I’m not sure what the best solution would be, but it seems like children should learn to engage with technology in a healthy way, and a ban seems counterproductive towards that goal.
You can wish for healthy integration with technology, but that requires structure and planning. Which would still necessitate limiting their access to any and every app and website.
Phones in school don't serve a purpose that can't be met by a computer lab.
Pensioners in Spain are being given a bonus that many can only dream of.
Millions of older adults - both Spanish and foreigners living in Spain - are eligible for heavily subsidised trips, costing as little as €115 for short breaks and €455 for longer holidays.
One of its top objectives is to facilitate affordable holidays for the elderly in Spain.
The idea is that by helping pensioners to take affordable holidays, their health and quality of life will improve which is, of course, better for social care budgets. It’s hoped their self-sufficiency will increase, too.
The proposed Bill C-367, currently under review in the House of Commons, would repeal “religious exemption” in Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which critics say could open up Christians and other religious groups to “hate speech” charges over any comments or criticisms of the LGBT movement.
Maybe they should consider being less hateful then 🤷♂️
Part of the problem with that though is that to become that wealthy to start with means that someone (or many someones) weren't paid the value of their labour. Capitalism is predicated on making profit from the labour of others and you can't make profit if you're paying the full value of that labour.
Sometimes that's obvious in the form of slavery and exploitation. But many times it's not obvious at all - especially when a wealthy person is born into wealth (which almost all of them are) and they haven't themselves engaged in any exploitive practices - they likelihood is though that someone or more likely multiple people in their ancestry DID create their family wealth through exploitation. Because, again, capitalism cannot function without someone along the way being underpaid for their labour.
Have you considered perhaps that people can be paid fairly for their labour, while someone else can overpay for the fruits of their labour? That is also capitalism, isn't it?
Dumbass consumers pay for brand and recognition. The materials used are the same and the labour is the same, but because one brand is more famous than the other, the resulting prices are highly different.
Should the workers be paid differently simply because the brand they work for is more popular?
Is it fair towards the workers in another company who do the exact same thing?
You might say that famous brands exploit cheap labour and slaver-like conditions and it is very true. But that is not in question here.
Can companies get rich by respecting the labour of their workers? Yes they can because the value of labour doesn't equate the value of the product being sold.
Maybe from the number of people making posts to the Good News community that's 'X Philanthropist donates X millions to X". It's not really good news since most philanthropy is bullshit.
Thank GOD for the APA, they at least seem to have a lot of understanding and empathy, two qualities are the hallmarks of true intelligence. All this panic about trans people, and over nothing. There is no actual basis for hate and the hateful bills passed against them, and it all just stems from ignorance and entrenched bigotry. I support the APA in this effort and applaud their bravery and intelligence in doing the right thing.
Good News
Hot