Well if you think about it, you can actually give money to those in poverty by instead just giving that money to the rich. Because it just trickles down. So I think we should start this program with the rich people, and wait for some sort of trickling down effect to occur very soon. Any day now.
Wow, that’s just an amazing insult, and an even better oversimplification of how jobs work. Having both skills and time is not a guarantee of income, and employers have an obvious incentive to reduce pay in every possible way.
And life is too complicated to guarantee both skills and time no matter how much effort you put in. The person you’re replying to mentioned disabilities. I’d add that being young means you don’t have skills yet, but you still have to eat. Having kids means you don’t have time, having a medical emergency often means no time or money, being born poor means less resources to developing skills, having some skills but not all the ones needed for the particular job you are trying to get, having skills but only the skills for low paying job, I could go on and on.
I’m glad life is so straightforward for you, but it’s not for many many people who put in an immense effort into just surviving with very little hope of having extra money to buy things they want like tools.
That’s not how stocks work, in the UK or the US. You’ve demonstrated throughout this entire comment section that you don’t understand what you’re talking about with those “basic economics”
A stockholder is someone who buys stocks. Working for a company does not mean you are a stockholder. And you cannot buy stocks with all that freely forged food that’s everywhere in the forests around all of us.
You’re great at trolling, maybe leave the economics to everyone else tho.
I’m not in school, I graduated and now am working for a company. Which I’m not a stockholder in because that’s not how it works. I AM a stockholder in other companies because I’m trying to profit off this broken fucked up system in any little way I can.
Maybe you should try buying stocks so you can see what the financial world looks like
As part of his Labor Day message to workers in the United States, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday re-upped his call for the establishment of a 20% cut to the workweek with no loss in pay—an idea he said is “not radical” given the enormous productivity gains over recent decades that have resulted in massive profits for...
That’s totally understandable, but the “standard” work week is 40 hours. He’s just saying to change the standard. So if you’re job isn’t standard hours, it would probably just mean a little more overtime pay. Still a benefit to those people
Maybe this is stupid question but…single person business just mean it’s one person doing everything right? In those cases, how would changing the standard full time to 32 hours affect them in any way?
They wouldn’t be changing their own salary or have to change anyone else’s salary unless I’m missing something
ETA: small business just means less than 500 employees, I’m sure a good number of them could still afford it. And an easy (and admittedly imperfect) solution could be just adding an exception for small businesses.
Denver basic income reduces homelessness, food insecurity ( www.businessinsider.com )
Frustrated Over Being Unemployed, Man Dies By Suicide After Burning All His Degrees ( www.news18.com )
Panera founder says employees today aren't motivated by the idea of making money for shareholders: 'Nobody cares' ( www.businessinsider.in )
Panera's founder says "therapists belong in the C-Suite" and can help CEOs understand workers' motivations.
Bernie Sanders Champions 32-Hour Work Week With No Loss in Pay ( www.commondreams.org )
As part of his Labor Day message to workers in the United States, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday re-upped his call for the establishment of a 20% cut to the workweek with no loss in pay—an idea he said is “not radical” given the enormous productivity gains over recent decades that have resulted in massive profits for...