this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
299 points (92.1% liked)

Antiwork

8253 readers
20 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
299
Redditor explains that reddit's moderators can't understand how rich people's wealth operates because it is too complicated for poor people (old.reddit.com)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But then why is it an acceptable choice for the commuting grocery store worker, but not for the engineer? There is a quality of living involved here that the engineer chooses to pay for, which the grocery store worker doesn't have.

Thats what i mean with unrealised luxuries. They claim to live paycheck to paycheck because their understanding of what a "normal" standard of living ist, is very different, from what "normal" people actually have as a standard of living.

This is not to say, that theses conditions are a good society or dont need changing. But who can get such an engineering job definetely chooses to have a quality of life that he pays all his paycheck for. If it wouldn't be a choice the grocery store workers wouldn't exist.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Everyone has their own definition of what an acceptable choice is.

My point is that cost of living is not a choice. It is the actual cost that it takes to live in a specific area. Sure, where and how i live are my choice. But that has nothing to do with the actual cost of living in a given neighbourhood. And when you average it out, it balances out those who are frugal and savvy with their money with those who live beyond their means.

To say that everyone who makes 250k/yr and is living paycheck to paycheck is fat on avocado toast, and 15$ lattes is oversimplifying it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Unless you are forced to life in that area you are making a choice. And you are not forced to life there. It comes with trade offs. The trade offs are traded in the housing market. People fled the cities in the 80s to move into suburbs. Now people want to life in the city again.

And cost of living of course includes the coffee and toast. You see that in areas that are gentrified, forcing people who dont make the 100k a year to move away. Where before the coffee was 3$ it now is 15$. And someone is paying for that, otherwise the business would not work. So again people are making that choice. And the people with 100k make the choice actually forcing the hand of people who only make 30k and are literally forced out of their neighbourhood.

Of course then there is all the more compulsion to claim, that they had no choice but to gentrify and had no choice but to drive people out of their neighbourhoods. Because if the people with 100k weren't forced to do so, then they would need to take responsibility for their role in that market. Of course the main responsibility remains with the landlords who are happy to drive rents up and people out. But then again i doubt there to be many six figure engineers who are devout to left parties (in case of the US, the Democrats are not a left party by any outside standard.)