this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
325 points (99.4% liked)

Work Reform

15382 readers
920 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:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BenderRodriguez@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'll say what I said on another thread. At least it's still higher than their age of consent.

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

$13.50 is less than 16 years of age? How does that math work? Is it $2 per year or is there some other formula you're using?

Age of consent in Nebraska, USA is 16. This is easily Googleable (I used DDG though, which uses Bing on the back end). Here's the top result: https://www.ageofconsent.net/states/nebraska

P.S. I broke out the calculator to justify your original statement. To get 15.9 as an age (lower than the age of consent in Nebraska, USA), you would have to consider $1.18 to be the value of each year. In other words, if you really did want to compare $13.50 an hour to an age that is lower than the minimum age of consent (I used 15.9), you would have to value each year to be worth $1.18. Or each dollar to be worth 1.18 years. I'm not sure. I'm not great at math. Maybe someone else can explain that better. I tried to make your argument make sense!

(I think you were trying to say that Nebraska's age of consent is 13, but you didn't think anybody would go look it up.)

[–] BenderRodriguez@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's a joke. It was a dig at their ass backwards culture of anti-education and intrafamiliar breeding.

You are absolutely correct I didn't think anyone would go look it up, because it was a joke.