• zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    Mkay but why shouldn’t someone be able to live a dignified life working 25 hours a week? Why does it have to be 40?

    • Guy Ingonito@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      He’s got a roof over his head, food to eat, and a ton of leisure time. That is dignified.

      His comment about one accident away is something he’d still be facing with 40 hours a week. We could all do with improvements to the social safety net.

      • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        I don’t know how leisurely that leisure time is gonna be, considering he’s only got a hundred bucks to play with, coupled with the stress and anxiety of being one car repair or injury away from financial ruin.

        You’re absolutely right that the social safety net needs improvements, but that net should be there for everyone, not just those that work some arbitrary number of hours.

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      No. That’s not full time work. Full time is 35-40 minimum, often closer to 50.

      That’s the type of job you have while you are in college or pursuing education for a better job.

      I worked 10-20 hours a week in college. Work 25 hours a week and having nothing else to do is working 3 days a week. If OP worked 5 days a week they’d up theri income substantially, but they refuse to do so.

      • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Big “just pull yourself up by your bootstraps” energy with this comment.

        It’s insane that you think people have to hit a minimum bar of “productivity” to justify living above a barely-scraping-by level, and that you set that bar at over half a person’s waking hours.

          • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            Yes, why the fuck not? Social safety nets and access to basic human necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare should not be gated by some arbitrary number of “working hours”.

            • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              because society would collapse. social programs only work by having more people putting into them than are taking out. they are a form of insurance.

              resources are not infinite. the insurance company can’t operate if it’s pay outs exceed it’s pay ins.

              • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                So your argument is that if everyone has access to basic necessities, society would collapse? What in the slipperiest of slopes are you talking about?

                If your “society” is dependent on people voluntarily going into wage slavery, maybe it should collapse.

                • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  It’s no an argument dude. It’s material and economic reality.

                  The problem with the current safety net is we don’t have enough going in. And you want to put less in while everyone takes out more.

                  That isn’t how reality works. You seem to think the garden of eden is just a matter of politics. in order for there to be food, medical care, etc, people need to provide it. people need to work.