Work Reform

10028 readers

219 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

[email protected]

1759

I'm not asking to be rich. (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

338 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)

I've since heard people try to walk it back as a flawed model,

That's interesting. Who is trying to walk Maslow's Hierarchy back? And to what end? I mean, I can think of a few motives, but I have no way of knowing if I hit the mark. Perhaps to convince the poor that having more money won't meet their needs?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Per Wikipedia:

Although widely used and researched, Maslow's hierarchy of needs lacks conclusive supporting evidence and the validity of the theory remains contested in academia.[10][11][12][13] One criticism of the original theory which has been revised into newer versions of the theory, was that the original hierarchy states that a lower level must be completely satisfied and fulfilled before moving onto a higher pursuit; there is evidence to suggest that levels continuously overlap each other.[3]

Hence the "pyramid" model of "the bottom layer must be solid before work can start on the next layer up" is...probably not science.

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

In the early 2000s we learned it in more of a nucleus model to address the pyramid criticisms. As someone who grew up poor and lives comfortably now, I can attest that it's a real thing. I miss the struggle in a morbid way. Life was somehow more defined.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I find it useful to think of as a teacher as the mechanism behind the principle of readiness, for two separate reasons:

Students who are tired, hungry, thirsty and busting for a toilet are not going to focus on a lecture about aerodynamics. The lecture is less immediate than their other needs.
Students who don't see a need to learn aerodynamics aren't going to bother to put in the effort to pay attention. Yes, higher learning can fulfill those higher, more intellectual needs up toward the self-actualization end of the pyramid, but it's not a guarantee. It is the responsibility of the teacher to inform his students which needs his lesson will help his students fulfill. By high school, students intuitively understand this, and might ask an algebra teacher "Why do we have to know this?" It amazes me how often that answer comes back "To graduate." As a flight instructor, I always found "So that you don't hit the trees at the end of the runway, catch fire and die" is more motivating to students.