#health economic models | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lapsed-bookworm · 2 months

Text

This isn’t an exhaustive list, but I’ve run into some of these organizations as places to donate, and it's fine for my followers to share other lists that have gone around. (I'm not going to be offended.) This is version three with some organizations that include long-term goals of Israeli-Palestinian cooperation and peace in addition to the initial organizations offering emergency aid. Organizations are listed alphabetically.

Alliance for Middle East Peace

ALLMEP is a coalition of over 160 organizations—and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis—building cooperation, justice, equality, shared society, mutual understanding, and peace among their communities. We add stability in times of crisis, foster cooperation that increases impact, and build an environment conducive to peace over the long term. (Even if you're not really keen on supporting AllMEP itself, searching Member Organizations may also be a way to find organizations based on sectors - environment, women, youth, etc. - or type - Palestinian, Cross Border, or Shared Society.)

American Friends of Magen David Adom

The most common way I’ve seen recommendations for USAmericans to donate to Magen David Adom. (Additional Friends Societies are on Magen David Adom’s site for other countries.)

As a fully-fledged member of the International Red Cross / Red Crescent, Magen David Adom serves as the Israeli Red Cross organization.

Anera

Anera, which has no political or religious affiliation, works on the ground with partners in Palestine (West Bank and Gaza), Lebanon and Jordan. We mobilize resources for immediate emergency relief and for sustainable, long-term health, education, and economic development. Our staff serve in their communities, navigating the politics that constrict progress to get help where it’s needed most.

A Land For All

A Land for All is a shared movement of Israelis and Palestinians who believe that the way towards peace, security and stability for all passes through two independent states, Israel and Palestine, within a joint framework allowing both peoples to live together and apart.

Doctors Without Border/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

An independent organization “focused on delivering emergency medical humanitarian aid quickly, effectively, and impartially.” This link goes to the Palestinian Territories section.

Friends of Roots

We are a network of local Palestinians and Israelis [in the West Bank] who have come to see each other as the partners we both need to make changes to end our conflict. Based on a mutual recognition of each People's connection to the Land, we are developing understanding and solidarity despite our ideological differences. Ongoing Initiatives include interreligious exchange, a women's group, partnership lectures, a children's summer camp, youth group, after school program, incident response team, and community de-escalators.

Hand in Hand

Hand in Hand is building inclusion and equality between Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel through a growing network of bilingual, integrated schools and communities. [...] The curricula in Hand in Hand’s schools are based on values that reflect both cultures and languages, oriented in multiculturalism and shared and equal citizenship. In our bilingual educational model, Hebrew and Arabic have equal status, as do both cultures and national narratives. Our thousands-strong adult community members come together year-round in celebration, solidarity, and dialogue. These community activities are geared towards parents, staff, and other active citizens who are interested in taking part in a shared community. We believe it is not apt to place the burden of creating a shared future on the shoulders of our children. We, the adults, must lead the way. These community activities are an inseparable part of our work towards building a shared society.

MAUSA - Muslim Aid USA

An international charity that provides assistance from natural disasters and conflict. They have a specific Palestine Emergency page.

Mrs Najah’s Kitchen

Emergency food relief in Gaza.

Off The Grid Missions

Off-The-Grid Missions (OTG) is a global humanitarian aid organization filling the gap in disaster-response by providing Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing people with critical life-saving resources in high-risk and disaster-stricken regions around the world.

Depending on the mission, aid can include assistance with evacuations, providing food, solar lighting and emergency electric sources, and assisting with alternatives to sound based warning systems. (Assistance with Deaf and Hard-of-hearing individuals in Palestine and Israel has been mentioned on quickly updated social media sites, like Facebook.)

Palestine Red Crescent Society

The Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) is an officially recognized independent Palestinian National Society. It is part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Standing Together

Standing Together is a grassroots movement mobilizing Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel in pursuit of peace, equality, and social and climate justice. We organize protests across the country demanding economic equality, climate justice, and an end to the occupation. We hold workshops on grassroots power, organize get-out-the-vote campaigns, and run candidates for student union elections [related to university chapters]. Our alternative media outlet, Rosa Media, produces Hebrew and Arabic podcasts highlighting underrepresented political stories and perspectives from across Israeli society. We maintain a robust presence in Israeli social media – combatting extremist voices and advancing hope.

Women Wage Peace

Women Wage Peace is a broad, politically unaffiliated movement, which is acting to prevent the next war and to promote a non-violent, respectful, and mutually accepted solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the active participation of women through all stages of negotiations.

World Central Kitchen

World Central Kitchen is first to the frontlines, providing meals in response to humanitarian, climate, and community crises.

They have response teams and partners in Gaza, Israel, Lebanon, and Egypt.

Charity Navigator page for additional organizations for the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Posted: 5 February 2024. (Link to Version 2.)

164 notes · View notes

yuri-for-businesswomen · 7 months

Text

a big german newspaper (die zeit) recently published a more critical article on the so called „verrichtungsboxen“ (literally: boxes of execution; boxes on the street where prostituted women and sex buyers can go to consummate the sexual acts; anyone who knows german will know this is a gross terminology, fitting for a gross concept).

while the fact these boxes exist is in itself a tragedy, the letters to the editor are giving me hope that there are sane people left in this country - even though from their names and writing style i would guess they are of the older generation, pension age.

