I suspect there would be less #depression if people had a #livingwage, no more than a 40 hour #working week, could #afford a #roof over their head, #healthy #food, #childcare, #care (respite, suitable #care homes or financial support you can live on for #caring #responsibilities, & the #NHS was brough back up to it's previous accessability including #dental.
https://www.islandecho.co.uk/ventnor-park-cordoned-off-after-shock-body-discovery/
Almost half of antidepressant users could quit with GP support, study finds
UK researchers say study shows stopping long-term use of the drugs is possible at scale without costly therapyAndrew Gregory (The Guardian)
volkris
in reply to Delphi • • •but you’re not considering the costs if lower productivity contributed to worse standards of living throughout society.
There’s more to work than just money. Workers actually make stuff and provide services to others.
Delphi
in reply to volkris • • •Why would productivity be lower if people had a living wage?
I agree there is more o work than money but it's hard to do a good job if you don't have the basics of a reasonable life. So, secure, healhy people would have the potential to be happier more effective workers.
Have I missed you point?
volkris
in reply to Delphi • • •well the limitation on working hours more directly impacts productivity than living wage. (And, for that matter, limitations on how I can apply my labor, the hours that I’m allowed to work, certainly makes me unhappy and impacts my agency)
But even when it comes to living wage, such proposals often make it just not mathematically viable to offer goods and services to customers, with resources being taken away from where they are needed in order to write those paychecks.
You can’t productively make food for people if you can no longer afford the ingredients as the budget is skewed by living wage implementation.
Delphi
in reply to volkris • • •I undersand agency but when you have to do over 40 hours as you can't pay your bills or because your employer demanded it something is very wrong.
Delphi
in reply to volkris • • •Taking the product as the main thing instead of the employees is the wrong focus for a fair society. Nobody anywhere should work a full week for an unlivable wage. We shouldn't have processes that lead to working-poor in the 21st century.
Delphi
in reply to volkris • • •Arguing against living wages is saying that the business is more important than workers and yet without workers there would be no business.
volkris
in reply to Delphi • • •again, my focus isn’t on the business but on the fellow humans that are counting on the goods and services being offered.
A business can only succeed to the extent that it’s offering goods and services to humans who need them, but so often that gets overlooked.
If you go to the store and there isn’t bread on the shelf because workers were prevented from working the hours they need to make the bread or costs are increased to the point where the bread can no longer be produced, you lose out. Real people lose out.
Never forget the downstream negative impacts when you start messing with production that people are relying on.
Delphi
in reply to volkris • • •volkris
in reply to Delphi • • •Delphi
in reply to volkris • • •We aren't going to agree. As I see a better way for society to not depend on poverty & you are happy for some people to live in poverty.
I expect you also believe that it is wrong for health to be free at point of service paid for by society as a whole. It's the American way & I'd rather have a fairer society.
BTW - I bake my own bread.
volkris
in reply to Delphi • • •You’re still missing the point: with out production pay doesn’t matter because there’s nothing to buy.
If there’s no bread on the shelf because it wasn’t produced then it doesn’t matter how much you were paid, you still can’t buy the bread because it doesn’t exist.
Without production none of the rest matters.
Mark
in reply to volkris • • •@volkris
Appears you miss the point. When large amounts of cash are taken out of a business as profits and payments to shareholders, the product, bread in your example, becomes very expensive
Less people can afford it. By lowering wages, not paying overtime, etc, more cash is taken by the company
This is when profits, greed & personal extravagance is the motivation rather than feeding human beings.
Example: compare cost/person for #healthcare in US & UK. UK better outcomes, less expense
volkris
in reply to Mark • • •@paka You’re still missing it: You’re assuming there is bread in the first place.
You’re talking about large amounts of cash taken out of a business making bread, but that assumes there is a business making bread.
What if there is no business making bread?
THAT’S crucial to consider. Because if no business is making bread, then there is no bread.
Mark
in reply to volkris • • •@volkris
Raised in America?
volkris
in reply to Mark • • •