the real meaning behind the video. They, so beautifully described the economic psychology that prevails in the mentioned "winner countries" where there exist a cut throat competition like the winning sperm, where only one can survive, though in this scenario it is the small fraction of population that can live the luxuries. Most viewers would have been shocked at the list of "loser countries" which are some of the best places to live in and to a large extent, developed. So the equation from the video is:
winner countries = best for few
loser countries = best for all
And the best part is that there is no communist angle to any of those "LC". They openly embrace capitalism and believe in equal opportunities for all.
Really, I think everybody got what the video was trying to say.
video literally speaks of redistributing wealth.
Vishesh Sharma The video was perfect, these commenters just simply didn't finish it. ☺
İ agree with you
Vishesh Sharma, you summed it up very well!
As a Brazilian, thanks a lot for this video. You described our situation with an acute accuracy.
I thought Brazil would be first. It's certainly ahead of the US in terms of giving the middle finger to the poor.
Here in Brazil, if you're poor, you work as a slave, the salary is a joke, you have no health, no education, no chance of ascending, no rights, everybody looks down on you as it was your fault and the military police beats you up and pick up your stuff from time to time.
It is what people want to think of them that is not true that finds best place to run when they have no money. It is that scenario of, "So you want us to believe there is honey in that honey pot, huh?" Hmmm "Let's go there, I am hungry"
I feel you bro. This video makes me feel very depressed. The feeling of not being capable of changing anything here is so strong that any effort to improve a service or something that goes against what the government wants (surprisingly backed up by lots of people) useless. Such a huge country should not have the power so centralized. Countries wih many people like Brazil, US, India and China might do better off decentralizing its government.
Unfortunately, for each of us, we will keep struggling to survive and live at least a not completely wasted life sustaining the "winners'" luxuries.
Well you're a minority in that thought. Any discussion on independence of Regions or states or at least a different federative pact triggers a mindless accusation of racism or eugenics on over 90% of Brazilians on the Internet. I believe we could do a lot better if we acted as small independent regions in a confederacy, like it happens in the EU or at least if we gave regions more legal and fiscal autonomy, like in the US. Anything but a virtual Aristocracy with the court in Brasilia plundering the states and giving back inneffective services.
You kinda missed the point
It's crazy how many people COMPLETELY miss the point of the video. Great video!
fuck yeah! that is why you see some peeps in this country missing teeth and poor as fuck, but still insisting that universal health care is a bad idea.
In this crazy world your channel is a narrow window of hope for me.
Nearly everyone in the 'winner' countries secretly believe they are temporarily poor millionaires...
I need to make a video on this.
Intelligent Dating Exactly, hence why Trump is our President. Somehow Americans identify themselves with him even though he is nothing like us. They claim he wasnt part of the establishment even though its clear he is.
Intelligent Dating ,lol
An unpersuasive argument for socialism.
All hail to Medusa nothing quite like an argument over what the establishment is.
Unfortunately a million $/£ doesnt bring the security it once did. Nowadays its not even enough to pay off your mortgage in many areas. However once youve made your first million making the second one is alot easier!. Cold comfort i know but its better than nothing
Why does the [american] far right always resort to name calling when presented with different ideas??
Always consider there's a chance you might be wrong, and analise ideas that oppose your own, if you were right after all you'll easily find the incongruences.
You will live a much happy and productive life
It's very interesting how all the "loser" countries include countries with a high rate of happiness, and "winner" countries have an increasing trend in suicide. I'm probably just in a dark place trying to rationalize my feelings though.
Jiac While I do agree that the loser countries are also the ones that tend to be classified as the happiest ones, they're paradoxically also the ones with higher suicide rates. If memory serves me right, Finland, Denmark and The Netherlands are all very high on the list of per capita suicide.
Also, I'm sorry to hear that you're in a dark place. But hey, take this with a pinch of salt from someone that is in a light place; all the growth happens in the dark places. Stay strong!
Jiac it's not the countries that are winning or losing, some are about supporting those who are already doing well too the detriment of the rest, others are about ensuring that society is comfortable and works even for the "losers" (just used to mean "ordinary people")
LegitimateEU I bet depression and suicide aren't exactly helped by the cold and dark.
Thats anecdotaly true, maybe its because the winner countries are much more competitive and have higher evnirnomental pressures on average people. its a double edged sword, Id still rather live in a "winner" country - high risk high reward.