heinz wohner: „if you dont get a visceral reaction of disgust and shame looking at these obfuscating boxes called ‚eco toilets‘ and the image of what is going on in them, you have to be extremely cold. calling what is being done to these women for little money ‚work like any other‘ is sugarcoating the issue.“

wolfgang wendling: „maybe there are women who voluntarily prostitute themselves, but the majority is doing it out of necessity and under pressure. calling the oldest trade in history a profession like any other is pure mockery. its not an honor to call our country europe‘s biggest brothel. but it‘s true. we should be ashamed that women are being exploited, humiliated and abused before our eyes. the more severe the poverty is in the country of origin, the cheaper you can have them. we should finally stop this, which is the only appropriate action for a civilised country.“

brigitte kosfeld: „the photo of these boxes alone speaks volumes on the inhumane practices hidden behind the liberalisation of prostitution. when the law was introduced, there were convinced social democratic women who were holding speeches on ‚prostitution as a profession‘. the intentions behind the law might have been honorable, but the reality has always been deeply anti-woman.“

professor claudia reuter, phd: „the liberalisation of prostitution in germany has failed in all regards. according to a french study, the average life expectancy of a prostitute is 33 years. babbling about self-determination in this case is inhumane. the state is not supporting prostitutes’ workers rights and their health, but their economic and sexual exploitation. its about time for the swedish model: protection for women and consistent punishment for sex buyers and pimps.“

joachim kasten: „social democrat august bebel already wrote in 1879 (…) that ‚honorable family men‘ were contributing to uphold the system prostitution with their money. according to him, they were generously let off their responsibility to disappear in anonymity. apparently today we are still where we were at the end of the 19th century.“

sabine moehler: „the description [in the article] of typical injuries prostitutes have reminded me very much of those women in physically abusive relationships show as well. a man who abuses, humiliates and demeans a prostitute in any way will do the same to his partner, wife or lover as soon as he doesnt like her behavior. (…) even reading about this is upsetting me a lot.“

and of course the one sex buyer who just had to write to the editors, peter müller: „its one sided to use the misery in berlin street prostitution with sex on public toilets as a reason to debate the liberalisation of prostitution. there are many brothels were the ladies are treated with respect. of course working as a prostitute harbors certain risks - but there are women who freely choose this job, and in my experience, some of them are doing it with passion and love. the regular prices are not the dumping prices you mentioned (5-10 euros) [note: which is indeed normal in street prostitution] but actually 80-100 euros for half an hour - not to mention those dont include extras and humiliating sex practices. i met women who earn better in prostitution than some employees in germany.“

loose translation and highlights by me.

#germany #anti prostitution

262 notes · View notes

reasonsforhope · 11 days

Text

"A global shift to a mostly plant-based “flexitarian” diet could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help restrict global heating to 1.5C, a new study shows.

Previous research has warned how emissions from food alone at current rates will propel the world past this key international target.

But the new research, published in the Science Advances journal, shows how that could be prevented by widespread adoption of a flexitarian diet based around reducing meat consumption and adding more plant-based food.

“A shift toward healthy diets would not only benefit the people, the land and food systems,” said Florian Humpenöder, a study author and senior scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, “but also would have an impact on the total economy in terms of how fast emissions need to be reduced.” ...

The researchers found that adopting a flexitarian diet could lower methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture and lower the impacts of food production on water, nitrogen and biodiversity. This in turn could reduce the economic costs related to human health and ecosystem degradation and cut GHG emissions pricing, or what it costs to mitigate carbon, by 43% in 2050.

The dietary shift models also show limiting peak warming to about 1.5C can be achieved by 2045 with less carbon dioxide removal, compared with if we maintain our current diets.

“It’s important to stress that flexitarian is not vegetarian and not vegan,” Humpenöder says. “It’s less livestock products, especially in high-income regions, and the diet is based on what would be the best diet for human health.”

In the US, agriculture accounts for more than 10% of total GHG emissions. Most of it comes from livestock. Reducing meat consumption can free up agricultural land used for livestock production, which in turn can lower methane emissions. A potent greenhouse gas, methane is mainly expelled from cows and other animals raised for livestock. Animal production is the primary contributor to air quality-related health impacts from US food systems.

“This paper further confirms what other studies have shown, which is that if we change our diets to a more flexitarian type, we can greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Jason Hill, a professor in the University of Minnesota’s department of bioproducts and biosystems engineering.

According to the study authors, one way to achieve a shift toward healthier diets is through price-based incentives, such as putting taxes on the highest-emitting animal products, including beef and lamb. Another option is informing consumers about environmental consequences of high meat consumption."

-via The Guardian, March 27, 2024

#flexitarian #vegetarian #vegan #environment #environmental news #agriculture #big agriculture #beef #methane #air pollution #greenhouse gasses #carbon emissions #1.5 degrees #climate action #climate hope #good news #hope #food #food systems

140 notes · View notes

probablyasocialecologist · 2 months

Text

One simple way to look at it is to take the rate of emissions reductions achieved in countries that have successfully decoupled, and see how long it would take for them to fully decarbonize. That’s essentially what Jefim Vogel and Jason Hickel — researchers at the University of Leeds and the Autonomous University of Barcelona, respectively — did in the Lancet Planetary Health study. They found that, if 11 high-income countries continued their achieved rates of emissions reduction, it would take them more than 220 years to cut emissions by 95 percent — far longer than the net-zero-by-2050 timeline called for by climate experts. “The decoupling rates achieved in high-income countries are inadequate for meeting the climate and equity commitments of the Paris Agreement and cannot legitimately be considered green,” the authors wrote. In an interview with Grist, Vogel likened optimism around gradual decoupling to saying, “Don’t worry, we’re slowing down,” while the Titanic races toward an iceberg.

[...]

“Absolute decoupling is not sufficient to avoid consuming the remaining CO2 emission budget under the global warming limit of 1.5 degrees C or 2 degrees C and to avoid climate breakdown,” concluded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent assessment. Instead of making growth greener, some economists call for a whole new economic paradigm to address converging social and ecological crises. They call it “post-growth,” referring to a reorientation away from GDP growth and toward other metrics, like human well-being and ecological sustainability. Essentially, they want to prioritize people and the planet and not care so much what the stock market is doing. This would more or less free countries from the decoupling dilemma, since it eliminates the growth imperative altogether. Raworth, the professor at Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, calls her version of the post-growth agenda “doughnut economics.” In this visual model, the inner ring of the doughnut represents the minimum amount of economic activity needed to satisfy basic needs like access to food, water, and shelter. The outer ring signifies the upper limits of natural resource use that the Earth can sustain. The goal, she argues, is for economies to exist between the inner and outer rings of the doughnut, maintaining adequate living standards without surpassing planetary limits. “Our economies need to bring us into the doughnut,” Raworth told Grist. “Whether GDP grows needs to be a secondary concern.” Vogel and Hickel go a little further. They call for a planned, deliberate reduction of carbon- or energy-intensive production and consumption in high-income countries, a concept known as “degrowth.” The rationale is that much of the energy and resources used in high-income countries goes toward carbon-intensive products that don’t contribute to human welfare, like industrial meat and dairy, fast fashion, weapons, and private jets. Tamping down this “less necessary” consumption could slash greenhouse gas emissions, while lower energy demand could make it more feasible to build and maintain enough energy infrastructure. Some research suggests that reducing energy demand could limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C without relying on unproven technologies to draw carbon out of the atmosphere.

