this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025

519 points (99.6% liked)

Work Reform

15778 readers

70 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

seeCseas@lemmy.world

tintory@lemm.ee

TinMod@lemmy.world

519

New Report Shows Working-Class Americans Live 7 Years Fewer Than Rich (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 1 year ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/workreform@lemmy.world

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Cosmonaut_Collin@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We need Dr. Luigi to help close the gap.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are remedies to close that gap...

[+] jerkface@lemmy.ca -24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You can't truly believe rich people are just inherently better at not dying of heart disease or cancer.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Education (and learning) affects deaths of heart diseases and cancer. Say, my stupid, stupid dad during covid got ill (not with covid likely) and died from heart attack, because he was afraid to get infected by doctors (yes). Education also affects whether you become "poorer" or "richer".

Heart diseases and cancer are affected by bad food habits, which are sometimes affected by executive dysfunction and addictive behavior, which also impede people from becoming "rich" directly.

And the longer you survive, the likelier you are to have successes yielding financial results.

So - maybe he doesn't believe that, but I eagerly do, it just makes sense. Correlation is not causation.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Keep licking them boots.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago

https://nypost.com/2018/02/01/lotto-winner-went-for-back-checkup-found-out-he-had-deadly-cancer/

tldr. Man couldn't afford to go to the doctor until he won the lottery.

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

7 years as of right now. It's trending downward.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago

[–] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

That can be corrected pretty quick.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well obviously, once we retire our lives no longer have value.

The closer retirement age and death are the better it is for the economy; at its most efficient we'd work until the day we die at 60.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, no. Entire industries are founded on retirement money being spent. They want people to save 401ks, no pensions. And then die as soon as they run out of money or start costing the state anything

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

But wouldn't it be better for them if we die and our children cash out their parents' retirement savings to put it into the economy immediately? Think of how much economic activity is generated when a 30 year old inherits two $500,000 accounta from their dead parents!

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes but they keep voting to have their lifespans cut.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Not me.... ffs, they should speak for themselves

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

Good job, Rich.

[–] Doctor_Satan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Luigi Mangione was trying his best to close that gap.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For fuck's sake please stop robbing this man of his presumption of innocence.

[–] Doctor_Satan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I'm not on the jury.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

Surprised it's only 7 tbh.

[–] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Fuck words. If newsmax thinks otherwise this is worthless…

[+] herrvogel@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow. It's rare to see someone incorrectly use fewer instead of less.

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Isn't fewer the better choice in formal English because years is a countable plural noun?

[–] herrvogel@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's not. You can count years, but years are a unit of time and you can't count time. Same thing with kilos or meters or liters or a bunch of other things.

It's not a super strict rule that you can apply blindly anyway. Money is very much countable but it's "less".

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have less money, because I have fewer dollars. I have less time to live than them, because I have fewer years left.

[–] herrvogel@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

JFC this thread is bizarre. Just look this shit up, it's not that hard. In fact here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=less+vs+fewer&t=ffab&ia=web

You will see that all of those results will agree that less is almost always correct when talking about time, despite the unit. And the very rare cases where fewer is correct do not cover OP's title.

You will also see that less is practically always correct for money. It is the single most notable exception to the countable vs uncountable rule that is mentioned very often.

edit: I'm also gonna preempt any possible "it's not incorrect it's just unusual" response. "Just unusual" or "just awkward" is very often as close to incorrect as certain things get in a language.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

From Grammerly:

It is also customary to use less with regard to time, even though we can count time in seconds, minutes, hours, and so on.

Example:

Ethan has been at his job for less than five years.

I wish I could spend less time on household chores.

Yet, depending on how general or specific your reference to time is, it may require the use of fewer.

Example:

I wish I could spend fewer hours on household chores and more on watching television.

Both less and fewer are perfectly acceptable in this context.

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

I'm late to the party, but I just wanted to point out that your username followed by your argument gave me a good chuckle.

OBJECTION!!!

[–] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

it's not

it is

years are a unit of time and you can't count time

wtf lmfao

[+] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is a logical trick - the longer you live, the likely you get richer.

I understand everyone's bias, but not why such pleasant to find moments are left ignored.

[–] halykthered@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not 1% rich, as the article says.

Years of being unable to afford preventative care, and insurance coverage denial for helpful procedures, mean the average person will die sooner. The lifespan of Americans is much lower, despite higher costs of healthcare, when compared against peer countries.

I bet there's more plastic in poorer people as well.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

both can be true

[–] halykthered@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Can you elaborate? Most people will not end up as 1% rich, as implied by the name. The average working person is in risk of destitution. We are all much much closer to homelessness than we are to immense wealth.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

thats not how it works. with the super rich the shorter your parents life the sooner you become rich.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

both can be true

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 1 year ago

sorta but someone who works for a living who can no longer work do to age is not going to get richer by living longer.

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Those with investments and other preparations in place to retire comfortably and still make money somehow are only a fraction of the population. Not everyone's a business owner, invested in the stock market in time, has a savings account, got an inheritance, owns their own house, or lives debt free, etc. There's a chasm between the haves and the have-nots that is only getting wider and accelerating in the USA.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was trying to say causality goes both ways between "being rich" and "living longer".

Of course there is a chasm. There are also mass murders of towns and villages on the Syrian coast right now, with the EU having reacted swiftly by condemning the victims, and the US having reacted only in words and proceeding to bomb Yemeni houthis with means more than enough to stop those mass murders.

There are storms, and there are still times, and there are times of abundance and of hunger.

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I see. I wasn't commenting anything else, though. 😅