5 ms·

Just to be clear, I mean time off and returning to the same job. Shouldn't we be aiming for a future where we do not have to work like dogs to earn enough to st

by tocs3 2y ago

Just to be clear, I mean time off and returning to the same job. Shouldn't we be aiming for a future where we do not have to work like dogs to earn enough to struggle at home?

bb88 2y ago
How do you do this? Taxes? Increase worker salaries? Government funded health care? Access to cheap labor is what really drives economies. Market forces are what drive labor salaries. More people cheaper labor. It used to be in the 60s, 70s, and to some extent the 80's a single wage earner was enough in a family. By the end of the 80's it became clear that 2 wage earners was how people got ahead in life.
- tocs3 2y ago
  I don't know and it is a good question. Maybe we need three or four wage earners per household. Maybe 60-70 hour work weeks. I would like to hear some ideas that does not include more grinding down workers for GDP. Maybe another measure for a health society. Growth certainly help lots of people but when an economy is mature maybe more is not necessarily better, at least for the average worker.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    The main thing is that the share of GDP per worker has gone down, meaning the distribution is skewed. But I agree that there isn't a good option that I've heard to change this without other negative side effects.
    - tocs3 2y ago
      Then I suppose increasing wages is a good option as well as adding workers are both options and more paid leave).
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  We don't let the billionaires suck of 90% of the revenue, that's how. Them making 10% of their current salaries stock would still have them well well into retirement. Oh, and not doing 2 trillion in tax cuts for the rich would help.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I'm not sure how we do this, but our current economic system is garbage. As the saying goes, the other systems we've tried may have been worse, but that doesn't make this system good. A significant portion of the world population works themselves to the bone while barely scraping by. This is not the mark of a successful civilization. It's gross. Maybe as a start, we put limits on the ratio of executive compensation to the lowest paid jobs in a company. And require that a significant percentage of profits be distributed to employees rather than shareholders. Yes, that will slow economic growth. But even as someone reasonably well off, who depends on investments for his future, that seems much more fair than what we're doing now.

by tocs3 2y ago

Just to be clear, I mean time off and returning to the same job. Shouldn't we be aiming for a future where we do not have to work like dogs to earn enough to struggle at home?

bb88 2y ago

How do you do this? Taxes? Increase worker salaries? Government funded health care? Access to cheap labor is what really drives economies. Market forces are what drive labor salaries. More people cheaper labor. It used to be in the 60s, 70s, and to some extent the 80's a single wage earner was enough in a family. By the end of the 80's it became clear that 2 wage earners was how people got ahead in life.

tocs3 2y ago
I don't know and it is a good question. Maybe we need three or four wage earners per household. Maybe 60-70 hour work weeks. I would like to hear some ideas that does not include more grinding down workers for GDP. Maybe another measure for a health society. Growth certainly help lots of people but when an economy is mature maybe more is not necessarily better, at least for the average worker.
- giantg2 2y ago
  The main thing is that the share of GDP per worker has gone down, meaning the distribution is skewed. But I agree that there isn't a good option that I've heard to change this without other negative side effects.
  - tocs3 2y ago
    Then I suppose increasing wages is a good option as well as adding workers are both options and more paid leave).
johnnyanmac 2y ago
We don't let the billionaires suck of 90% of the revenue, that's how. Them making 10% of their current salaries stock would still have them well well into retirement. Oh, and not doing 2 trillion in tax cuts for the rich would help.
kelnos 2y ago
I'm not sure how we do this, but our current economic system is garbage. As the saying goes, the other systems we've tried may have been worse, but that doesn't make this system good. A significant portion of the world population works themselves to the bone while barely scraping by. This is not the mark of a successful civilization. It's gross. Maybe as a start, we put limits on the ratio of executive compensation to the lowest paid jobs in a company. And require that a significant percentage of profits be distributed to employees rather than shareholders. Yes, that will slow economic growth. But even as someone reasonably well off, who depends on investments for his future, that seems much more fair than what we're doing now.