this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026
109 points (99.1% liked)

Europe

11391 readers
1239 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Lmao no it is not. This is not a rule of physics or nature. This is a condition willfully brought upon us by the rich.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

So, let me understand. You consider a situation where we live longer, we (want to) work less and we keep the same living condition (after retiring) possible.
Care to explain how ? Don't come up with the "tax the rich", they must pay their fair share of taxes but that does not means that they should pay for the longer retirement of everyone else.

While I agree that the higher productivity of the work should be paid more, I don't see how this difference can offset 15 or more years of additional retirement, even less if, like you suggest, we want to work less years.

[–] kossa@feddit.org 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

explain how

Productivity gains.

that does not means that they should pay for the longer retirement of everyone else

Why not, though?

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Productivity gains.

And on what your pay would be based ? The hours you work or the productivity ?
As I said, I agree that some of the productivity gains tranfer to the worker pay.
I simply do not belive that even if this trasfer happens then you can retire earlier having a longer live expectancy.
We can maybe work less every day for the same pay, like we work 7 hours a day and the hours we pool are used to hire some more workers, but that would not change the problem with retiring earlier and living longer (which are not problems per se)

Why not, though?

Because that could be applied also to you, I bet you are richer than someone else.
In the end, once someone pay their fair share of taxes the question is over. How much money is left to the someone is irrelevant.
We can discuss how to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes eventually.

[–] kossa@feddit.org 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 31 minutes ago)

retire earlier having a longer live expectancy

You asked about maintaining wealth and not expanding wealth. Productivity is output per work. If the output per work grows, we need less work to maintain the current output --> workers can chill more. Whether they retire earlier or have a 4-day-week.

Right now that surplus of productivity is just grabbed by the owning class.

once someone pay their fair share of taxes the question is over.

Yeah, right. And if our society wants to take that fair share to expand retirement for everybody, that's cool. And to what a 'fair share' is...that depends. In Germany in the 50ies they basically took 50% of everybodys wealth and had an maximum income tax bracket of 95% (which would start at 850k € yearly income today, if they had kept it), literally a max income, if you want. And apparently people thought that to be fair, so there's that.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Well the root problem is of course money, as always. We are already producing enough to feed everyone on earth for example. But since number must go up, the metric for rich assholes isn't actually productivity or needs being met, but growth.

For decades and decades we have automated more and more and yet work has not become less. Where do you think this surplus of value, created by automation and additional work by the working class ended up? I don't want to just "tax the rich", that is merely the first step. The goal has to be abolishing a system which not only allows for this concentration of wealth but is designed to do so.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 2 hours ago

Well the root problem is of course money, as always. We are already producing enough to feed everyone on earth for example.

True.

But since number must go up, the metric for rich assholes isn’t actually productivity or needs being met, but growth.

I don't think you can simply decouple productivity and growth.

For decades and decades we have automated more and more and yet work has not become less. Where do you think this surplus of value, created by automation and additional work by the working class ended up?

Partially to the rich but partially (a maybe too small part, I agree) to the workers, to pay for all the new things we have in our life. We don't live like our parents or our grandparents honestly.

I don’t want to just “tax the rich”, that is merely the first step.

As long as the tax is proportional and not something like "you are a billionaire, so we will grab everything over 1.000.000 a year" I agree, else you will end up with nothing.
And not because billionaires will flee the country but because nobody will care to go over the 1.000.000/year (or whatever limit you decide)

The goal has to be abolishing a system which not only allows for this concentration of wealth but is designed to do so.

To replace it with what ? I honestly don't see a better system actually.