#degrowth #decoupling #economic growth #green growth #climate change

75 notes · View notes

green-elf-magicks · 5 months

Text

This animation was done in collaboration with @jesilerae (on insta) who provided the audio. Jesi also gave me some creative direction for the first part and was super patient and supportive throughout the whole process! It was a healing project to work on and I'm very touched that I was contacted for this collaboration. 🦋🦋🦋 Thank you Jesi. 🙏

Some more information about the four wings of social change as taken from an article in Yes! Magazine:

//“Drawing from Grassroots Economic Organizing’s butterfly model of transformative social justice, Leah Penniman (Soul Fire Farm co-founder and farmer) described the four wings: Resisters: the people in the blockades, the protests, the work stoppages; Reformers: the folks trying to make change from within systems, including schoolteachers and elected officials, like those getting into the prosecutor’s office and working to get sentences lowered; Builders: those who create alternative institutions such as freedom schools, farms, and health clinics; and Healers: the conflict mediators, the therapists, the preachers, the singers, the dancers, the artists—“all the folks that are gonna make us well,” she said.//

To follow that, I just wanna re-iterate that YOUR contribution matters! We ALL have strengths that lift up different wings. And we all have the ability to broaden our scope and see where else we can help and see which wings may need more lifting. Your activism may look different from someone else's. That's both okay and necessary, so long as we stay connected and united. 🦋🦋🦋🍉🍉🍉✊✊✊ ~Pothos 🪴

111 notes · View notes

phoenixyfriend · 9 months

Text

Raising the Minimum Wage and Its Effects

Ko-fi prompt from [name redacted]:

So, what does raising the minimum wage really do to the rest of the economy?

Hecking Complicated! I think I might need a doc of just. References for this one. But here are a few elements!

(Also, the Congressional Budget Office has an interactive model of how different changes to the minimum wage could affect various parts of the economy, like poverty rates and overall employment. Try it out!)

Reduction of Benefits

A common claim that is used to argue against the minimum wage is that it will result in companies cutting hours for their employees in order to recoup losses by having to provide benefits to fewer employees. This isn't 'the minimum wage is bad' so much as 'corporations are assholes,' but it is unfortunately still a thing that happens. (Harvard Business Review)

This is not a problem with the minimum wage itself, in my opinion, but these issues are emblematic of the weight that self-serving elements of capitalism carry. The low minimum wage is just one part of many that contribute to the current wealth disparity; if things like health insurance were universal, then bosses wouldn't be as able to cut them to employees in order to save money. Current regulations incentivize companies to hire more part-time workers than full-time, in order to avoid paying out benefits. Some cities have enacted Fair Workweek Laws in order to combat these approaches, though the impact is as of yet uncertain (Economic Policy Institute, 2018). Early reports, like the Year Two Worker Impact Report on Seattle’s Secure Scheduling Ordinance, do seem to indicate positive results, though:

In addition, the SSO led to increases in job satisfaction and workers’ overall well-being and financial security. In particular, the Secure Scheduling Ordinance had the following impacts for Seattle workers: - increased work schedule stability and predictability - increased job satisfaction and satisfaction with work schedules - increased overall happiness and sleep quality, and reduced material hardship. (direct quote from the Year Two Eval)

Unfortunately, these were approved at the earliest in 2015 (San Francisco's Formula Retail Employee Rights Ordinances, which went into effect in March 2016), which means that none of them were in play for longer than five years before COVID-19 ground the planet's economy to a near halt. I tried to find results for the San Francisco laws, but I couldn't find any studies for it; I did find an article from March 2023 that summarized which cities in California have brought in fair workweek laws, though, so maybe someone could use that as a jumping off point (What Retailers Should Know About California Scheduling Ordinances).

Companies prevented from cutting benefits by cutting hours would probably find another way to do the same thing, but let's be real: keeping the minimum wage low won't stop them from cutting every corner possible. EPI has some articles, like "The role of local government in protecting workers’ rights," that talk about how these measures can be, and have been, implemented to protect workers from cost-cutting employers.

Cutting the hours and benefits of part-time employees is a real, genuine concern to have about raising the minimum wage, and those need to be anticipated and combated in concert with raising the minimum wage. However, it is not a reason to keep the minimum wage depressed. It's just a consequence to be aware of and plan for.

Passing Costs On To Customers

A common argument against raising the minimum wage is that companies will raise costs in order to cover the raise in expenses, to a degree that nullifies the wage hike. This is, um. Uh.

Really easily debunked?

Like, really easily.

Over a ten-plus year period, research found that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage resulted in just a 0.36 percent increase in prices passed on to the consumer at grocery stores. A similar Seattle-based study showed that supermarket food prices were not impacted by their minimum wage increase. - (Minimum Wage is Not Enough, Drexel U.)

I've talked about it before, but in some cases it's just a matter of how US-based labor is such a comparatively small portion of costs for medium-to-large businesses that raising wages doesn't raise corporate expenditures that much.

That said, some companies rely on drastically underpaying their employees, like Walmart. Walmart's revenue in 2020 was approximately $520 billion (Walmart Annual Report, page 29). Now, this report doesn't actually tell us what amount is spent on labor, but it does give us the "Operating, selling, general and administrative expenses, as a percentage of net sales." This is, to quote BDC, "[including] rent and utilities, marketing and advertising, sales and accounting, management and administrative salaries."

So, wages are just part of the (checks) 20.9% of revenue that is operating SG&A expenses. But maybe I'm being mean to Walmart! After all, the gross profit margin is only 24.1%, so only 3.2% is left for those poor shareholders!

Oh, oh, that means the profit is still over 16billion USD? And Walmart cites having 2.2 million associates in that same report? And that's about $7,500 per employee per year that's being withheld? And that's before we take costs up by like three cents per product?

