Bert

Most unpopular opinion for many here but lolbert is right biggest anti-national party today is Pappu Cong followed by RJD.

most people don’t want to work in manufacturing, it’s not that complicated

this is probably a cultural thing idk but people prefer flexibility and self employment than gainful employment at some factory or setup

I feel like every time I ask this question I’m cobbled with anti-poor allegations but why do so many able bodied men in India not work (assuming they do find work in manufacturing/services)? Almost everyone I know has a house help and they house help’s husband is a drunk who harasses her for money. On the other hand almost everyone I know in manufacturing and packaging is struggling with labour. They’re desperate to hire and no one comes, or if they do, they leave within a month. Again, I’m sure there’s a reason for it. I’m just trying to understand what it is.

most people don’t want to work in manufacturing, it’s not that complicated

A fundamental lesson from my posts these last two weeks on modernization, industrial policy, and development is that development economics should be about understanding why South Korea got rich but Bolivia did not. The current field has largely given up on that question. Sharply identified RCTs on small micro programs are a fine way to publish in the AER and get tenure at a fancy university, but a profession that knows everything about microfinance impact evaluations and almost nothing about industrialization has misallocated its own intellectual capital on a pretty heroic scale. Four images of Seoul:

This time, tomorrow...

Surprisingly good points

I wrote about this once, and was called anti-poor by many. I argued that the reasons why so many of the poor choose to remain without work are: 1) In most cases, blue-collar or manual work involves a disruption of life itself. Workers have to move from their village, leaving their family behind. If the family tags along, they live in poor conditions in slums, outside the familiar world of their caste/kinship community back home. 2) Labour usually means massive calorie expenditure. This is especially true for construction work, where a labourer might end up burning 2,000-2,200 Kcal in a work day, over and above their BMR, which would be close to 3,800-4,000 Kcal. To replace that they would need calorie-dense foods like fats and proteins. A normal working class meal in India would largely be carbohydrate based and provide not more than 2,600 Kcal. So, there is a general inability to work beyond a certain limit. 3) The idea that everyone wants to improve their lot is most likely a modern 'capitalist' notion. Histories of the working class in the early modern period (including EP Thompson's Making of the English Working Class) confirm that the peasant-turned-factory worker, would often disappear after meeting a certain wage target, only to return when their money was finished. This continues to be the case in much of the developing world. 4) From a 'neo-classical' standpoint, work involves 'disutility'. So, when a worker offers an additional unit of labour, the wage offered must overcome the 'marginal disutility' of that labour. If the wage level is low, then there is no point in working, since the marginal disutility might be too high. This is especially true, when various kinds of govt subsidies already provide a base amount of income to the poor. Of course, it is politically incorrect to say this. But, that doesn't make it any less true.

None of this is possible without building total, burning hatred against LeLis. Rn Indians have no concept of punishing traitors. Even RWs virtue-signal, call Trump mean for trying to deport Mahmoud Khalil. Some even criticized razing down the terrorist doctors' homes in Kashmir!

This city is on the verge of a demographic slip-away. Losing this city to Islamism will be the biggest L of this civilisation.