• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    We’re seeing the race to the bottom that is inevitable under capitalism, unless there’s some form of outside intervention.

    When it was the norm for a single person in a household to work, wages had to be sufficient to support a household with a single source of income. Men almost always earned significantly more than women; it was assumed that a working woman was either supplementing income, or not taking care of a household, and it was assumed that a working man needed to care for a household. As women started to enter the workforce in greater numbers in the 50s and 60s, you see household incomes start inching higher; as incomes increase, prices increase to meet the available income. Rising prices leads to more women entering the workforce, because a single income is no longer sufficient to meet the requirements for a household. By the time you get to the late 80s, it’s nearly impossible to have a family on a single income. Now a two income household can barely afford to even have an apartment, much less have a family.

    Now you have people working a day job, and working gig jobs for secondary income, to ‘get ahead’. Eventually that will be the new normal, just what is necessary to keep up with prices.

    Without putting capitalism on a very short leash, this is only going to get worse.

  • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Meanwhile, in Argentina, legislators granted special powers to the president, and now he’s proposing extending the work day to 12 hours.

  • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    So true. People seem to have convinced themselves that 35/40 hour weeks was some kind of ideal or agreed amount of hours we all found to be the best balance of all things.

    Nope, it used to be 60, until people fought back and made them reduce the hours they’re forced to work for other people’s profit.

    The problem is, we stopped fighting back.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It was a measure enacted during wartimes to increase productivity, or at least that’s what they said, because it was never rolled back to pre-war even after the US was no longer engaged.

      Always beware what they try to slip through under the guise of patriotism and “unity.”

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah then women entered the workforce and employers were like, “yayyy! Now we have doubled the labor pool. We can pay people half as much by not increasing real wages for 40 years.”

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is exactly why I liked Elizabeth Warren, she seemed to be the only politician talking about the major issue with tracking “family income” as opposed to individual incomes…

      I’ve been single for the last decade, at this point I know it is permanent. I will never have a second income. I do not enjoy living in someone else’s garage as I near 40 years old… Whatever OPs image has to say, I still feel like a complete failure as societal expectations of an “adult” are pretty much everything I don’t have.

      • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It is why I supported Warren, too. The concept is pro family, pro worker and pro business. It is terrible it is out of reach for so many families.

        • techt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Is this not a good-faith suggestion? If you’re going to disagree at least explain your downvote. I had roommates post-thirty and it improved my living situation drastically.

          • Pika@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I expect they probably have the same ideology I have, that this statement is very simple minded and throws very big well “you could just marry someone rich” vibes

            Like yes the comment is genuine but it isn’t reflecting on the fact that what the person is commenting on is the fact that societal expectations is that households required 2 income sources, which is polar opposite of what the society was built on where you used to be able to build a house and have a comfortable living with one income Source in the house, and now you can have two income sources in the house and still struggle to make ends meet. (hence the ideology of a minimum household wage instead of a min wage per individual)

            Take my grandfather for example his house is currently equated at 300,000, he paid 14,000 when he bought it, this was with a stay-at-home wife and a household of four kids. My grandfather was a teacher, so on a teacher’s salary he was able to afford that house and support his kids and his wife all with him being the only one who worked in the house. I believe that’s the point that the commenter was trying to get at and it’s likely why other people down voted that response. “Just get a roommate” doesn’t address the actual issue at hand, it’s a temporary solution to a hard set problem.

            But that is just how I see it,

            • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              300k on a 14k house? That’s chicken shit lol God I feel bad saying that but I feel worse saying my Nana got 1.5 mil on her 15k house. Somebody can do that math but I just ate dinner, I don’t have any room to eat shit too.

          • SoJB@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            the working class should have better living conditions, especially in modern times where worker productivity is multiple times higher than post-WW2 technology allowed even after accounting for the higher tech level required for modern society

            why not simply lower your living conditions?

            Ironic how the one arguing in bad faith is the one complaining about it.

            • techt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I mean, there’s room to talk about addressing systemic change and immediate quality-of-life suggestions in mutual exclusion, right? It’s not like taking steps to improve your life now is capitulation, and as I said having roommates was a step up in living conditions and made me better prepared mentally and financially to exist. I don’t see the irony at all – apologies if I’m misunderstanding – but we have to accept some nuance here.