Which, circling back: A study from Berkeley by the name of "The Pass-Through of Minimum Wages into US Retail Prices: Evidence from Supermarket Scanner Data" found that

a 10% minimum wage hike translates into a 0.36% increase in the prices of grocery products. This magnitude is consistent with a full pass-through of cost increases into consumer prices.

Of course, Walmart does sell more than just groceries, but isn't it interesting that raising a minimum wage resulted in such a small cost increase? If we assume this is linear (it's probably not, but I have so many numbers going on already), then doubling wages from 7.25 to 14.50 would still mean only a 3.6% increase costs! Your $5 gallon of milk would go up to [checks] $5.18.

Hm. Those 18 cents might be meaningful to our poorest citizens, but if those poorest citizens are more likely to be raised out of poverty by raising the minimum wage, then it might just be the case that they too can afford the new price of milk, and have more money left over for things like... rent. Or education. Or healthcare.

Maybe even a cost cutting loss leader like Walmart can reasonably increase its wages. After all, they still have 13 stores on Long Island, where the minimum wage is $15, and has been since 2021.

(I could have just cited the Berkeley study and moved on, but after a certain point I was too deep in parsing the Walmart report to not include it.)

But also... minimum wage increases are often staggered. They start out on the bigger companies, which have the resources to accommodate those changes (unless they've been doing stock buybacks), and then later on the smaller businesses, now that a portion of the economy (those working for the big companies) has the spare change to spend money at those smaller businesses that are raising their prices by a little more than the corporations.

And at that point, all I can really say is, well.

If you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you're not an oppressed company. You're just a failing company. Sorry, Walmart&Co, your business model is predicated on fucking over poor people, and so it's a bad business model.

Being a dickhead, while successful, is not actually 'smart' business practice.

(This doesn't even get into the international impacts, like what an "American companies should pay higher wages abroad, especially if they charge higher-than-American pricing for their products, but also at factories where we know they're committing human rights abuses" approach could be but this is already long as fuck so that'll have to wait for another post.)

Anyway.

Inflation

This one is tied into the cost argument above, but like...

Inflation is already a thing? Inflation is happening whether we raise the minimum wage or not. Costs go up whether we raise the minimum wage or not. Who is this argument serving? Not the people who can't afford rent, surely.

Quoting the earlier-mentioned Drexel report (red highlights mine):

While the minimum wage has been adjusted numerous times since its implementation in 1938, it has failed to keep up with inflation and the rising cost of living. The purchasing power of minimum wage reached its peak in 1968 and steadily declined since. If it had kept up with inflation from that point it would have reached at least $10.45 in 2019. Instead, its real value continues to go down, meaning minimum wage employees are essentially being paid less each year. Additionally, some economists argue if minimum wage increased with U.S. productivity over the years, it would be set currently at $26 per hour today and poverty rates would be close to non-existent with little negative impact on the economy. However, because gradual change was avoided, the extra funds were instead shifted to CEO compensation. A sudden change in wages now could possibly make a more noticeable impact on the economy, which is often cited as reasoning for a slower increase over time moving forward. Gradual increases with inflation and productivity could have avoided any potential economic ripple effects from wage increases and should be considered in ongoing plans.

Increasing Unemployment

A common argument is that the unemployment rate would jump as employers were forced to let employees go. Assuming they didn't just hire more employees so they could give them less hours in order to cut benefits... not really!

A 2021 article from Berkeley News summarizes the issue, along with several others, covering some thirty years of research that started with "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania," published in 1993. They also touch on the issue of subminimum wages for tipped workers, though they do not address the subminimum wages set for underage and disabled workers.

“A minimum wage increase doesn’t kill jobs,” said Reich, chair of UC Berkeley’s Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics (CWED) . “It kills job vacancies, not jobs. The higher wage makes it easier to recruit workers and retain them. Turnover rates go down. Other research shows that those workers are likely to be a little more productive, as well.” - Berkeley News article, "Even in small businesses, minimum wage hikes don’t cause job losses, study finds"

Lower turnover rates also save money for employers, as it causes them to have much lower HR expenses. How much money do you think large employers spend on using sites like Indeed or Glassdoor to find new employees?

This article from Richmond Fed does, admittedly, encourage a slightly grayer analysis:

In a 2021 review of some of the literature, [researchers] reported that 55.4 percent of the papers that they examined found employment effects that were negative and significant. They argued that the literature provides particularly compelling evidence for negative employment effects of an increased minimum wage for teens, young adults, the less educated, and the directly affected workers. On the other hand, in a 2021 Journal of Economic Perspectives article that analyzed the effect of the minimum wage on teens ages 16-19, Alan Manning of the London School of Economics and Political Science wrote that although the wage effect was sizable and robust, the employment effect was neither as easy to find nor consistent across estimations. Thus, although the literature supports an effect on employment among the most affected workers, it does not appear to be as sizable as theory might suggest.

The International Labor Organization has a similarly mixed result when taking a variety of studies into account. (I left in their own reference links.)

In high-income countries, a comprehensive reviews of about 70 studies, shows that estimates range between large negative employment effects to small positive effects. But the most frequent finding is that employment effects are close to zero and too small to be observable in aggregate employment or unemployment statistics (1). Similar conclusions emerge from meta-studies (quantitative studies of studies) in the United States (2), the United Kingdom (3), and in developed economies in general (4). Other reviews conclude that employment effects are less benign and that minimum wages reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers (5).

And there's the 60-page "Impacts of minimum wages: review of the international evidence" from University of Massachusetts Amherst, which looks at data from both the US and UK. I'll admit I didn't read this one beyond the introduction, because this is very long already.

Not all US studies suggest small employment effects, and there are notable counter examples. However, the weight of the evidence suggests the employment effects are modest. Moreover, recent research has helped reconcile some of the divergent findings. Much of this divergence concerns how different methods handle economic shocks that affected states differently in the 1980s and early 1990s, a period with relatively little state-level variation in minimum wages.

I'd encourage you to think of it this way:

Employer A pays $7.25/hr. Employer B also pays $7.25/hr. An employee works 25hrs/week for Employer A, and 20hr/wk for Employer B. The minimum wage goes up to $15/hr. Employer B cuts the employee. Employer A cuts employees as well, but not this one, and instead increases their hours to 30/wk for greater coverage.