Jiac of course i would be happier in loser countries,i don't need to do a damn shit and the success people will pay for all my creature comfort,who wouldn't be happy
I'm a loser!
not for long with the quality of those videos you make
+1 sub
+BanditRants love your videos dude
Me too!
+
I'm rarely as proud of being a Danish citizen as I am now.
you must be a loser
This is absolutely brilliant and ingenious approach to the subject of inequality. Thank you!!
I grew up in a small village in the Dominican Republic. We got our water from the river, walk to school, and practice daily fasting 😊. Also, we were able to enjoy the stars since we lacked electricity. I was happy. Then I moved to New York, USA. And learned that I was poor.
I liked the combination of real world politics and philosophy! Good video!
Perhaps the most brutally honest and true video yet. Keep up the good work.
Amazing video! I'm living in Brazil and this video makes me think over about my country and relative position on society. Thank you so much.
Being someone who moved from Brazil to Denmark I couldn't agree more
Superficial vs realistic.
I dont think Germany or Switzerland are loser countries. They are more balanced, that is right. But competition in public and private universities can be hard, also at a professional level. They have a lot of good things, but societies, no matter which one are made for people that can stand up for themselves, adults lets say that can have a job and hold a life. THe video just puts in black and white losers and winners, I think it is more complex than that.
Ironically the "loser" countries are among the most developed, clearly with higher standarts for living than the winner ones.
Thank you for the always constructive approach to the different issues
There is always a loving perspective behind these “pills”, these talks are literally pills of love
Is it a coincidence that 4 of the 5 winner countries have a population of 200+ million while 4 of the 5 loser countries have a population of less than 20 million?
interesting insight
but for example france would be "loser" and UK - "winner". They're the same population. So this does not necessarily apply.
Judging at first sight only, yes. It is. Correlation doesn't imply causation. If you want to build a case over the argument, you have to go deeper on it and explain why a less populated country would fare better than a more populated country in regards to institutional organization, political culture and overall human development.
One reason I believe is that it becomes more difficult for politicians to be corrupted in less populated countries without being closely monitored by their electors
Good insight. I'd also point out that the "loser" countries have very homogenous populations and thus generally shared ethics. I get tired of hearing how wonderful Scandinavian countries are. I used to live in Norway, and, yeah, socialism works there because hard work and cooperation have been their core principles for centuries. And, with a low population and less diversity, they are like a tight little family that keep each other in line.
Never worked a day in my life and have everything I need or want. Life is beautiful. Thank you Switzerland.
sounds like a very sustainable model if you ask me. LOL
Winners literally hate democracy. I want to be a looser for the rest of my life!
don't worry no one will ever take that from you
When you realize the loser countries are also known as some of the best places to live on Earth and how the winner countries are often really poor/corrupt. I like the alternative meaning of this video, really puts your definition of winner and loser to the test.
with many people involved not everyone can be a winner, most people will always be losers, if you make it so losers arent in the dirt with a boot over their head and give them decent lives then yeah, youve made the vast majority of people happy
My brain is still heavily biased toward "winner countries" even after watching this video. Help.
Ok, the winners are the one percent and there is no chance you will ever get there, life is what you make of it. I f you wanna be happy study, get a degree and build a happy family and have nice memories, cause at the end even if you have all that money it won't be what you take to the grave, btw youre a loser
It sure helps if you start high on the list
Gin "there's no chance you will ever get there" but "life is what you make it" Nice contradiction there buddy
it's a good strategy to stay in winner countries if you are in the top say 25% of your hierarchy.
The achievements of children of 'losers' are more rewarding. How can one ever be truly satisfied by accomplishments bought with the wealth of their parents. If losers become winners that's success, if winners win it's expected so they must win more. -Thoughts of comfort for my fellow losers.
This is my political view point in a nut shell
One of the better videos you’ve come out with. Very thought provoking and constructive. Bravo!
Basically shows that socialism and capitalism work well together. Thank you Scandinavian countries for proving this 😊
It's remarkable. English is not my mother tongue, but the word "loser" is branding its way in my mind. Even if I understand that losers are people and winners are rich and rare.
The School of Life always on point. Great animation and profound ideas. Thank you for sharing!
