this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2026
965 points (98.5% liked)
Work Reform
17232 readers
262 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But the methodology seems wonky indeed, 1507 should be a decent sample size for statistical purposes. But half of the respondents are self-employed and only 1% is unemployed, which explains the "average out of pocket per income level" section, flying all over the place.
But 92% of insured, having delayed medical care is a massive finding.
Although the methodology makes one raise eyebrows, for how they're able to include income brackets of "0$", as that at most seems to be 15 respondents.
Addition, at a second look they claim .5% are in the no income bracket. Which is 7/8 respondents. Why would they even include that section then?