The employee has gone from just under $400/wk to $450/wk. They lost a job, sure, but the end result... They have an extra fifteen hours of free time per week! Or more! With time to level out, you have less jobs, but more employment, because people aren't taking up multiple jobs (that someone else could have) just to survive.

This is a very, very simplified example, which doesn't take into account graduated wage increases (see the NYS labor table) or the benefits issue from before, but it does show the reality that "less jobs" doesn't necessarily mean "less pay" or "fewer employed" people, when so many of those employed at this pay are working multiple jobs.

Even the Washington Post agrees that the wage hike wouldn't cost as many jobs as conventional wisdom claims, and they're owned by Bezos. (Though I recognize the name of the article's author as the same person behind that 60-page Amherst report, so there's that to consider.)

The Kellogg Institute also points out that individual workers were, on average, more productive after receiving the pay increase, so the drop in the bottom line was softened. This is a bit debatable; the results varied based on the level of monitoring, but it's worth noting that most minimum wage jobs are pretty high-intensity, high-monitoring. Goodness knows you don't get a whole lot of time to yourself outside of the critical eye of your shift lead or customers if you're working fast food. They also note a decrease in profits, but I'd point out that they speak specifically of profits, not share of revenue.

To explain the difference: imagine you sell $100 of product in a day. The product cost you $50. Overhead (rent, utilities, taxes) cost you $10. Labor cost you $15. Profit, then, was $25, or $25.

A 16% reduction in the profit does not mean you now retain $11. It means that you retain 16% less of the $25. You now retain $21.

(This is, as with many of my examples, INCREDIBLY simplified, but I need to illustrate what the article's talking about, and I don't have infographics.)

Some other articles on the topic are from The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Business for a Fair Wage, The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (more critical), the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, UCLA Anderson, Vox, and The Intelligencer, which cites another Berkeley article. I do not claim to have read all of these, especially the really long ones, but the links are there if you want to look into them.

In the interest of showing research from groups that do not serve my own political views, I'm going to link an article from the Cato Institute; I do encourage you to read that one with a grain of salt, given that it's written by a libertarian thinktank, and they are just as dedicated to hunting for research that serves their political views as I am. There were a few other libertarian articles I came across, but the way they presented information kept feeling really duplicitous so I just... am not linking those, or the leftist ones I am also uncomfortable with due to the whole "I'm totally not tricking you" vibes. Also eventually I just got tired, there are so many articles on this and I am just one blogger who is not actually working for a magazine or thinktank, I am working for my own personal tumblr.

Negatively Impacting Slightly-Higher Paid Employees

Did you know that raising the minimum wage affects more than just those making minimum? It affects those just above as well. It's referred to as the ripple effect of minimum wage hikes by this Brookings article. They estimate that a wage hike would affect nearly 30% of the country's workforce.

"Price adjustments provide the principal adjustment mechanism for minimum wage increases: higher labor costs are passed through to consumers, mainly for food consumed away from home. Such an increase does not deter restaurant customers. Price increases are also detectable for grocery stores (Leung 2018; Renkin, Montialoux and Siegenthaler 2019), but not more generally. The effect on inflation is therefore extremely small." - "Likely Effects of a $15 Federal Minimum Wage by 2024," Testimony prepared for presentation at the hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee, Washington, DC (2019)

This overlaps with general criticisms of widening income equality, citing an AEA article I cannot access since it's behind a paywall. I wonder if it touches on companies like Amazon being headquartered in the city and manipulating the job market by sheer size? I can only speculate.

Plus, there are the health benefits! Which are mostly connected to lessening poverty, and through that lessening stress and increasing healthcare access, but still! Some of these results are debated, but I'd need to know more about the details to know how they're related (University of Washington).

------

I've spent most of the day on this, so if you guys have made it this far and are interested in supporting me, please donate to my ko-fi or commission an article. (Preferably for more than the base price; I'm effectively working at a fraction of minimum wage myself, which is ironic considering the theme of this post.)

(I realistically shouldn't have spent more than two or three hours on this, but I have so many strong opinions on the subject that I couldn't stop.)

(Also: There were so many more sources I didn't even get to read the basic premise of because it was so repetitive after a while.)

#economics #stock market #capitalism #phoenix talks #ko fi #ko fi prompts #minimum wage #minimum wage increase #research

202 notes · View notes

anarchywoofwoof · 3 months

Text

do you see the microscopic text underneath this image? it's actually kind of relevant. let's zoom in and i'll make my point.

when you have a 12% success rate at putting people in permanent housing, how can you justify the implementation of these types of laws against homeless people simply trying to exist?

it is a known fact that Housing First permanent supportive housing models result in long-term housing stability, improved physical and behavioral health outcomes, and reduced use of crisis services such as emergency departments, hospitals, and jails.

furthermore, The Lancet has done a study on the effectiveness of permanent supportive housing and concluded that permanent supportive housing interventions - particularly housing subsidies combined with case management - are an effective methodology at addressing homelessness.

it is not enough to throw unhoused people in temporary housing with no plan for how they will be there the next month, or the month after that. observations of programs already carried out by various states like California have been proven to be lackluster in their ability to provide long-term support to the unhoused.

and yet now the Supreme Court will get to decide whether states can unilaterally clear encampments while many states have no other meaningful plans to address the people being displaced.

Elected officials urged the justices to take up the case because they say the rulings complicate their efforts to clear tent encampments, which have long existed in West Coast cities, but have more recently become more common across the U.S. The federal count of homeless people reached 580,000 last year, driven by a lack of affordable housing, a pandemic that economically wrecked households, and a lack of access to mental health and addiction treatment. “The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need,” Newsom said in a statement.

thank goodness that liberals like Gavin Newsom are out there fighting the good fight.