  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    In Capitalism, wages are tied to subsistance plus replacement. This problem can only really be solved via Socialism.

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    One thing I like about WFH is that I can do the chores and stuff during the day. Take a break every hour or two is healthy, and using that time to do laundry or dishes or a quick errand means I have a lot more time in the evening and on weekends

    • TheEntity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      At this point you should be watching YouTube at work. Reclaim the time lost at work by any means necessary!

  • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I always wondered what would happen if we had a family wage, instead of a minimum wage. The social and economic implications are an interesting thought experiment.

    • Lesrid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ve had thoughts along those lines. Like how everything I buy is just something my employer technically spent money on with the indirect expectation I am making purchases to keep myself relatively fit for work. But atomization is capitalism’s greatest strength, this economy runs on scapegoats and finger wagging.

  • ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    We have to be in the office 5 days a week. My boss who is a boomer/late gen X gets annoyed when people aren’t “butts in their seats 9-5”. I’m a Xellenial and really don’t care when my guys are in as long as they get things done. I keep telling him the more rigid he is with time, the more likely we are to lose good people. We’re already on thin ice with 5 days in office and have been losing people. It’s a constant fight that I have to shield them as much as possible from.

    • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      In a team meeting I had a while back my lead was talking about making sure we don’t get burnout. I asked if our department could trial run a 4 day work week. Their answer was “company won’t allow that but if you get all your work done by Friday I won’t ask questions if you’re not online”. Productivity and morale immediately went up. Good leads shield their team from the bullshit thank you

      • iLove@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        As a software deceloper I struggle to understand that phrase “if you get all work done”. That will never be the case for me, because (1) there is always more work and (2) we usually plan in more into a sprint than one can muster. That means we are always moving work from one into the next sprint. You are never done early enough to quit even a quarter of a day early.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          we usually plan in more into a sprint than one can muster.

          That means you have a project manager who doesn’t understand how sprints are supposed to work, and he’s hurting the entire team because of it. You guys will get burnt out, productivity will be shit, and the good people will leave. I’d encourage you to talk to them, or their boss if they don’t listen.

          • dandi8@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I mean, that’s true, but the point still stands - every first Friday of a sprint there is ALWAYS going to be work to be done.

            And what if they’re doing Kanban?

            The point is, Fridays off shouldn’t ever be dependent on “all work being done”.

            • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              You should be able to tell by the first Friday if you’re on-track to finish your sprint without working Fridays. You can’t tell now because you’re overloaded.

      • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        My current mid-manager has the same attitude that gets them our respect back, but as long as it’s not codified, it’s one single useful piece of corruption that’d be taken away if that gets noticed or they’d get replaced. Better to have legit short hours than cuts entirely dependent on someone’s will, but we are frustratingly happy eating what occasionly falls from the table. It causes a lot of mixed feelings to say the least.

    • Xaphanos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Xellenial - I like that. I’m also an in-betweener - Boomer and X. It’s also called Generation Jones.

      Do you feel part of either, part of both, or completely not fitting in with either?

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Part of both. My work ethic is closer to that of X, but I very much understand the millennial approach to things. They way I’ve heard that sub-generation defined is “analog childhood, digital adulthood”

  • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Friendly reminder you work more now than your ancestors did before all the innovations we have now, and you get a much smaller slice of the pie for it.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Our company forced us to take 8 hours off every week for the past couple of months. It has been fantastic 😊. Why not make it permanent? C’mon!

  • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    They also expected a lot less. One of the hardest parts of being a nurse in the modern day is having to be mentally “on” for 2x6h for 2-3 days straight (or just 12h straight if I don’t make it to lunch). I’m constantly having to evaluate and reevaluate every action I take and decide whether multiple different types of clinical alarms are actionable or not moment-to-moment. I actually LOVE getting a nursing assistant assignment for the night because it means I get to just clean things and people all night and not have to think (as much) about every possible medication and health condition and how all of them will interact. I would 100% just make beds and wipe butts all shift and give meds 1-2x if they’d let me. That honestly sounds so mentally zen to me.