1000
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
1000 points (97.1% liked)
Work Reform
9856 readers
182 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
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 think there is also inflation fear and a understandably low desire to try and save/invest. I know a few people that just had to start working again because the money they had coming in for retirement was not enough for what they thought was their lowest acceptable standard of living.
Its not hard to see with inflation above return on most safe investment vehicles (GICs paying 4.5% max with inflation at 5%) that people don't see the point.
it's mathematically impossible for any long term investment vehicle to payout more than inflation, unless you get lucky and happen to hit the Apple stock.
Sorry but by that logic there is no point in any investment mechanism. Historically GIC rates have been the oposite of what you claim https://www.ratehub.ca/blog/the-history-of-gic-rates/ . For example in 1995 GICs paid 7.1% vs the inflation rate of 1.7%.
I think the odd position that it is "mathematically" impossible to have any expectation of return is indicative of our messed up system.
You're right. I was angry when I posted this, and couldn't help but read glee in the repeated ways they described generations of people who are on track to simply never be able to save up for a comfortable retirement.
It does feel hopeless, though. I love my job and earn a decent wage, but if I had the money to retire, I'd do it today. I definitely don't want to work until I drop.
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.
So glad someone else read the article. I really thought we'd escape clickbait like this post on Lemmy, but there's so much rage people are up voting this stuff and commenting how horrible it is based on the false title, not the actual article which is freaking survey results.
Like yes things are bad, but these results could have printed about any generation at any time post 1940s (advent of the concept of young adulthood) as long as they were all under 25.
This just in - young people thinking on shorter time horizons, bad at planning for future. More in tomorrow's newspaper dated any time in the last hundred years or so.
Where in the world do you get that I'm an angry old person? I didn't say youth today suck. My other comments in this thread were mentioning why gen z gets a raw deal for crying out loud.
What I said was that young people think on shorter time horizons, which is empirically true and also literally backed up in this empirical case. Hence why I also said it applies to every generation. What a weird take. Defensive much?