A new study on Gen Z men revealed that Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson are among the most trusted influencers.
It also found that 52% of UK men believe a āstrongmanā leader is needed to improve the country. Meanwhile, this article highlights how the right has been incredibly successful at indoctrinating young men into their ideology.
Why the hell is right-wing content so much more effective at gaining support? And why do left-wing influencers consistently fail to do the same? Iāll tell you why: we decided that social issues should take precedence over everything else, and by so doing have thrown all nuance out the window in the process.
The leftāand I donāt want to hear Marxists bitching about how progressives āarenāt really leftistsā because this kind of in-fighting is part of the fucking problemāneeds to radically rethink its approach. Right now, the priority isnāt pushing our agenda. Itās stopping the worldwide fascist takeover.
And yes, this might mean abandoning identity politics entirely, as it is largely responsible for driving people away from the left and toward right-wing populism.
We need left-wing influencers who can effectively use populist tactics. We need less extremism from the progressive left, because in our obsession with social issues, weāve lost the plot. We need to refocus on the economic needs of the people and stop alienating those who would otherwise support us.
The clock is ticking. Germanyās elections are coming up, and Elon Musk has already shown support for the AfDāthe most far-right party in Europe. If we donāt correct course now, weāll soon be living in a world where fascism dominates and equality is a pipe-dream.
The modern left has a problem with knee jerk moralizing instead of engaging with economic concerns in good faith. As Iāve previously mentioned, you will be castigated for not being āpureā enough. But Iām curious; whatās your specific reasoning for opposing migration? If itās an economic concern, then shouldnāt the left be working to fix the economic conditions that make migration a divisive issue in the first place?
I think i have good and rational reasoning to be against migration. My main concern is that wealth in the population is only possible as long as the population is too small. Let me explain:
The labor market is a free market. As such, it is regulated by supply and demand. Supply goes up --> prices go down. Supply goes down --> prices go up. In this case, Supply is the supply of labor force, and demand is the demand for labor force. My hypothesis is that demand for labor force is mainly driven by economic growth, which is caused by technological progress, and is independent of the size of the population.
However, supply in labor force can vary. If the population is small, supply is smaller, and that leads to higher prices. Prices for labor are also called wages; that means, lower number of workers implies higher wages. I think that is an economically sound explanation.
Simply moving within the country is not so much a problem, because it creates a decrease in supply of labor somewhere else in the country, so average wages stay constant. However, if borders are open, my concern is that we will āfillā that shortage in labor force, and therefore increase supply in labor force, which lowers wages.
Tell me if you have any comments to that reasoning, iād genuinely like to hear it!
While i see the logic, i think you have simplified the economics too much. Now Iām no economist, but i think the first mistake you made is assuming that economic growth (which drives labor demand) is independent of population size. More people means more consumers, more businesses, and more economic activity, which increases demand for labor.
Also, in advanced economies, high wages arenāt just about fewer workers, theyāre about high productivity, education, and technological development. If fewer workers alone led to wealth, countries with aging and shrinking populations (like Japan) would be thriving economically, but they arenāt.
Lastly, even if labour supply is tight, companies either automate jobs, outsource work, or relocate rather than just raising wages indefinitely. If migration is restricted too much, businesses would just move instead of paying higher wages.
I think if we really care about wages, the focus should be on stronger unions, better worker protections, and policies that ensure migrants donāt get exploited as cheap labor (avoid the Canada situation).
Is the labor market a free market? That looks like a faulty premise to me. I think the ālabor marketā is an abstraction that obscures a much more complicated reality; thereās actually a bunch of different labor markets with varying regulations, and competitive dynamics, and geographies.