MikeyMike01
U.S.S. Wang
but aren't talking about any specifics, and it sounds like people spouting off on stuff they don't know.
on the internet? never
but aren't talking about any specifics, and it sounds like people spouting off on stuff they don't know.
Note the word, "relative" expert.
You mention the states a place where it's clear there's almost no one has first hand experience.
I'm sure if someone is from portions of quebec they are equally familiar.
And I'm not claiming to be a master of europe, I'm claiming to be a relative expert compared to most anglo north Americans.
Also the "many european" nations bit is the typical cliche that gets mentioned and it usually turns into a whole lot of nothing when you actually investigate the situation. The dutch have super high income equality and yet have some of the most extreme wealth inequalities in the world, turns out with high taxes the rich stay rich as they live off their assets and not income. non capitalistic models are pretty dam predictable in how they fail, it's not some advanced economic theory, it's some basic premises that tend to bulldoze over convoluted theory. Most of the actual success stories(germany) typically span out from embracing capitalism and modifying it with rational regulation.
Should also mention a whole lot of those "world ranking lists" are derived from having a nice climate and preferable population densities. Most of the claims are entirely subjective nonsense, used for political purposes and usually have little to do with political prowess.
NHL level is pure merit. But, don't kid yourself about lower levels. There are always a couple kids on high-end AAA teams in the GTA who are primarily there because their dad will foot the bill sponsorship-wise. Which limits the opportunity for certain kids to move up.It’s also one of the few fields where merit is pretty much the single deciding factor in determining who “makes it”, at least when it comes to players. No doubt there is some nepotism off ice, but I don’t think you can really read anything into the fact that Radko Gudas has a sister who played in the Olympics, for example.
Regardless you can live in a relatively rural hockey dominated town if you're a teacher. Two teachers in average town Canada is absolutely rich.I should move to Canada if teachers are making six figures on average. Of course after looking I see a couple of provinces list six figures for the highest earning teachers. Of course to be among the highest earners involves being near the end of your career, which we aren’t.
This is just pointlessly off topic.
You're going off topic, this was directly relating to the idea about whether or not capitalism is the cause of the issue. Lots of places do things well, but there's nothing in any of that, which suggests it's gonna change the nature of how costly it is to develop talent.You can always find something to learn from other countries experiments, regardless of how you feel about their total economic system. I don't have to like the way the Dutch economy works to learn something from them about urban design. Likewise I would like to learn about how access to hockey works in Finland, Sweden, etc...
Compared to most Americans absolutely. Just the same if you're from quebec or europe. Again "relative" in context of whether or not a country between the soviet system and Canadian system is gonna develop talent.Certainly just living in Newfoundland doesn't make you a "relative" expert on the European experience.
I never said they were vastly different, my point was specifically there is no magical non capitalistic paradise in europe. Germany rarely gets attributed the narrative of a socialist paradise because it is too well known as a country that obviously embraces capitalism.I'll add that you seem to think Germany and Netherlands are very different but they share many features when it comes to taxation and regulation.
Both nations tax the rich heavily. "Wealth" and "Wealth inequality" measures can be very misleading.
They vary dramatically depending on whether pensions are private or public, on whether houses are treated like financial assets, and on how many rights stockholders have in each country. Incomes tell you more about a society.
He doesn't know what he's talking about. The Soviet Union made hockey accessible to people from coast to coast. There were makeshift rinks almost everywhere.
Hockey is a sport for elites under capitalism.
Someone referenced Wellwood....I can guarantee that even he was strong. In order to skate at an NHL level and shoot you have to be strong. To skate fast, you have to exert force into the ice. So I would say every NHL player is strong in the lower body and core. Without it they couldn't survive. They couldn't bend their knees enough (without adequate quad, lower back and core strength) to skate fast enough, or shoot hard enough and even to be able to absorb a check from opposing players.
The topic is directly about whether or not economics is creating a hockey aristocracy. So it's a direct offshoot.
You're going off topic, this was directly relating to the idea about whether or not capitalism is the cause of the issue. Lots of places do things well, but there's nothing in any of that, which suggests it's gonna change the nature of how costly it is to develop talent.
Compared to most Americans absolutely. Just the same if you're from quebec or europe. Again "relative" in context of whether or not a country between the soviet system and Canadian system is gonna develop talent.
I never said they were vastly different, my point was specifically there is no magical non capitalistic paradise in europe. Germany rarely gets attributed the narrative of a socialist paradise because it is too well known as a country that obviously embraces capitalism.
It can be misleading, but in most of western Europe it isn't. Classism and inter generational wealth are mainstays of most of the people living in the banana.
I think you can have a strongly capitalistic country that just happens to support public sporting facilities and subsidizes coaching. You can certainly have a country closer to socialism in many ways that considers hockey a purely private matter, not to be supported publicly. That's why I'd rather look case by case without generalizing from archetypes about economies.
Speaking of which, the idea that Germany especially embraces capitalism is surprising to me. I suppose it depends on your circles, but I work in an economics department where Germany is fawned over by socialists. It is the most perfect country to them for a number of reasons - co-determination, kurzarbeit, limited shareholder rights, etc...
They are exposed to the game very early on and get the best possible training and guidance available in order to excel at the game throughout their entire development. No doubt their name opens doors along the way as well.
1) Nobody is talking about rural towns. If you’ve been reading my posts you would know that.Regardless you can live in a relatively rural hockey dominated town if you're a teacher. Two teachers in average town Canada is absolutely rich.
And unlike most careers you can be "end of your career" in your late 40s.
If two teachers marry they absolutely qualify as rich people. You're using creative math to suggest otherwise.
Well mid size towns are where it's relatively easy to be a rich pairing of teachers.1) Nobody is talking about rural towns. If you’ve been reading my posts you would know that.
2) I don’t live in Canada.
Not one of the 10-15 largest cities. Moncton, Kingston, Brantford Thunder Bay-Regina, Kelowna, Cape Breton, Lethbridge etc.3) What is an “average town?” That’s a pretty vague description and could mean just about anything.
4) “Rich” in the way you’re using it is also a very vague term.
5) I’m thinking numbers 3 and 4 were done purposefully since you seem to have an agenda here and ignore anything that doesn’t work.
In summation, as I have said before my wife and I are both teachers and we are nowhere near being rich.
Look better, or don't count boards with 1 teaching job and 10,000 teaching jobs both as '1'. For a start any GTA or GVA board (the majority of teaching jobs in Canada I'd wager) pays that. Average public board GTA elementary salary in 2020 was $105k, average secondary $110k, for instance. ( https://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/0/docs/Financial_Facts_Feb_2019_2020_FINAL_2020_03_09_FINAL-ua.pdf )I know and having a family member who plays and rinks to play at makes it much easier. The issue I have is the idea that you have to be rich to be able to play.
As I said, I looked and very few maxed in the six figures.
I know I said I was done and I will be after this:
Only someone with an agenda does the following:
-Continues arguing about teaching, as if they are an expert, with an actual teacher.
-Makes sure to completely ignore multiple points that don’t fit his/her agenda.
-Says things with zero logic or proof to back them up.
I apologize for being a rich person who can work wherever and when’re he wants…in your addled mind.
Have a great weekend, internet “winner.”
NHL level is pure merit. But, don't kid yourself about lower levels. There are always a couple kids on high-end AAA teams in the GTA who are primarily there because their dad will foot the bill sponsorship-wise. Which limits the opportunity for certain kids to move up.
I'm not even sure if the NHL is "purely" merit-based.
At similar playong level, I would not be surprised if the GM's friends kid has an opportunity before his teammate who has no connection