#united states #houselessness #us news

64 notes · View notes

homonationalist · 11 months

Text

At present, it is standard among practically all communities to fête the family as a bastion of relative safety from state persecution and market coercion, and as a space for nurturing subordinated cultural practices, languages, and traditions. But this is not enough of a reason to spare the family. Frustratedly, Hazel Carby stressed the fact (for the benefit of her white sisters) that many racially, economically, and patriarchally oppressed people cleave proudly and fervently to the family. She was right; nevertheless, as Kathi Weeks puts it: “the model of the nuclear family that has served subordinated groups as a fence against the state, society and capital is the very same white, settler, bourgeois, heterosexual, and patriarchal institution that was imposed by the state, society, and capital on the formerly enslaved, indigenous peoples, and waves of immigrants, all of whom continue to be at once in need of its meagre protections and marginalized by its legacies and prescriptions” (emphasis mine). The family is a shield that human beings have taken up, quite rightly, to survive a war. If we cannot countenance ever putting down that shield, perhaps we have forgotten that the war does not have to go on forever.

This is why Paul Gilroy remarked in his 1993 essay “It’s A Family Affair,” “even the best of this discourse of the familialization of politics is still a problem.” Gilroy is grappling with the reality that, in the United Kingdom as in the United States, the state’s constant disrespect of the Black home and transgression of Black households’ boundaries, as well as its disproportionate removal of Black children into the foster-care industry, understandably inspires an urgent anti-racist politics of “familialization” in defense of Black families. Both the British and American netherworlds of supposedly “broken” homes (milieus that are then exoticized, and seen as efflorescing creatively against all odds), have posed an obstinate threat to the legitimacy of the family regime simply by existing, Gilroy suggests. The paradox is that the “broken” remnant sustains the bourgeois regime insofar as it supplies the culture, inspiration, and oftentimes the surrogate care labor that allows the white household to imagine itself as whole. As a dialectician, “I want to have it both ways,” writes Gilroy, closing out his essay. “I want to be able to valorize what we can recover, but also to cite the disastrous consequences that follow when the family supplies the only symbols of political agency we can find in the culture and the only object upon which that agency can be seen to operate. Let us remind ourselves that there are other possibilities.

There are other possibilities! Traces of the desire for them can be found in Toni Cade (later Toni Cade Bambara)’s anthology The Black Woman, published in America in 1970, not long after the publication of the US labor secretariat’s “Moynihan report,” The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. The open season on the Black Matriarch was in full swing. And certainly not all of the anthology’s feminists, in their valiant effort to beat back societal anti-maternal sentiment (matrophobia) and the hatred of Black women specifically (more recently known as “misogynoir”), make the additional step of criticizing familism within their Black communities. But one or two contributors do flatly reject the notion that the family could ever be a part of Black (collective human) liberation. Kay Lindsey, in her piece “The Black Woman as a Woman,” lays out her analysis that: “If all white institutions with the exception of the family were destroyed, the state could also rise again, but Black rather than white.” In other words: the only way to ensure the destruction of the patriarchal state is for the institution of the family to be destroyed. “And I mean destroyed,” echoes the feminist women’s health center representative Pat Parker in 1980, in a speech she delivered at ¡Basta! Women’s Conference on Imperialism and Third World War in Oakland, California. Parker speaks in the name of The Black Women’s Revolutionary Council, among other organizations, and her wide- ranging statement (which addresses imperialism, the Klan, and movement- building) purposively ends with the family: “As long as women are bound by the nuclear family structure we cannot effectively move toward revolution. And if women don’t move, it will not happen.” The left, along with women especially of the upper and middle classes, “must give up ... undying loyalty to the nuclear family,” Parker charges. It is “the basic unit of capitalism and in order for us to move to revolution it has to be destroyed.”

Forty years later, the British writer Lola Olufemi is among those reminding us that there are other possibilities: “abolishing the family...” she tweets, “that’s light work. You’re crying over whether or not Engels said it when it’s been focal to black studies/black feminism for decades.” For Olufemi as for Parker and Lindsey, abolishing marriage, private property, white supremacy, and capitalism are projects that cannot be disentangled from one another. She is no lone voice, either. Annie Olaloku-Teriba, a British scholar of “Blackness” in theory and history, is another contemporary exponent of the rich Black family-abolitionist tradition Olufemi names. In 2021, Olaloku-Teriba surprised and unsettled some of her followers by publishing a thread animated by a commitment to the overthrow of “familial relations” as a key goal of her antipatriarchal socialism. These posts point to the striking absence of the child from contemporary theorizations of patriarchal domesticity, and criticize radicals’ reluctance to call mothers who “violently discipline [Black] boys into masculinity” patriarchal. “The adult/child relation is as central to patriarchy as ‘man’/‘woman,’” Olaloku-Teriba affirms: “The domination of the boy by the woman is a very routine and potent expression of patriarchal power.” These observations reopen horizons. What would it mean for Black caregivers (of all genders) not to fear the absence of family in the lives of Black children? What would it mean not to need the Black family?

Sophie Lewis in “Abolish Which Family?” from Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation, 2022.

#sophie lewis #abolish the family #🌟#reading

177 notes · View notes

racefortheironthrone · 2 months

Note

So! I was planning on writing a Batman fan fic and had a question about the urban facing side I was wondering if you could help on. I suppose this can intersect with other super hero / billionaire figures. Interested in exploring urban development in the setting but trying to avoid pitfalls , but ofc no worries if this isn’t something in your purview or interest

I feel like Gotham, so deeply realized as a fictional setting and riddled with its issues as a city, would be a great template to explore these urbanist issues. And while Batman treats symptoms - protecting people from acts of violence, and also pursuing those who are responsible for the corrupt systems who have put themselves above conventional pursuit. But Bruce Wayne I feel like by a lot of fans can he overlooked as an agent of improvement in Gotham - he can use his political and economic clout to both publically and privately improve the systemic conditions of the city, like his famous hiring program for ex cons. And I would like to explore this side a lot deeper, however I’m wary of showing a billionaire as the only solution , or even the best solution to a city’s issues and basically recreating public policies privately.

Since showing a privatized solution to be the answer to all these problems isn’t the sentiment I want to give, as often private corporations are the ones exploiting / building up this cult of personality around millionaires is already troublesome. But ofc, Bruce Wayne is fictional and can be an example of how a CEO ought to act, but would like to show these solutions are achievable and to be sought after in the public sphere - we shouldn’t expect CEO to hire ex cons, build free transit, eliminate all these zoning issues by buying half the city because 1) unrealistic and 2) can institute a dangerous mindset where it’s like “just give everything to billionaires and they’ll fix things!” (See, the cult of musk)

So my question is, do you have any recomendations on how to achieve this balance of using Wayne as a championing workers rights, urban development , reform etc. without just shilling for billionaires? Because, after all, billionaires have been opponents and don’t want to diminish that. Perhaps using his influence to give away his infouence to others , if that makes sense. or even better - historical examples of figures of privilege utilizing their position to advocate for the public sector and go all in as earnest urban Allies as a roadmap to model this after?