Winners or Losers are determined relatively. It does not really matter how much society advances in general and for everybody as a baseline, the relative differences remain. It is even so that in loser countries the general advance is higher in total because more people benefit. This is where the term Gross National Happiness comes from. So the people who work 70 hours a week are losers. They will always be so, with or without iphones.
Fozza217G and go bankrupt when their kids get cancer. Shut up with the iPhone bs. Ever tried to get a job without a smarphone? Jesus.
A very nice explanation on why some countries do better in serving their citizens.
the titel should have been: Countries for "winners"; countries for "losers", that way i think less people would miss the point of the video ;)
Good idea!
Fun fact: Alain de Botton, the creator of School of Life was born in the looser country of Switzerland and moved to the winner country of UK
I'm a loser..."AND I'M PROUD!!!""
Nope, you're just wrong. Countries, where the "winners" live the best, are also the ones where the "losers" live the best. Fyi, the Netherlands has the most wealth inequality in the world
it is so funny to watch this from the Russia. Where the KGB (secret police) is ruling the country.
How it is relevant?
Ты из психушки?
I'm glad you understand how crappy certain governments can be, which sucks cause if russia were fair for the people and they lived in peace without corruption it would be marvelous, sad.
Are you allowed to even comment that.
either you are reckless or brave
School of Life, thanks a lot!!
Such awesome, informative video, telling the whole truth.
And yes, Brazil is a country for winners ONLY, unfortunately.
The premise is wrong. Winners vs. losers is not a realistic description of people and their countries. It is really about libertarian vs. socialist. Libertarian countries have far more economic freedom and civil liberties then socialist countries do, however you are better off being a poor person in a socialist country because of the government provided amenities. The standard of living of the poor in socialist countries is only marginally better than the poor in libertarian countries. If you are middle class or wealthy you are better off in a libertarian country. That is the reason why American's don't move to 'loser' euro countries. In fact, it is often the other way around.
Cool Money Social democracy, not socialist country. Social democracy is even more capitalistic than socialism.
Did West Germans flood into East Germany in 1985 hoping to one day buy themselves a Trabbie?
If I could speak Danish or Swedish or German I'd love to try living in one of those countries.... Americans... They aren't known for their abilities with languages are they? And the Danes and the Swedes - they often speak English very well - plus they have benefited from the superior educations provided by their 'loser' economies. Maybe that would explain your observation.
Wouldn't the combination of civil liberties and social amenities be nice?
Cool Money Exactly
it's good for me to live in a loser country so that I do not get the idea or dream that I could be a winner but instead know my place.
thanks TSOL for getting me back to the ground and telling me to just keep on whatever I'm doing because no one gives a horses ass.
thumbs up
The problem is that if people don't want to be winners, society can become less productive. That's the fine line between helpful social programs and marxist policies which do not promote success. You want to help people without making them dependent completely on the government.
Andrew GTB ...oh, just like the US banking industry that's too big to fail, so poor working class taxpayers have to constantly bail them out when they intentionally crash the economy to greatly benefit the 1%...without any punishment or repayment.
Was that the socialist problem you're talking about?
Maybe you were referring to the extra $80 billion dollars the military will receive each year to help terrorize and steal resources from other nations...instead of reinvesting that money to help the citizens with health costs or education.
jb hann How did you infer from that statement that I support corporate welfare? I just think there's a balance that needs to be maintained between welfare and competition. The Nordic model actually isn't socialism, it's a social democracy. A complete socialist Marxist country is one where the proles seize the means of production and all that bullshit.
People with a stronger social safety net take more risks. The millennial generation is full of potential and ideas but they cannot afford to take the risks that bring the rewards, because they are debt slaves. The US operates on negative reinforcement (succeed or die) which is unhealthy and maladaptive. That kind of "motivation" is only sustainable in movies.
With regards to winners, losers and merit I think it's always worth considering how chance has played out in our lives.
Nobody chooses to have cancer at a young age.
Nobody chooses to grow up in an abusive household.
Nobody chooses to be interested in financial analysis over fine arts, even though the sooner will far more often be profitable.
Even with innovative individuals there's an element of luck. Being able to come up with a valuable idea is valuable, but in technology it's often only so long as you're the first person to do so. A state for losers is a state that reduces the effect of randomness.
Can you spot the lefty in this video?
I can spot a sore right-winger...
Gin wow, go right to politics. I was referring to the left handed person.
