3 ms·
OK I'm lost on "We could say: "Let's use our extra wealth to take more leisure time for ourselves."" and how you square that with the gap between median wage an
by cmurf 10y ago
OK I'm lost on "We could say: "Let's use our extra wealth to take more leisure time for ourselves."" and how you square that with the gap between median wage and median housing cost. What extra wealth are you talking about?
I suppose if you say everyone who wants a bit bit more leisure time should leave cities for cheaper places it works out monetarily, but then people have to move.
- TaylorAlexander 10y agoI think I explicitly answered your question in my comment - it involves taking more wealth for ourselves by refusing to work for bosses who take it all from us, or by becoming so valuable to those bosses that you command a high enough salary to take more time for yourself. The median income is low because a small fraction of people take a large fraction of the wealth. But workers could leave wage jobs and become co-owners in a cooperative business, where wealth gains would be shared by all. Does that make sense?
- shostack 10y agoWhere are all of these co-ops then? If people in in-demand fields struggle to find places with good work life balance, it seems that owners don't find it beneficial to themselves to adopt such a model or more would have done so, no? Almost a chicken and egg problem.