this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
58 points (88.2% liked)
Ask Lemmy
187 readers
71 users here now
Ask Lemmy community on sh.itjust.works. Ask us anything you feel like asking, just make sure it's respectful of others and follows the instance rules.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sorry, I had an idea in the back of my head that made what I wrote seem more grounded. The idea in mind was of a pretty standard non-union American corporate employee. An employee in a nation that doesn't consistently provide services like healthcare, so many workers find themselves dependent on their employer for health insurance to afford healthcare.
In any event, isn't this whole line of discussion awkwardly suggesting at some point a fiscal risk may be more relevant than risk to one's life/well-being? Shouldn't monetary concerns always take a backseat to the well-being of people?
That depends on your definition of "well-being," as well as the severity of the financial risk. There's a wide range between "literally risking your life" and "a little discomfort/inconvenience," just as there is between someone mortgaging their house (risking financial ruin) and some VC tech bro risking other rich people's money.
Any policy we come up with needs to be sensitive to those extremes. But in general, an individual's ability to make decisions should be roughly proportional to the risk they're taking.
Yeah, that's ridiculous, but it has nothing to do with employees having a vote. Ideally, benefits like health care should be completely separate from employment. Switching jobs shouldn't change your coverage... Likewise, you shouldn't be screwed on retirement savings just because your employer picked a bad plan.