125
The Guardian view on ‘unretirement’: older workers could help with labour shortages
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
125 points (99.2% liked)
Antiwork
8282 readers
1 users here now
-
We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.
-
We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.
Partnerships:
- Matrix/Element chatroom
- Discord (channel: #antiwork)
- IRC: #antiwork on IRCNow.org (i.e., connect to ircs://irc.ircnow.org and
/join #antiwork) - Your facebook group link here
- Your x link here
- lemmy.ca/c/antiwork
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm really conflicted about this. On the one hand, I am not defined by my contribution to the economy, the value capital owners are able to skim off my labour. Fuck off with that.
On the other, 50-64 year olds who could afford to retire early are exactly the demographic buying into nativist anti-immigration rhetoric resulting in this, and it's a bit funny thinking about that group getting hoisted by their own petard.
They're not getting hoisted by anyone's petard. It's not the people who can afford a comfortable retirement the liberals* have in their sights here.
That's exactly who they are targeting as noted in the article. The unretired 50-64 year olds are still in the labour force.
You didn't read the article then. Cool, cool.
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?
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.
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?
They didn't take early retirement.
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.
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.
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.
You really haven't been paying attention, eh?