Work Reform

10021 readers

236 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

seeCseas@lemmy.world

tintory@lemm.ee

TinMod@lemmy.world

1553

Gen Z is prioritizing living over working because they've seen 'the legacy of broken promises' in corporate America, a future-of-work expert says (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 10 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/workreform@lemmy.world

333 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A future-of-work expert said Gen Zers didn't have the "promise of stability" at work, so they're putting their personal lives and well-being first.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

When the plan administrator is picking the stocks in their “Target Retirement 2055” account, I’d say they have a large amount of control.

Now the S&P 500? Probably no control. But is it truly the S&P 500 or some bull shirt index fund from the 401k provider that’s not 100% following the S&P 500?

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The portion of the comment I replied to, which I highlighted at the top of my response was that Op had said that "if the company managing your 4401k makes a bad investment", concerned that (among Ops other accurate concerns) your 401k funds could be used elsewhere without your knowledge or permission by the plan administrator, which they can't. So I corrected it.

Lazy people immediately REEE when someone doesn't immediately jump on the tribal circle jerk and agree even when parts of a statement are incorrect. Ops point was overall correct and a good one and correcting something that was wrong doesn't mean I disagree with the rest of it. Lookup false dichotomy.

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

If you’re investment is in the hands of a company that’s manually picking and choosing you’re in bad hands.

Better?