Amazing vid!! I live in Canada. We are a "loser" country (mostly) that is slowly moving into the "winner" list of thanks to a few crooked Prov Premiers 🙄
This is so misleading
???
Care to elaborate?
I find the black and white dichotomy misleading. In many countries the majority are just in the 'middle'. If you're not Bill Gates it doesn't make you a loser.
Fadi, dude, you are missing the irony in the video.
Fadi Al Salti The US caters to Bill Gates more than John Doe though. Therefore the country is a winner.
I really wish quality and valuable videos like these got more exposure.
I smell potatoes
I think it is important to start off as a "failure". Here is my perception of what a failure is:
A person who isn't afraid of making mistakes, and isn't afraid of not getting the best treatment at the start of their "success".
So, in that regard... are you a failure?
First, i'm the winners...
so yesterday Vox uploaded a video on kinda the same topic, the inequality problem im the U.S. today, I studied the exact same thing in my economics class, and we saw a whole movie about it. Now, TSOL uploads this video? maybe, I should buy a lottery ticket.. (oh, and I live in Denmark :D)
This implies that the "winners" and "losers" have conflicting interests most, yet alone all of the time. Everybody gains from the "winners" achievements. It's also quite absurd to group communist party ruled China and the US together as "countries for winners" whatever that's supposed to be and Switzerland, a country that rejected universal basic income and the minimum wage as a country for losers.
"Everybody gains from the "winners" achievements" - oh really? what do poor people gain from CEOs driving Porsches and having mutliple yachts and holiday residences?
*typed on a site that wouldn't exist without any of those CEOs*
Winners' money for Porsches and yachts almost always comes from losers who like what they've created
there is nothing wrong with CEOs in general - most organisations need some sort of leadership and with that responsibility comes a claim to earn more than the average worker.
but there is no way to justify the fact that the CEOs of some big companies earn more than 1000 times as much as the average worker. do they really work 1000 times harder? is responsibility really worth that much? especially while keeping in mind that most CEOs even receive a huge check when they get fired and don't have to take responsibility for their work anymore at that point. and do they really need all those yachts and porsches? i doubt it.
edit: and you avoided my question and started some whataboutism. so let me ask again: how does the average worker from the CEO's company profit from anything if the CEO spends his millions on big houses and expensive cars? it has been proven again and again that "trickle-down economics" don't work - all they do is make the rich even richer.
If a CEO can improve the work of the 100 000 workers under him by just 1%, he has earned his pay being 1 000 times as much
You forgot Sweden and Austria
You call Denmark the "Top Loser Country" but we are also the happiest people on earth (according to many studies). So who are The real Winners here?😏
This video is just amazing! Living in a country for winners is harsh! Violence, inequality, salaries below avarage, etc (I'm talking about Brazil)...
Welfare state propaganda.
Miguel As opposed to free market USA where banks crash and the debt is socialised.
Irrelevant libertarian rant. :)
Ah...the true beauty of unregulated capitalism that's completely controlled by the ruling plutocrats. And their motto is... _Privatize profits, socialize costs_
It's almost as if people want to be enslaved and will gladly hand over control to the wealthy. Especially if it hurts their fellow citizens, because _the neighbor cannot be better off than me_ ...mentality is widespread throughout the states.
Graham Stewart Socialized debt is caused by government bailing banks out with taxpayer money, otherwise known as corporate welfare. Which is the exact opposite of free market. Gone are the day days of free market USA, tragically, welcome to Bush and Obama’s America.
jb hann Regulated capitalism that’s completely controlled by the ruling plutocrats. Monopolies need government to regulated capitalism to stop competition, unregulated capitalism would end their monopoly, so they turn to the government to regulate competition out. Just as FDR did with his New Deal that protected monopolies.
Amazing how many people are willfully misunderstanding this piece. The creators are highlighting a psychological trait that can cause people to make poor decisions on certain subjects. The proposed solution is personal research and rationality. The terms 'winner and loser' are not being used because the author enjoys using them, but because they are all too common and speak to our cultural and psychological state. Democracy is not being attacked, communism is not being proposed, they don't need a history lesson and they are not actually themselves equating wealth with success, or vice versa.
Thank you!
where do they get this data, 99% of U.S. population live in poverty (under $2k per year)? That is pure nonsense. Fery few people in Western countries can be justly classified as "losers". If you make enough money to provide food and shelter for yourself, you're definitely NOT a loser; even more so if you can support a family with children!
