"For a majority of workers with limited skills, there is a glass ceiling. Even if you work 14 hours a day you cannot save enough to build a house or start a family."
Replace the 14 hours with 8-10 and you're no better in Europe, the US, or the UK. I can definitely understand that the working conditions there are much worse than here, so fleeing for a better life is only normal.
"In Vietnam, people believe they have to work hard, to do everything for their families. That is like a shackle which they cannot easily escape. But with enough good information put out over the years, they might start to change this attitude."
But the campaigns are up against a powerful narrative. Those who go overseas and fail – and many do – are often ashamed, and keep quiet about what went wrong. Those who succeed come back to places like Nghe An and flaunt their new-found wealth.
Survivorship bias.
If the UK (or any country for that matter) want to have less immigrants (or have more skilled immigrants), they have to make the home countries of immigrants attractive enough to stay there. Simply flying the back or "getting rid" of them by signing a contract with a third country to deport people to is not going to work.
Her argument is basically (from what I understand), that the way Pierre Poilievre is calculating stuff to prove his point is too simplistic and wrong.
I think she is right - the calculation is unadjusted for discrepancies in the data. To adjust, much more has to be considered e.g where people work and live (you might earn more in a big city, but have higher living costs), how many or what percentage of people live where (more people living in cities naturally means a higher GDP), how long people work (time can be included the calculation service values), inflation (higher inflation in one country can lead to a reduce in purchasing power and reduction of the value of the currency), how the GDP is calculated (GDP calculated by one institute can include/exclude data compared to calculations by other institutes and the formulas can be different) and so on. However, and I admit this is a tangent, when the gender pay gap is brought up, most often the unadjusted value is brought up and treated as proof of injustice, when it shouldn't.
In the United States, for example, the non-adjusted average woman's annual salary is 79–83% of the average man's salary, compared to 95–99% for the adjusted average salary.
"I can't express my point logically and will just assume the other is at fault." or alternatively makes a bad point, won't elaborate, says collocutor is wrong, leaves, thinks they "won" the debate
Great "talking" to you. I'm sure you'll be able to help people see the presumed error in their ways with your excellent rhetoric.
So a person born poor, middle class, rich or otherwise, in a wealthy country, but by virtue of being born in a wealth country richer than 7 billion other people, is the problem because they are greedy? Or how am I supposed to understand this?
So, taking the total GDP/business investment of one country and dividing it by the number of workers of said country is bad, but taking the total income of men/women and dividing it by the total hours worked for men/women is good to prove the gender pay gap. Sure.
They are for the vast majority of people in the world.
That's a bad argument. The average annual income for North America is the highest (57k$) followed by Europe (21k$). Combined they have about 1B people. The rest of the world has averages below 10k$, which means about 7B of the 8 billion earn that or lower on average. Take away fixed living costs of maybe 25-30% (probably more) and they are at ~650$/month, maybe 20% for food/drinks and other expenses and you're already at ~325$/month.
Traveling to the next big city in my country is ~50€ single direction, which is not unpayable but could cut well into the budget for the vast majority of the world. So, sure, to the rest of the world North American and European are rich. Does that mean that they all deserve to die? Does being a European being rich in Asia mean they are rich at home?
Replace the 14 hours with 8-10 and you're no better in Europe, the US, or the UK. I can definitely understand that the working conditions there are much worse than here, so fleeing for a better life is only normal.
Survivorship bias.
If the UK (or any country for that matter) want to have less immigrants (or have more skilled immigrants), they have to make the home countries of immigrants attractive enough to stay there. Simply flying the back or "getting rid" of them by signing a contract with a third country to deport people to is not going to work.