Depends what the point is. If we want to sell EVs for some goal of selling EVs that fine I guess. But it still goes back to the point of you start with the easiest 80% first.
But if we want to improve everyone’s life on this planet and the planet itself. Trying to convince people who shouldn’t own a car to buy an EV is very poor planning. It just so short sighted and consumerist for the sake of consumerism.
According to Quota its ~80% of people live in houses.
Classic 80:20 rule. Making excuses for why the most difficult 20% doesn’t work is the wrong way of thinking about it. Most of the result for least effort cones from dealing with the 80%.
What percentage of people live in apartments?
Surely those people should be taking public transport anyway not buying a car when they live downtown.
If its fun or get rich quick. Gambling.
If it’s some boring thing some adviser told you that you are sick of, that you then told your family and they are sick of it. You just going to leave it and forget about it. Then it’s investing.
Sorry could you provide evidence that people are coming over for life or death situations please? Do you not hold yourself to the same standard as others? Your comments look like misinformation from my side.
Economic migrants aren’t refugees. If you burn your passport you can claim to be a refugee. There was reports of people flying from Pakistan to north Africa destroying their passports and travelling to Europe illegally for monetary reasons, not because of life and death.
And no I’m not going to go find that for you because I have already proven my word and I’m waiting for you to do the same. If this comment and this comment alone needs proving or it will get labeled as misinformation then I’m not going to waste my time on it. If you don’t trust and and don’t want to check me, delete it.
Actually countries that have more equality or have increased their equality over time shows that there is an increase in gender divide through certain jobs.
So no it isn’t 50:50.
Lack of evidence isn’t misinformation. You being ignorant isn’t misinformation. If someone has been reported by the news and I mention it. It isn’t misinformation.
They’re coming over because the people around them are dying.
Do you really think they’d risk their lives like this for anything less?
So if they are coming over because they are dying… You then imply through a sarcastic means that no one would come over for anything less than life or death.
So what is it? Are you saying people would come over for less or wouldn’t? If they would come over for less maybe they would come over for what? Money?
It’s kinda sad that when pressed in a reality you don’t agree with you are going to abuse your power and silence me just because you don’t want to be wrong.
You’re really not worth this because I don’t think anything will change and the comment will still probably get deleted. But at least it will amuse me.
https://www.cfr.org/article/europes-migration-dilemma
“Europe is also a magnet for migrants seeking better economic opportunities”
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2021/12/20/deliberate-destruction-of-identity-documents
If they refugees and not looking for money why they need to destroy passports?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66132875
“More than 80% of the group are unaccompanied minors, aged under 18. Many of the boys had started their journeys years earlier, when they left home hoping to make money to send back to their families.”
There you go :) proved it’s not misinformation.
I don’t have the opportunity to go through video archives now so you can either take my first hand account I seen them and linked with the news articles giving the same information or I’ll say now that I don’t have video evidence at hand, just the articles
I would appreciate you honouring me with taking the time to show how people are coming only to avoid death and nothing less? As you made out.
Edit: here is another
“They probably heard that they then have a guarantee of achieving their goal: to get a residence permit, a work permit, training or, above all, work.”
You’re the one that said they are all coming over because everyone around them is dying.
Go prove everyone coming into Europe illegally is because it isn’t safe for then to be anywhere else.
Nah you spend enough time on the internet go look. I don’t have every TV show I ever watched recorded and categorised. I doubt anything I show you will change your mind so why bother? Economic gain is clearly a documented reason. People burning their passport is clearly documented. All these young men coming over must be so much more desperate than everyone else right? Otherwise why would it be just them? If you are open to your pre conceived notions being wrong go look, if you are going to keep them anyway no point me wasting my time.
It’s quite frequently on the TV.
I’m not saying people aren’t displaced around the world. Europe for example has a lot of Ukrainian refugees that should be taken in, legally.
A lot of the illegal migration is for money. If they got sent straight back they would have no reason to make the journey and they wouldn’t be at risk of drowning.
There are plenty of first hand videos of people talking to people making dangerous crossing and they are doing to because they think they can get money in the new country.
They all need to be sent back. If they have no reason for coming over they won’t bother and none of them will die.
You’re an idiot. Every single person gets a fair 10% chance.
Just because 1 woman wants to be an engineer and 10 men do doesn’t mean the woman is 10 times better than men. Or that she should be 10 times as likely to get a job just for being a woman. It should me she gets equal opportunity as men. If you only hire a woman because she is a woman that’s not equality.
It never goes the other way around. Do you think we should we only hire male teachers and male nursery staff and male nurses because they are under represented?
you need to hire a higher number of women / Black people / handicapped people to catch up
Thus reads like diversity hire.
Look we both agree give everyone the sane opportunity, education houses etc.
But you get a company like this 100 people. Over 30’s: male 80:20 female
So you get 10 new entry level openings, applications male 70:30 female. There a load of shit going on here, but to make it simple we both agree women have previously been under represented (let’s ignore children and whatever).
There are some people who say we are going to have an intake of under 30’s so because the workforce isn’t 50:50 male to female we should ideally hire only women until we get it to 50:50.
So now you hire 10 women and have a workforce of male 80:30 women. Right?
That’s not fair. Even hiring 50% women isn’t fair. Everyone should have equal opportunity, thats thr only way it is fair. It should be 7 men 3 women, on average.
Discriminating against men now doesn’t stop women in the past being discriminated against it just adds to the amount of people discriminated against. There is no other way to treat people than fairly.
Take names off then.
Hiring unevenly now to make up for things in the past just makes inequality now. It doesn’t solve any inequality of the past.
So you’re saying to start a new system where you only hire non white/ non males. Suddenly you have a whole generation of young men/ young whites being passed over for positions just because they are white/ male. So what happens the next generation? You only hire white males because they were past over in the last generation.
No mention of hiring based on lower income. No you are doing it based on race. So rich black people get a huge benefit over poor white people who never had any opportunities and currently don’t but, fuck them right, they are white. They shouldn’t feel hard done by that they are poor have no opportunities in life because hey that CEO is an old white guy.
This is why it’s stupid you are actively disenfranchising people. Sure people got mistreated in the past but misreading people now isn’t going to make them be not mistreated. It just means twice as many people have been mistreated.
Obviously if you need some disability then that’s going to be an exception to the rule.
But when someone says “We need more women in the workforce so let’s only hire women. Men need not apply” that’s not equality. If we said “This person worse at the job but he’s black so we will make the enter easier for him because he can’t compete with white people.” That’s not equality.
Yes. Lots of people leave their country, burn their passport then hop the border. I think people should make their own country better, if they want to move to another country they need to contribute more than the average person and be a better citizen (including culturally) than the average local.
My country tried real hard to build up other countries and make the most of them. Now they are on their own.
At lot of left leaning parties historically have been the most against immigration also, but I’m voting right now.
I do think the left really fuck up with how they think the government should control a lot of the market. The government waste money horrifically.
Everyone on this website seems to think I’m die hard right winger.
I’m not against immigration overall (I’m for it in many ways) I’m just strongly against how immigration is being used currently.
This website won’t like this. But it’s a failing of the market and it could be fixed by capitalism.
Removing restrictions on housing density, and where houses can be built and adding a Land value tax would help things. Also obviously less immigration would solve the demand side of the equation. I think countries should stop focusing on the ever increasing growth of countries and we should focus more on things like free time.
But really the solution to this is A build a new city or B destroy large parts of a city that were built when the city size was 10% it size and built more density, modern building standards, public transport etc.
But the boomer generation don’t give a fuck about the next generations so probably have to wait for them to die.