I don't personally care if someone is extremely wealthy or not. However what I DO care about, is large corporations control much of the economy, thus making it much more difficult for an average citizen to start their own business and compete with corporations in the same industries. In my ideal world, starting a reasonably profitable small business shouldn't be much harder than getting a job.
Mark Rcca 200k not 2k
"99% of U.S. population live in poverty (under $2k per year)"
They didn't say that. Firstly, they're talking about odds. Secondly, it's $200k, not $2k.
I stand corrected, it is $200,000 per annum. But that is AMPLE money, nearly anywhere in the U.S. (with a few exceptions perhaps some parts of Manhattan etc) Why would they show a dilapidated shack while discussing a 200k income??
Mark Rcca
Yeah, I had to rewind to hear 200k correctly.
Mark Rcca god you are very dense are't you? They mean that it is ridiculous that any one under 200k which is almost every class but rich, are getting all the benefits when the amount of rich people only falls under 1 percent of the population. Sorry but you gotta pay more attention and make more critical assessments.
Interesting discussion. I agree that societies should try to be more well balanced in terms of dealing with social differences, but if the incentives for succeeding professionally are hardly attacked, individual effort can be discouraged. It can cause considerable damage in a long term.
is there any case where we see this happen? ever?
I detect socialist propaganda here
Нил Иванов How is it propaganda? Which part of this video was biased or untrue?
It is about social democracy rather than socialism, get the difference... social democracy is best! baam
socialist critiques? yes, among others. propaganda? only if you allow genuine facts to be part of your definition of the word.
Noble knight if you have a decent phone, computer or other device with access to internet and time to watch and comment this video, you are probably not a loser
Ron Walsh not much of factual evidence or proof in this particular video
Making losing nicer also makes it harder for people to win or even attempt it. There needs to be consequences for actions, but the consequences can't be so bad that they discorage winning. It's a balancing act and considering the fact that most people in the US are still in the top 1% of the world, I'd say we're doing pretty well.
in the to 1%?
top what? on what list? list of what? what are they best at being?
This video is annoying, not only because it is a political opinion passed off as a societal self-help video, but because I don't think the creators of it are as daft as the simplified argument they put forth. Saying people should constantly vote pro-'loser' because it's the immediate self-benefiting option is ignorant of the history of many pro-loser societies throughout history - or in 2017 in many cases if you look outside the video's handpicked, Europe-only 5. Regarding the apparent premise that it is illogical to vote for winners when you're likely to be a 'loser': if we're going to make a case about the personal logic of it all, I vote for pro-winner policies because I think winning should be incentivised. Even though I have aged and slowly grown to accept that I will always be a 'mere' above-average joe, I think pro-winner policies are what is just. In other words, if I was tasked with creating policies for another planet that I was not a part of, and thus where I had no skin in the game, I would generally enact pro-winner policies. This is because, in short - and rolling with the simplicities of winners vs losers - I think winning should be encouraged, not losing. Then, when I vote for policies on my own planet, I think it's illogical for me to change that line of thinking just because I may personally, immediately benefit from pro-loser policies in the short term. Not everybody has to vote in their own immediate interests if they're interested in the overall logicality of the system.
The video also ignores that countries are not closed systems only for their inhabitants, but rather global players that people can choose to participate in and contribute to. Pro-winner policies attract winning talent. The top 3 winner countries that this video derides: USA, UK, China. The first 3 countries any highly successful person in the world considers as a place to maximize their career potential: USA, UK, China. Not everybody succeeds, and hyper-competitiveness can fatigue. But interpreting that reality as "I shouldn't even try" is akin to not stepping on the field because you've already accepted defeat. More than anything, I am at least glad that societies of both types exist, because I don't expect everybody to share my opinions. I'm sure feeling stepped on in New York sucks for some as much as feeling suffocated in Copenhagen sucks for others.
The video is not saying "we shouldn't even try" (I use quotation marks because I am quoting) . Rather is is suggesting that we should focus our trying on providing the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.
The fact of the matter is that Germanic peoples have historically organised themselves in a manner distinct from the Anglo-Saxons. Germanic peoples have always been far more egalitarian than any other European societies.
Focus cry harder
Where is Singapore???? We love winners here! The old in our society will work till they DIE!
