Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    271 points nradov | 12 comments | | HN request time: 0.254s | source | bottom
    Show context
    jaysonelliot ◴[] No.42172799[source]
    Despite the headline CBS gave the article, it seems the problem is not with happiness, but with the seductive appeal of materialism and the effects of exposing one culture to another.

    Social comparison theory is the idea that our satisfaction with what we have isn't an objective measure, but is actually based on what we see other people have. Young people generally seem to have an innate desire to leave their hometowns and seek out what else might be waiting out there for them. When you add in globalization and media influence exposing them to what looks like a "better" life with more things, it's not surprising that they've seen ~9% of young people leave Bhutan.

    The other question is, what will happen if Bhutan does increase their financial wealth as well as their happiness? Will they then see a net influx of people through immigration, looking for the lifestyle Bhutan promises? And will those new people be able to maintain the culture Bhutan has cultivated?

    It sounds like the concept of Gross National Happiness is a successful one, on its own, but it brings new challenges that couldn't have been forseen originally. That doesn't mean they can't solve them without giving up their core values.

    replies(7): >>42172887 #>>42173063 #>>42173254 #>>42173619 #>>42173660 #>>42173728 #>>42179386 #
    cardanome ◴[] No.42173063[source]
    Nah, the issue is the one that many developing countries suffer from: brain drain.

    The best people leave the country because the can earn orders of magnitude more money in the developed world. This is why countries like the US keep being so successful while developing countries stay poor.

    It is just the rational best decision for a young people to try their luck abroad and earn more money that they could ever dream of in their home country. Why shouldn't they? Idealism? There is nothing wrong with striving for a better life, it is what moves humanity forward.

    Offering great and free education will always backfire for developing nations.

    The solution is to either keep the population ignorant, hamstringing their education so they are less useful abroad and implementing a strict censorship regime so they don't get "corrupted" by the West or well force them to stay.

    We saw that all play out in the Soviet Block. There is a good reason there was a wall.

    I think the fairest solution is to NOT make education free but instant offer a deal of having to stay in the country and work for X-years in the profession one has been trained in by the state. Once they get older and settle down they are less likely to leave anyway.

    Being a developing country just sucks. There is a reason most never break the cycle of poverty.

    replies(22): >>42173148 #>>42173163 #>>42173280 #>>42173286 #>>42173298 #>>42173323 #>>42173483 #>>42173712 #>>42174306 #>>42175177 #>>42175245 #>>42175256 #>>42175422 #>>42175581 #>>42176184 #>>42176296 #>>42176930 #>>42177713 #>>42177808 #>>42177921 #>>42178010 #>>42181454 #
    1. FLT8 ◴[] No.42175177[source]
    This reminds of the corporate adage: "You can choose to invest in your people and run the risk that they leave, or you can choose not to invest in your people and run the risk that they stay".

    It seems to me that the smartest people would be far more motivated to leave a country where they are unable to find other people like themselves to collaborate with.

    And they'd be far more likely to come back in future and reinvest their overseas earnings in a country that they felt warmth towards than one that had forced them to play life in hard mode and was actively hostile towards them.

    replies(2): >>42176280 #>>42180764 #
    2. fuzztester ◴[] No.42176280[source]
    >This reminds of the corporate adage: "You can choose to invest in your people and run the risk that they leave, or you can choose not to invest in your people and run the risk that they stay".

    Yes. I've seen it like this in a LinkedIn post:

    CFO to CEO: What if we train our people, and they leave?

    CEO to CFO: What if we don't train them, and they stay?

    replies(2): >>42176895 #>>42177776 #
    3. MichaelZuo ◴[] No.42176895[source]
    There’s another option, spend huge amounts to hire the very best and don’t provide any training.

    That’s what the top end hedge funds do with seven figure starting compensation.

    replies(1): >>42178895 #
    4. vondur ◴[] No.42177776[source]
    My wife worked for a company that really trained their sales people. However, they also payed very poorly compared to their peers. So people would get trained stay for a year and then go to another company that was happy to such well trained employees and pay them better.
    replies(1): >>42177820 #
    5. Wolfenstein98k ◴[] No.42177820{3}[source]
    A charity running a company as the front.
    replies(2): >>42179317 #>>42190334 #
    6. snapplebobapple ◴[] No.42178895{3}[source]
    That comp uaually iant gauranteed. Itsusually some decent base salary and a bonus based on some foemula around performance
    replies(1): >>42180074 #
    7. slt2021 ◴[] No.42179317{4}[source]
    thats basically AWS
    replies(1): >>42179640 #
    8. riehwvfbk ◴[] No.42179640{5}[source]
    No, AWS is a bootcamp. A place to learn quickly, get hazed, and get out. Or, for the special few: become the drill sergeant.
    replies(1): >>42189313 #
    9. MichaelZuo ◴[] No.42180074{4}[source]
    It is practically guaranteed for all the prospective super geniuses working there for the first year, because the bar is set to be intentionally easy relative to their potential. Sometimes it is even literally guaranteed in writing for the most desirable hires.
    10. tsimionescu ◴[] No.42180764[source]
    > And they'd be far more likely to come back in future and reinvest their overseas earnings in a country that they felt warmth towards than one that had forced them to play life in hard mode and was actively hostile towards them.

    A country can't live off a few expats making it big. It doesn't need investors so much as it needs doctors, good administrators, good managers, good financiers, good builders, good plumbers and so on.

    Sure, this requires money, but just coming in and throwing money at a country dominated by idiots won't make anything better, it will just lead to corruption. Idiots in positions of power actively discourage better people coming in even more so than a lack of resources. It's one thing to take a low paying job to hope to improve conditions for your parents and extended family. It's another thing to fight with a boss who has no idea what they're doing but still thinks they're better than you every single day. Plus idiotic regulations from others like him in other places of the administrative state.

    11. fuzztester ◴[] No.42189313{6}[source]
    echo $your_comment | sed 's/boot/concentration /’
    12. doubleg72 ◴[] No.42190334{4}[source]
    Or any rural hospital