• anomnom@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Yeah we need to be kept employed at around 94% (or at least not 100%) while we starve to death.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Well, technically 100% employment wouldn’t be desirable, that would mean nobody can ever switch jobs or take some time off from working to deal with some personal issues or projects.

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        I think employment is based on those seeking work. So if you take time off, you wouldn’t be counted. It’s a balance in the market that stops wage rises and inflation when there is unemployment. It’s obviously not desirable for the individual.

      • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        No it’s that wages climb too much when unemployment is too low. The Feds even fucking said it during the inflation. They wanted a higher unemployment rate. Super fucked unless there was ever a basic income.