Like and comment below if you're a winner!!
Me!
winner checking in
yess
We are losers.
winner winner chicken dinner
Please, SOL! I'm really curious about how you guys measured and pointed the 5 winner countries. living in brazil, I agree, but I cannot think of statistics that, related to this, make us so close to UK, USA, China... and would be really useful to know what were the parameters of your cut (to use in the debate here)
voting for a party that rewards winners as you would say, is not the same as playing the lottery. There are so many socioeconomic factors that you are willingly overlooking that it's laughable. Please stick to your usual thoughtful content and stay away from politics. Politics is a matter of opinion and yours is not better than others nor should you pretend that it is.
Philosophy is a matter of opinion too. And political-philosophy well that's a thing. Social sciences depend upon interpretation and interpretation is qualified opinion. That's life.
Geoff Smith Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but if you present your option as fact or imply that it is that's a problem. The video never presents itself as a biased opinion but rather uses the same format as the other videos which are mostly non biased and founded in reason and logic. I don't even object to most of what is said in the video. I just think it's arrogant and wrong to compare someone's choice to vote for a party that you don't agree with to the irrationally of someone who plays the lottery.
This video is founded on reason and logic too. It's just that you dislike the conclusion. That is to say that the conclusion of this video is the only possible conclusion. It is an interpretation of evidence, just like all the other videos you do not object to which are also interpretations of evidence and also subjective to a degree. No party or ideology is criticised explicitly in this video. The implication is merely that we should view the world with a realistic understanding of our expectations and not act on overly optimistic delusions that are likely to lead to disappointment in most of our lives in the long term.
The illustrations of the loser countries were brilliant! xD
Glad I'm from middle Europe (Germany & Switzerland) and love the Netherlands and Scandinavians too
The implication is that we are all losers. But we can make winning choices to uplift the semantic definition of being one!
In terms of culture, Mexico is very similar to Brasil. Life for tourists and rich people is awesome, but the rest of us struggle with everyday needs like healthcare and education, even food
Interesting that at 4:08 the "loser" side of the diptych, of a bicyclist and train, is actually a photo made in the Silicon Valley.
Though this video comes from a top-down perspective(read: the "ivory tower's" epistemically-privileged eye), it's still excellent. An intelligible five minute explanation of why things, like the Gini coefficient and the Human Development Index are significant. They provide fragments of truth that help inform how we understand the world and our experiences in it*. I often find myself struggling to explain things to laypeople, so these videos are quite helpful...and reassuring to me, as a 'loser'.
*not an exhaustive list of virtues
I'm sorry my country has more population than all the "losers" together, have less than 30 years of democracy, have a hard time producing wealth and only 60% of the houses have minimal sanitary conditions.
I'm brazilian and didn't finish building my country, and it's harder to build than it is to mantain and share. I didn't know the problem was my "winning-is-not-for-all mentality"!! Count on me to spread the word around here and soon we'll start producing even less wealth to share.
I am from Bangladesh, country of winners. I live in a capital whose population is 20 million people and size is about 180 miles only. Public transport is horrible, the buses are always filled with people, most of the time I have to go to university standing. My university is 15 miles away from my home (as university area is pricy) I have to stand in the bus for about 7 hours daily on average. I hate being in a country of winners.
I didn't expect much from this video but oh God I'm so happy I watched this. Liking school of life more these days
Kenya is another winner country. Recently the capital wanted to ban public transport because "it's congesting the streets." Everyone was fine with people walking. In fact, anyone who protested was mocked and asked "are you worried your shoes will wear out?" I was worried about wasting time walking. Also people imagine bus lanes as confining buses to their own lanes not as keeping other cars out of the way of buses. Not that there is a single bus lane in the country.
Statistics classes should be mandatory starting in jr. high. It's such an important part of media and social literacy now.
I don't think that the description of those countries by means of the usage of the terms "countries for losers" and "countries for winners" is very accurate.
The "countries for losers" make a great effort to sustain high infrastructures for the common people. I live in Switzerland and must say that it is indeed true that public transport is available for everyone, but nevertheless social differences and groups display vast differences. These differences are by no means optimal, neither are they bad. But they should be kept at a mediocre size.
I would say that the "countries for losers" are in fact the winning countries.
thats the point
Winners just have more distractions that are appealing to the senses from our universal aloneness, thoughts, and feelings. Once you learn to embrace those three, you realize being a loser isn't so bad! 🙌
Just how beautiful this videos meaning is . I am blown away !
