[ SECRET POST #4331 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4331 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Sabrina the Teenage Witch reboot]


__________________________________________________


03.
[The Great British Bake Off, series 9]


__________________________________________________



04.
[K/DA - POP/STARS - League of Legends]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Pointless (Australia)]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Penny Dreadful]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Diablo Mobile/Blizzard]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 29 secrets from Secret Submission Post #620.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

What kind of jobs were actually available to middle-aged women with no meaningful prior job experience who could do magic in the early 90s?

[(Anonymous)]

Probably a lot fewer than for the non-magical ones, since most of the jobs available to middle-aged women with no prior experience who couldn't do magic are things that they specifically had spells and house elves to do in Wizarding Society.

[(Anonymous)]

But why should the wizarding economy be modeled after or resemble the Muggle economy in the first place? It's not like house-elves doing housework is the only example of Muggle labor that could be supplanted by magic. If you want the magical economy to look like what it would actually rationally look like if people could do magic, then the changes are going to be a lot more deeper and more thorough-going than that. What are the Weaselys even spending money on in the first place? What's scarcity for a wizard? If you're trying to use actual economic logic to justify why the Weaselys are poor, I don't think you can stop at the doorstep there. Or just accept that there's not really an in-universe, Watsonian explanation to be found.

[(Anonymous)]

OP said that if the Weasleys didn’t want to be poor, all Molly had to do was get a job, so assuming some semblance of equivalent economic structure is necessary to participate in this discussion at all. Otherwise, the Weasleys don’t want anything because they’re imaginary and they’re poor to fulfill a very standard literary trope. So, given that we’re bringing real world economics into it in the first place, there are two viewpoints being debated. Either poor people wouldn’t be poor if they’d stop being so lazy and get jobs or poverty is more complicated than that. Then there’s you, with “wizards aren’t real so we can’t have a real discussion unless we create an entire alternate magical economic system first.” Maybe you should work on that and get back to us when you’re done.