this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
123 points (99.2% liked)

Antiwork

8271 readers
1 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]
123
The Guardian view on ‘unretirement’: older workers could help with labour shortages (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

💀💀💀

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You didn't read the article then. Cool, cool.

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

The article explicitly about coaxing (or coercing depending on your perspective) older workers who left the workforce due to covid back into the workforce? Yes, I did read that. Did you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But research also revealed that a substantial number of those who gave up work during the pandemic were hard-up as a result, with reduced expenditure on food and lower wellbeing. Meanwhile, one survey found that a fifth of economically inactive 50- to 64-year-olds were waiting for NHS treatment – evidence of the social and economic damage caused by the vast waiting list for treatment. As well as queues for operations such as hip replacements, economic inactivity is linked to the rising toll of chronic mental and physical illness.

You know fine well who will be prodded back to work and who will carry on enjoying their well-funded retirements. Or at least, you should if you had a) read the article and b) been paying any attention at all to how the world works and why kites like this are flown.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why did you quote a paragraph referencing people who took an early retirement as evidence that this article is not aimed at exactly that group?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They didn't take early retirement.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

who gave up work during the pandemic

This is what happens when you quickly scan articles looking for ways to dunk on people without actually grasping the content of the piece.

Also, you're coming at me as though I support what the article is saying. I don't. I just don't have the greatest sympathy for people with enough wealth to think they can retire at 50. Even if the retirement is a little tighter than they thought.

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

They didn't retire, they were forced to quit work. They're not getting a pension and they're not eligible for sickness benefits.

But you go ahead and fall for the fantasy that it's going to affect the rich people you don't like. That's exactly why they're flying this kite. Mug.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If they were forced out why is there an article about trying to coax them back into work? If they needed to work they would presumably be trying to find work rather than sitting retired having the capitalist class trying to think of ways to make them get back on the production floor. These are people with at least some money.