this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
948 points (96.8% liked)
Work Reform
9830 readers
1887 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree with the editorialising from the title comment. To me it doesn't seem to celebrate or even opine anything, and that's actually kind of frustrating, because it's obviously bad that people are intending to work longer, regardless of their actual preferences.
Having read the article, to me it's not entirely obvious whether people feel that (A) they don't have enough to save regardless of their intentions (B) they feel saving for retirement is futile for whatever reason, or (C) even if they had extra money, they would prefer to spend the extra on here and now.
The article kind of hints that it's more B or C than A, but it isn't really explicit, and I think that would be the really interesting part of this story to report.
I don't know, this article seems horribly out of touch. I mean you have the opinions of Intuit, who feed on your tax return, and Blackrock, the company often cited as the reason Millennials and Gen Z will never own a house. They have a vested interest in keeping people paying income tax and taking out loans.
I agree the article seems very out of touch, and the reason I think is because it reports this in a very neutral way. If it made clear that the author thought this was a bad thing that was happening, would you still think it was out of touch?
I believe it's out of touch not because they didn't come to the conclusion I wanted them to, but because they cite the opinions and data curated by tax and investment companies at face value instead of actually asking responders why they answered the way they did. Who is Blackrock to say what young people want to do? Hell, Blackrock garners disdain from both sides of the aisle, would millennials and Gen Z really pick them as a representative of their wants and needs?
To me it didn't seem neutral, it seemed to imply a sense of laziness and wanting luxury over hard work from the newer generation.