The problem here is that you're competing with tourists sleeping four to a room and you just can't outbid them for apartments, even with high wages. The solution here is to set aside properties for resident locals so that they aren't forced to.
The main quesiton is what you want long term. If you want to eventually move in with a romantic partner, I would advice you to get used to independent living beforehand. Having to cook for and clean up after a partner who never learned to live without mommy and daddy is a huge turn-off for most people and can sour a relationship very fast. I would ask you these questions:
Do you cook dinner for the household at least every week?
Do you clean the kitchen yourself after cooking?
Do you do the grocery shopping for the household?
Do you often tidy up the pots and pans after meals (not just your own plates and cutlery)?
Are you the one who takes a walk around the house putting away stray plates, glasses & clothes and tidying up? Do you do this at least once a day?
When something breaks, are you often the one who repairs or replaces it?
Is it typically tidier & neater when your parents are away than when they are home?
If you want to live with a romantic partner in the future, and the answer to any of these is no, I suggest you have a long hard think about whether you're preparing for the life you want, or just staying where it's comfortable.
I would go the Social Services office and explain my situation. Provided I could prove my identity I would walk out with a couple hundred dollars cash, an address for decent temporary accommodations, and an appointment with a case worker to find a more permanent solution for me.
EU carbon permits shot up from €20 and have been hovering under €100 a tonne post-COVID. ~€200 is when existing direct air capture starts to become competitive. If it can be scaled at that price, we might be closer than we think.
The Nordic Model isn't really all that Socialist. It's based on strong welfare and labor rights, but also very much on the free market. The most Socialist country in Europe is probably France
Maybe? We're currently trying to implement a different economic transition, from pollution to green. I don't think popular resistance to those changes imply that we should try for a happy medium instead. Similarly, the difficulty in achieving Socialism democratically doesn't necessarily imply anything about how desirable the end state would be.
The big issue with “trying” communism is that it historically has only really occurred through violent revolution. The political instability in these situations gives a perfect opportunity for the seizing of power by exactly those kinds of people.
Gradualist Socialism was the political project for Social Democrats in post-war Europe. They had 30-odd years to achieve it in several countries. The issue becomes that once they started notching up victories, radicalism decreased, and that when they're not starving and oppressed people categorically will not vote to let someone collectivize their farms and expropriate their homes. It seems clear to me that in real-world conditions, a Socialist state can only come about through revolution, because the path in a democracy is far too long and leaves far too many angles of attack from a liberal opposition.
Still more dangerous for the IDF and less vengeance-effective than just raining death on thousands of civilians on the off-chance that you might also kill a handful of terrorists that Hamas can easily replace.
Do you feel your description matches the reality of this Palestinian dentist? Are the described actions consistent with callously raining death on thousands of civilians?
The TB one for instance found that TB gets worse whenever there is an IMF loan but not in the same circumstances when there is a loan from somewhere else.
Yes, because the countries taking those loans aren't distressed.
There is a reason China’s loans are so popular.
They are popular because they come with very little oversight. Countries with higher transparency do not find them very appealing, as Italy's recent withdrawal from the program attests.
You don’t seem to realize that IMF loan conditions have very specific governance requirements which directly impact governmental decisions around health spending.
They come with very specific governance requirements which impact governmental decisions about a whole host of things, because those governments have proven incapable of sound fiscal management.
Again, the IMF is in no way perfect and I'm sure there is a myriad ways the conditions of their loans can be tailored to minimize negative outcomes. But that does not mean they cause these problems any more than every cancer death being a failure of medicine means doctors cause cancer.
I've looked at all of the sources you provide, and they all point out the fact that countries experience bad outsomes after an IMF intervention, which nobody's disputed. My argument is that countries in similar dire straights will experience even worse outcomes if there is no such intervention. As an example, I could name Venezuela, which experienced an extreme increase in child mortality, your favored metric, after leaving the IMF. The root cause is economic distress, not the IMF intervention.
Minimizing the negative effects of government failure is absolutely worth examining. Identifying the mistakes made by the IMF in past interventions is a noble goal. But we should not blame international organizations when poor governance causes countries to fail.
I'll ask anyway. Why do companies like bots?