[justaguyhere]

I think we are at a tipping point - my dad had a single job all his life, for 30+ years. While the organization he worked for wasn't great, they also didn't actively sabotage their own employees (benefits etc) as far as I know.

At this point, people with skills have a choice - they can start a business, freelance etc which come with their own problems (healthcare in the US especially). Even if a small % of the current wage slaves try this, and even if some of them succeed, it might at least start a movement. Maybe it is already happening. I see a lot of people realize that most employers are the same and they don't care about anything other than short term profits and are branching out on their own.

Another option is to unionize, that is not easy either.

This world has a severe shortage of good leaders (I am struggling to name even half a dozen world leaders that are worth anyone's respect). If communities organize locally and help each other, we can tackle big problems with a lot more ease. This is happening with food though - there are communities that are trying to grow their own food where they were previously dependent on imports.

[giantg2]

Well put.

I have a friend with a union job (construction) and is overtime eligible. I would love to get paid for the hours I actually work and have a contract that details what I'm responsible for. I know tons of people who consistently work more hours than required and get a small bonus relative to the extra hours (9-11 hour days vs 7.5 required). Then the rest of us are seen as lacking potential because we 'only' work 7.5-8 hours. They are constantly adding additional responsibilities and expectations at an unrealistic rate without any real training.

When I was hired, they hired me for a Java developer position and then stuck me into Filenet work immediately. The company is notorious for hiring under a generic title and then placing you into some obscure stack like FileNet or Neoxam.

I know unions can have their downside, but having a contract and representation when dealing with violations of it would be awesome.

[justaguyhere]

From what little I know of unions, I'd say it is better to have unions (with all the problems they bring) than not at all. With unions, workers have a chance at least to get fair treatment. Without them, it is totally one sided. Just look at the way Amazon treats their employees - who has the balls to take on them? Cities and mayors are bending over backwards to get Amazon come to them. The power imbalance is pathetic.

Another problem are the middlemen. In my own case, all the middleman company did was organize an interview. I haven't met them, they don't care about the candidates they place. They do nothing but write contracts and make phone calls. They lie to everyone - their clients, the candidates they place, and fellow middlemen. And for that, they take a huge cut of the candidate's salary/billing rate.

40-50 years ago, it was easier to do protests, spend time on policy/societal issues etc. Today's society is held hostage by high tuition, expensive healthcare and a hostile police force. It is hard to muster the energy to do anything but survive.

I don't know what the solution is. It is not pretty though - we cannot continue like this and still hope to support 7+ billion people (and rising).

[giantg2]

The population and future population events (pandemics, wars, control policies) are something I've wondered a lot about. I wonder if things will happen slowly enough that a sufficient portion of the population will voluntarily say "I don't want to bring a kid into this world" or if controls will be necessary. Of course with the economy being consumption driven, we will have a massive problem either way.

[justaguyhere]

The no kids thing is already happening on a small scale. I decided when I in college that I'll never bring a child into this world.

There was even a guy who wanted to sue his parents for his birth. As absurd as this sounds, it makes one think. Maybe that was his motivation

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287

[giantg2]

Yeah, but you still have plenty of people popping out 5+ kids and at a young age (smaller generation gap).

I am not saying this is true across the board, but my anecdotal experiences have been that the people who have more than 3 kids are not able to support them without government support programs (some exceptions like the Amish). I don't see any disincentives to having more kids if you know that support will be provided. Governments also promote having children via tax credits and even monthly payments for raising a kid (Norway or Sweden I think). That's not counting the needs-based assistance. It's all because the economy suffers if the population shrinks or stagnates.

Of course we can't just stop the needs-based payments and neglect the kids, but I would love to see the tax credits disappear and maybe require some kind of long lasting birth control as a requirement to assistance if they already have the replacement rate number of children (2) to ensure we aren't adding to the issue.

I have one kid and I don't think I want anymore. I see a very bleak future for the next generation.

[giantg2]

Looks like I was wrong. I just happened to stumble on this.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/experts-predict-profound-dec...