This is a really interesting question, and I think points to some of the limitations of what can be done with the Bruce Wayne archetype.

As I've said before, I think what can be done to make Wayne an enlightened person without falling prey to the mentality that "the billionaires will save us!" (looking at you, RALPH) is to really explore the limitations of top-down reform.

Because if there is one genuine weaknesses both to the Batman and Bruce Wayne, it's that he has a well, "heroic" mindset in which he thinks that if he's just smart enough, prepared enough, tough enough, that he can win a one-man-war on crime and other social evils - but you don't really see him engaging in movement-building in either his vigilante or civilian sides.

In the former, even if we leave aside his more "lone wolf" depictions, Batman has issues with trust and working well in groups. At best, he cultivates a small number of people (the Robins, the JLA), and he tends to keep people at arm's length. In the latter, even when Bruce is trying to make systemic, social interventions in transportation or housing or health care or social welfare, it's usually done through a top-down approach - build this project here, support this politician there - rather than sitting down and doing an analysis of how he could build a sustainable majority coalition with the muscle to change Gotham on its own.

Realistically, an honest, militant, and strategic Waynetech union (albeit assisted from the shadows to keep the mob and the supervillain gangs at bay) could do more to change Gotham for good than any Foundation that has ever or could ever exist.

#comics #comics meta #dc #dc meta #bruce wayne #batman #gotham city

31 notes · View notes

gothhabiba · 1 year

Text

No mental disorder meets the scientific definition of “disease” recognizable to pathologists: a departure from normal bodily structure and function (Szasz, 2001). This reality is clearly understood by the current and previous directors of the NIMH who acknowledge the speculative status of existing biological theories (Insel, 2011) and caution that DSM diagnoses are “heuristics” not to be misconstrued as “natural kinds” or “real entities” (Hyman, 2010). It is therefore confusing to observe these same individuals state elsewhere that mental disorders “are recognized to have a biological cause” (Insel, 2010; p. 5) and are “real illnesses of a real organ, the brain, just like coronary artery disease is a disease of a real organ, the heart” (Hyman at the 1999 White House Conference on Mental Health, quoted in Albee & Joffe, 2004). Use of the term “disease” in the context of mental disorder reflects an expanded definition in which cellular pathology is replaced with subjective report of distressing or impairing psychological symptoms, the presence of biological correlates, or the assumption of an underlying disease state as yet undiscovered by science (e.g., “…mental disorders will likely be proven to represent disorders of intercellular communication; or of disrupted neural circuitry”; APA, 2003b). From this perspective, any DSM diagnosis is eligible for disease status (Peele, 1989), and what constitutes a “brain disease” is subject to the vagaries of the individuals in charge of determining the disorders and symptom criteria sets that comprise the latest version of the APA's diagnostic manual. [...] Given the limitations of existing knowledge about the biological basis of mental disorder, declarations that mental disorders are “brain diseases” (Volkow, n.d.), “broken brains” (Andreasen, 1985), or “neurobiological disorders” (CHADD, 2012) are perhaps best understood as the product of ideological, economic, or other non scientific motives.

–Brett J. Deacon, “The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research.” Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013), 846–861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.007

#dsm #psychiatry #brett j. deacon #readings

177 notes · View notes

vren-diagram · 3 months

Text

The Nordic model has been characterized as follows:[16]

An elaborate social safety net, in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare[16] in a largely tax-funded system.[17]

Strong property rights, contract enforcement and overall ease of doing business.[18]

Public pension plans.[16]

High levels of democracy as seen in the Freedom in the World survey and Democracy Index.[19][20]

Free trade combined with collective risk sharing (welfare social programmes and labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.[16]

Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.[16]

Low levels of corruption.[19][16] In Transparency International's 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden were ranked among the top 10 least corrupt of the 179 countries evaluated.[21]

A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace amongst themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law.[22][23] Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination while Finland is ranked the least flexible.[16] The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms.[16]

High trade union density and collective bargaining coverage.[24] In 2019, trade union density was 90.7% in Iceland, 67.0% in Denmark, 65.2% in Sweden, 58.8% in Finland, and 50.4% in Norway; in comparison, trade union density was 16.3% in Germany and 9.9% in the United States.[25] Additionally, in 2018, collective bargaining coverage was 90% in Iceland, 88.8% in Finland (2017), 88% in Sweden, 82% in Denmark, and 69% in Norway; in comparison collective bargaining coverage was 54% in Germany and 11.7% in the United States.[26] The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds.[27]

The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.[28]

Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflect very high public spending.[29] Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden in comparison to the OECD average.[30]

Overall tax burdens as a percentage of GDP are high, with Denmark at 45.9% and both Finland and Sweden at 44.1%.[31] The Nordic countries have relatively flat tax rates, meaning that even those with medium and low incomes are taxed at relatively high levels.[32][33]

The United Nations World Happiness Reports show that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.[34] The Nordic countries place in the top 10 of the World Happiness Report 2018, with Finland and Norway taking the top spots.[35]

I think a lot of people are missing that the Nordic model is:

generally very friendly to businesses

composed of largely organically set standards (workers rights secured by collective bargaining and trade-unions, not by a centralized authority) (as opposed to a centralized bureaucracy)

Largely structured to provide citizens with benefits that make workforce participation easier. The ordering of the social safety net and welfare state make it relatively easy to upskill and hold a job.

34 notes · View notes

felipeandletizia · 4 months

Text

December 24, 2023: King Felipe Christmas Message

Like every Christmas Eve, I have the opportunity to congratulate you on Christmas and to convey to you, along with my family, our best wishes. It is a tradition that I like to maintain and that also allows me to bring to your homes some reflections on our present and on the challenges that we face as a country.

The economic and social difficulties that affect the daily lives of many Spaniards are a concern for everyone. A concern that is expressed, especially, in relation to employment, health, the quality of education, the price of basic services. Of course also with the unacceptable violence against women or, in the case of young people, with access to housing.

