Who benefits more from marriage, men or women?
I have questions about your questions. “Benefits”: qualify that word. Are we talking about traditional marriage (may or may not involve love) or an egalitarian marriage (definitely involves love)?In a traditional marriage, men and women benefit differently. Women benefit more financially, as they don’t work out of the home—they have a “provider” to put a roof over their heads, give them health insurance/healthcare, a new car, whatever. Men benefit more in terms of personal happiness and complacency, because they don’t have to do much drudgework associated with taking care of kids, cooking, and housekeeping.These respective benefits are liberating in different ways. But, they are a double-edged sword, too. For when traditional couples divorce, it’s often difficult for them to establish and adapt to a different kind of lifestyle. Imagine being a women who has never had a career (or relevant training for one), and suddenly at the ripe, mature age of 45, she has to take care of herself financially.In an egalitarian marriage, where both members of the couple have careers and bring to the table within their respective capacities, the benefits tend to be mutual, and both benefit fairly equally. Both partners are financially responsible for each other. Both are responsible for the drudgework, too. My parents had this kind of a marriage, and I feel that it worked out particularly well for me.There’s no one answer this question.
Who benefits most from capitalism?
If you mean pure capitalism, the poor benefit the most because they get to survive. Money or sustenance means more to them, so they benefit more. If they are envious, they might deride their counterparts for:Making any profitsMaking more ‘in absolute terms’ than themFor not assuming responsibility for making their lives betterBut therein lies the moral lesson of capitalism: that its ‘your responsibility’ to advance and attain your interests, and the accomplishment that results is a source of self-esteem, pride and ‘wanting more’. This is a sustainable, life-affirming system if governments don’t intervene. Get govts so big that the distortions are so ‘huge’, like presently, and you seemingly never seem to escape the treachery of govt.I might add that the problem with statism is that:The poor are rendered the ‘most vulnerable’ by making them dependent upon a state reliant on ‘extorted wealth’.How empathetic would you expect a wealthy person to be after a poor person has sanctioned the government to steal from them.Inequality is actually good. Trade relies on inequality. If no inequality, and everyone wants something, then there is no possibility of wealth creation. Inequality is a value proposition. This the socialist doesn’t understand. The poor just want free stuff. The rich should give them the stuff they ‘need’, but ‘conditionally’, and they should set the terms or limits of their giving.
Who benefits the most from taxes?
This is an extremely deep question.The primary beneficiary of taxes is the politicians. While the taxes pay the politician’s salaries, that is not their primary benefit: politicians can convert tax money into votes by creating programs, hiring government workers, and redistributing money or services back to constituents.It is the power to steer that tax money into grant programs or government contracts that provides the real benefit to the politicians. An expensive campaign donation or a future seat on a corporate board, is a small price to pay for the millions to be made from grants and contracts.
Who benefits from the "Curve" (Bell Curve Grading)?
Here is an example. After a test is taken the professor will give points on the test so that the biggest group scored a C. So if the biggest group scores in the D range everyone will be given about 10 points to boost their grades. I have had classes where the professor does NOT give any points to the top B+ through A range and will only "curve" the bottom grades (not fair). So point is the bottom percent of the class benefits from the curve the most. Though don't rely on a curve because if the average is good there will be no curve.
Who benefits the most from pork-barrel projects??
The constituents most closely affected by those projects. For example, if money is diverted to an agency to hire blind people who were born under a full moon in july, those people and the agency people will benefit. Of course the politician will get recognition for making jobs, etc. when the next election comes around.
Who benefits the most from Affirmative Action?
you are so right. People just don't understand (or fail to see the fairness of it all) that IF corporations and businesses were FAIR in their hiring practices, there would never have been any need for it. It came about to make sure that if a MINORITY was JUST AS, if not more, QUALIFIED for a position, then they would GET THE JOB. However, some businesses have gotten around that; and say "hey, we got a woman (white though they are)".... and I hate that word "minority" anyway. Who is a minority?? Who's to say?? We're all EQUAL...or, at least, we're suppose to be.
Who benefits the most from NATO, the USA or European members? Isn't NATO being used as a tool by the US against Russia, and is Russia a threat to NATO only because of the US? Should Europe fend for itself?
Who benefits from NATO?Everyone does. Especially Europe. Its countries used to wage war against each other constantly. Since NATO was formed in 1949, almost not at all.Now Europe and its neighbours are experiencing the most peaceful and prosperous period in history. Even the Russian Federation benefits from the market for its gas and money laundry for its billionaires.Is Russia a threat to Europe?The Russian Federation has forcibly occupied land in three European countries, claiming some of it as its own territory. It fuels an ongoing European war which has killed over ten thousand people in Ukraine, so far. This illegal aggression would not be happening if Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine were members of NATO.The RF continues to build its military might as much as it can, and, despite a troubled economy, spends a bigger portion of its GDP on its military than any other country in Europe or North America.Isn’t NATO being used as a tool by the USA?If anything, encouraging the United States to act in concert with multilateral alliances tempers the behaviour of the world’s most powerful country. Through NATO, Europe and Canada are “using” the USA for world peace.The smallest states with tiny militaries benefit the most. Estonia has only 6,500 regular forces, yet remains secure against 400,000 soldiers of the RF’s Western Military District.Against Russia?Against an aggressor state, the world’s largest nuclear power, the only state to conduct an imperial enlargement of itself in the twenty-first century, the member of the UN Security Council undermining the UN Charter and trying to destroy the post-war international order, diminishing international rule of law, conducting a war in Europe and risking starting others? By God, I hope so.Chart: wars in Europe over five centuries. Very few after NATO was formed. None between NATO members.Chart: international battle deaths were greatly reduced after the existence of NATO.Charts source: “War and Peace,” in Our World in Data.Chart: military spending as a proportion of GDP (source).
EMT Question: which patient would benefit the MOST from helicopter transport?
Which patient would benefit the MOST from helicopter transport? a)15-year-old female motor vehicle crash victim still trapped BP 78/42 b) 38-year-old male burn patient with first degree burns to 55% of his body c) 30-year-old male pulseless and apneic with a history of asthma d) 28-year-old female in labor, crowning; the hospital is 45 minutes away I think it is A but I am not sure.
Who benefits most from the special relationship between UK and the US?
I think it swings back and forth. With Trump in charge I think you could argue they would actually need us more as he is likely to upset a whole host of people on the world stage as he has done already. They also have major bases in the UK and are now looking at actually putting fighter jets on our aircraft carriers, they run huge surveillance operations from the UK and were also looking at putting missile defence posts here in case of a nuclear attack. We are also a major partner for them (or have been) in having influence in Europe through our membership to the EU. Neither Country actually needs each other and would progress ok on there own but we do share a whole bunch of values and see eye to eye on many things such as trade, economy, security, terrorism, language, movies, music, education, travel, law etc... We are probably two of the closest Countries in the World which are situated so far apart; I think this is where the term special relationship comes from.I have travelled in lots of America and although different to the UK in many ways you can see vast similarities in how each Country operates and how people treat each other. Many films or music I listen to are hard to decipher just which Country it is from anymore, our charts have many American Artists and films as their charts contains our Artists and stars. You compare this to another Country near us such as France or Spain and I could not name one French or Spanish Film, not one actor, or singer. Although we are miles apart we have so much in common and I feel closer to America than I do to any of Europe