My home county of Australia should be put into the winner category. Which sucks, because my schooling was a complete failure and I can honestly say I was taught nothing.
It's incredible how many people miss the point that the terms "winner" and "loser" in this video are ironic jabs at the concept of meritocracy. The idea that wealthy people had necessarily put more effort (therefore being "winners"), and poor/middle class people are lazy or necessarily had put less effort in their life (therefore being "losers"). Making a "country for losers" isn't about rewarding lazyness or discouraging above average productivity. In fact, i'd say it incentivizes productivity even more: Do you think an average citizen has more chances of developing their abilities and take risks to improve their own lives (or to help/evolve their community) in a poor environment where they have to use most of their time to struggle to survive with some dignity in the long term, or in an environment where the basic needs like housing, transportation, education, etc are guaranteed to work equally well for the majority of the population and they can have some form of safety net?
i could listen to this guy call me a loser for quite an enjoyable while.
Thank you for making this video, I have quit my engineering job and have bought a apartment in denmark!
theres actually a good amount of opportunity in the engineering field, pay is pretty good, i hope you dont struggle too hard with the language
Did anyone else notice that if you don't make 200k/year you live in beat up trailer?
Problem is that to guarantee those kind of public structures and a social net you have to spend a lot of money, and that money will be obtained only if people have an incentive to work. If the taxes are too high, the rich people will 1. Stop working 2. Flee the country. Only the "losers" will benefit. Therefore, in the long term everything will go to ruin because nobody wants to work for others for free and without counterpart. But by that tome, the government will forbid all opposition, and will claim the country is going perfectly right and we need even more public structures. And when people will want to be lazy, the governement will finally show its true colors: it will force you to work by brute strength. Those countries, and im living in one, can only hold if you have a coherent patriotic hard working group, and a state that is here to give a second chance, not to make you live a the expense of others.
Those 2 terms ("winners" and "losers") strike me as very ill defined and subjective, so entertaining philosophical thoughts without explaining your definitions of these terms first, leads to many not understanding what you want to say.
There is no such thing as winning or losing when it comes to the game of life. Everyone is equally unimportant
I'm okay with being a loser. I only feel like a winner when I dive into my grandiose delusions.
I don't think earning anything close to 200,000 would have people being frugal
Netherlands / Denamrk are such nice places to live, if I had to choose I'd move there indefinitely
You seem to be suggesting that the comforts of the finical "winners" is provided for by the government who gives them special treatment over the "losers"... I would suggest that the "Winners" get these things because they can pay for them and that the people or companies that provide the winners these comforts or special treatment are doing so with the goal of separating the "winners" from their money and with a intended end of becoming "winners" themselves.
That's true but that's just business. That's not what the video was about. As regards special treatment yes, that's true. But the video doesn't talk about 'getting things' . If one country taxes high earners 55% and another 53% then yes, comparatively the second country provides special treatment to its high earners. It's a sliding scale as with most things. To make the argument that winners can buy things because they can pay for them is circular and misses the point of the video in my opinion anyway.
This is a very true video, but it would be a better message for the masses, as I think most of the school of life audience is well aware of this reality, as in perhaps more so than other video topics.
Having money often means losing your free time, or doing things you hate. The people who earn a modest living, but are content or doing something that they enjoy or something that still gives them a relatively balanced life are the true winners. Everyone else is basically a slave to the system.
Losers are those that think casting a vote every four years is the sole determination in how good their life will be.
I live in a rich country according to your theory surrounded by millions of poor people and a bunch multimillionaire who wish to become more rich and make poor difficult to sustain...
I'm an unusual Norwegian in the sense that I'd rather live in the US, where the consequences of failure would be greater and the urge and rewards for winning higher. I can't stand the way in which we reward people for being losers and punish people who are high achievers.
It's disgusting for me to see the most brilliant, beautiful, strong and competent people of my country cower down and be ashamed of their brilliance, while the losers are encouraged to shame them.
so basically you are saying "i am the type of person who would waste money and play the lottery"
This could also be called "How to Lie with Statistics" or "How to Cherrypick the Evidence"
why punish people for being normal?
Now switch "winners" and "losers" for "bourgeoisie" and "working class" and you now understand what class struggle is about.