Conclusion. There are just too many factors to determine the realistic reasoning behind this so called laziness poll. I think people just want to blame something so they make these non-causality polls to try and determine who is "better". They completely ignore all the details and just go for some generalizations to come to their conclusions.
How this has anything to do with capitalism is completely beyond me, unless you are trying to suggest that capitalism is bad and are trying to promote some non-capitalist idea?
You are quite right in your assessment.
The attribute of laziness is kind of a miskewed characterization of the survey. I also think it is purely for headlines capturing, - a kind of PR job.
However, the factors they are considering are relevent to the issue, i thought. But you have also critically pointed out various circumstances which may mislead the result of the survey. It is therefore necessary to emphasise that it being a international survey, they may have set criteria's which are common to all those 25 or so countries. Ofcourse the variants may be many lik efor instance culture itself.
Culture wise, the Americans were known to be very hard working people. It would be worthy to consider how industrial output has reduced in the production stage itslef, and not factoring the market side economic scenario like demand, costings, quality etc. The rate of production going down due to leaves, vacations, etc can be sufficient parameters to deduce a reduction rate, at the least, if not laziness, which admittedly is an attempt to stretch the result out of context.
In a mass sacle multi variant, some amount of generalisation is a natural extrapolation, and thus can be distorted.
Now, coming to the larger issue of capitalism, it is my hunch that capitalism is not all that honky dory as it is made out to be. This is not a result of some great research or opinions of economist, so pardon me if i am proved wrong.
My inference is that Capitalism is not all that bad, consider
ing that it has survived so long. But it is certainly not the ideal situation where we over 700 billionaires among almost a 7 billion human beings.
A multi-billionaire like Bill Gates have realised, thanks and praise to his parents and wife, that being rich is no solution, in a world where millions are suffering due to hunger and disease. His kind of philanthropy is indicative the need to prioritise the needs of the masses not merely for the abstarct sense of compassion but for the overall good of the economy. This sham of adopting children from Malawi, or donating filthy funds from some Foundations and take tax benefits is not going to help the state of affairs.
On the environmental front, America, and Americans though the richest nation, are the worst polluters. Affecting the entire earthly atmosphere, and sucking out natural resources of other economies. All this in the name of living the American dream.
My question is, is not the American dream essentially an elite capitalists dream. A dream at what costs?
I'm not sure I'd hang my hat on the validity of this particular survey, but I do think that it shows a very important point; that the greatest risk of a wealthy nation is that it will become wealthy. Who here thinks that there are no risks, no "downside" to having so many conveniences? Or... perhaps should we ignore the price at which all things come? Of course there's a price...
The human animal isn't at its best (most healthy, most happy, most fulfilled, introspective, intelligent, compassionate or mature) when its not challenged. Indeed, why move a muscle when it's not incumbent upon one to do so?
Some will, no doubt, thrive in other ways when their needs are met but I believe most do not. When a culture values things above people, the illusion of prestige above understanding and convenience above toil it inevitably becomes predominantly lazy and ignorant, sedentary and bitter.
But that's ok, because I don't believe we do value health, happiness, fulfillment, introspection, intelligence, compassion or maturity. For the truth of this, one need only look at the effort and resources expended on what breeds these -vs- conveniences.
... so yea; whether scientifically valid or not, it's likely an accurately-communicated sentiment.
Thanks. But i differ with you when you say 'thats ok'. Why should it be okay?