Everyone wants to picture a farmer in America as a po-dunk lil mom and pop organization when these things are megacorporations that sit on stupid amounts of land and wealth.
People should consider “helping the farmers” as bad as “helping business”.
Unfortunately, for some “leaders” it won’t make any difference what the numbers say about 4 day work weeks.
I tried to get it implemented at a company that I co-founded, and despite presenting multiple studies showing that we would very likely save money and be more efficient, our CEO simply ignored them and kept repeating that a 4 day week wouldn’t be efficient. They had zero interest in what statistics and studies say; they’re the CEO and if their gut feeling says 4 days bad, then 4 days bad (and no their decision wasn’t due to them having information I didn’t have). I’ve heard similar stories from others.
Hopefully the results of this trial won’t just get ignored and forgotten.
But if the studies are right, your competitors are spending more money and being less effecient than you. Wouldn’t it just make good business sense to go with the 4 day work week?
Funny you should mention that; guess where I don’t work anymore?
But yes, absolutely right. While I honestly believed (and still do) in what the company is doing and really wanted to do my part in making it work, I’m not going to bother pouring so much of myself into work if I don’t get treated as an equal. Honestly there were so many red flags before that too, thinking back, but that was definitely the last straw. Took me a while to get the message, heh
I read somewhere that the US armed forces started to change they way they trained after they determined that too many soldiers were refusing or hesitating to shoot enemy combatants. The first true test of the new training methods was Vietnam.
I also recall reading that most new soldiers would often intentionally aim over the head of their targets. The thing about war is, though, that eventually the people you come to have strong bonds with are either killed or in danger of being killed. The longer you’re in a war, the easier it is to justify your fury.
The movie Fury is basically about this phenomenon. You start in the war perhaps reticent to murder, but if you see enough war, your moral horizon shifts in response to the real (whether justified or not) violence and horror that is inextricable from war itself, regardless of sides or justifications.
Pretty much the entirety of mainstream political speech boils down to the Elites being special and what is good and proper for them is not the same as what is good and proper for the rest, both in terms of what they can do and what can be done to them.
And this is in all political regimes, Democracy as much as Autocracy.
So the only surprise there can be in this comes from generally in Democracy the “we are different from you” kind of speech tends to be far more subtle and indirect (say, justifying politicians exclusion from certain surveillance laws due to their “responsibilities” or having law apply differently to “businesses” which is just a way to act towards the wealth of the Owner class differently than towards that of the Worker class), so some people hadn’t yet spotted how throroughly normalized and generally applied the double standard of the Elites is.
For anybody trying to look at the forest rather than getting fixated on individual trees, this stuff is immediately obvious as absolutely within the general pattern of behaviour of these people (it’s the mainstream politicians that do NOT think like this that are the exceptional ones).
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.