So, there are many specific questions that I would like to address with you today, although tonight I want to focus on others that also have a lot to do with the development of our collective life. It is to the Constitution and to Spain that I want to refer.

This year, our Constitution has turned 45 years old. During these years of democratic life, the Constitution, which the Princess of Asturias swore on last October 31, has been uninterruptedly present in our lives. And it is, without a doubt, the best example of union and coexistence between Spaniards.

We cannot forget that one of our great assets in democracy is, precisely, that coexistence based on shared feelings and the common search for the well-being and prosperity of all.

In Asturias last October, I pointed out - and I believe so - that it is with unity, with collective effort and with attitudes of solidarity that great works are built, those that transcend people, those that last and remain in the world. time. This is how a country progresses.

Naturally, in Spain every citizen has the right to think, express themselves and defend their ideas freely and with respect for others. But democracy also requires basic and broad consensus on the principles that we have shared and that have united us for several generations.

And that union, which has deep historical and cultural roots, must rest above all on the values that govern all democratic coexistence: freedom, justice, equality, political pluralism.

These are the values that unite us, that give strength and permanence to a democratic system like ours.

And this is how our Constitution defines and establishes them, which has been the greatest political success in our recent history, and which represented the culmination of a process that deserved extraordinary admiration and international recognition.

Thanks to it, Spain managed to build and consolidate a full, open and inclusive democracy, a Social and Democratic State of Law, which has ensured our coexistence and which has allowed us to overcome various and serious crises in recent years. That is the obvious reality of our recent constitutional history.

Thanks to the Constitution we managed to overcome the division, which has been the cause of many errors in our history; that opened wounds, fractured affections and distanced people. Overcoming this division, therefore, was our main success almost 5 decades ago. Therefore, preventing the germ of discord from ever establishing itself among us is a moral duty that we all have. Because we can't afford it.

And there is another dimension of the Constitution that we often do not notice, and that is undoubtedly also very important: The one that allows us to ensure our model of life, our way of living and understanding life. Expressing yourself freely, receiving an education, having a job, or protecting yourself from illness is undoubtedly key in our daily lives. It is also important to have access to housing, start a family, have social assistance or have a decent retirement… All of these daily events - and many more - are what the Constitution protects, guarantees and protects.

For this reason, I want to claim the Constitution not only as a democratic value for the present and future, but also as an essential instrument and guarantee so that the lives of Spaniards can continue to flow with confidence, with stability, with certainty. So that we can freely enjoy a life in which each one - with their circumstances - can see their legitimate expectations, ambitions, projects and needs reasonably satisfied.

But it is evident that for the Constitution to fully develop its mission, it is not only required that we respect it, but also that we preserve its identity, what defines it, what it means; its reason for being as a collective agreement of all and among all for a shared purpose.

And, finally, it demands that we preserve its integrity as a place of mutual recognition, acceptance and encounter approved by all Spaniards, as legitimate holders of national sovereignty.

Therefore, apart from respect for the Constitution there is no democracy or possible coexistence; there are no freedoms but imposition; There is no law, but arbitrariness. Outside the Constitution there is no Spain in peace and freedom.

And together with the Constitution, Spain.

We Spaniards began a new path almost half a century ago; we did it together, democratically, in a common project. We approve a shared vision of Spain that recognizes the right of everyone to feel and be respected in their own personality and culture; with their languages, traditions and institutions.

And today, Spain is a strong society, which has demonstrated many times the values that forge our meaning as a political community:

We have been in solidarity with those who have suffered adversity; We have had exemplary civic behavior in overcoming COVID; We have demonstrated courage, dignity and principles in the face of terrorism; And we have expressed and - above all - defended our constitutional values when these have been in question or put at risk.

And we have also done all of this together and in accordance with the constitutional framework, decided by all Spaniards.

The ultimate reason for our successes and progress in recent history has been precisely the unity of our country, based on our democratic values and cohesion, on the solid ties of the State with our Autonomous Communities and on the solidarity between all of them. Also based on our openness to the outside world with a deep Ibero-American and European vocation. Precisely, Spain has presided over the Council of the EU during the last semester, in which the unity of Europe has been reinforced.

I have no doubt that unity will also be the key for us to successfully face the serious and complex future challenges that Spain faces today.

To address this future, all State institutions have the duty to conduct ourselves with the greatest responsibility and always seek the general interests of all Spaniards with loyalty to the Constitution. Each institution, starting with the King, must place itself in the place that constitutionally corresponds to it, exercise the functions attributed to it and comply with the obligations and duties that the Constitution indicates to it.

We must also respect other institutions in the exercise of their own powers and mutually contribute to their strengthening and prestige. And finally we must always ensure the good name, dignity and respect of our country.

Throughout its history, for centuries, Spain has had the responsibility of influencing the course of Humanity. Likewise we've gone through periods of tragedy, silence, isolation and pain. But the Spanish people have always surpassed them; has managed to overcome, knowing how to choose its path with strength and with the pride of the people who are and want to be.

We should become more aware of the great country we have, in order to feel it more and take care of it together. In this way we will be able to better fulfill the obligation that I spoke about a few weeks ago in the Cortes: that of guaranteeing to the young generations the legacy of a united, cohesive Spain, with a will to understand, and solid in its democratic, civic and moral convictions; the legacy of a respected Spain, of a beloved Nation, in which they can continue to develop their lives freely, safely in an environment of stability and trust.

Spain will continue forward. With determination, with hope, we will do it together; aware of our historical and current reality, of our truth as a Nation. The Crown will always be on that path; not only because it is my duty as King, but also because it is my conviction.

Thank you for your time tonight and together with the Queen, Princess Leonor and Infanta Sofía we wish you a happy Christmas Eve, with a very special memory for those who, at this moment, with dedication, ensure the safety of everyone, and for the operation of public services.

To all, Merry Christmas, Eguberri on, Bon Nadal and Boas festas. Good night; and Happy and prosperous new year 2024.

#King Felipe #King Felipe of Spain #King Felipe VI #King Felipe VI of Spain #Official Event #Christmas Message #December 2023 #20231224

34 notes · View notes