Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this entire thread and am still confused.

Are these people against work in general or against abusive employers? "Antiwork" as a title is as bad as "defund the police" in terms of ambiguity.

If they're against work in general, then I am fine with that, as long as they don't then turn around and expect me (and others who work for a living) to financially support them. Most people work out of necessity, but some are financially independent and can do what they want.

If they're against abusive employers, then I think that they should quit and find other jobs. There is no shortage of "help wanted" signs around me and, I suspect, in most areas of the US. I have quit an abusive job (I was assigned to a new boss who expected me to do things that I was never expected to do when I was hired, such as being available for work during vacation times) for another job, and would encourage others to do the same. In this case, the group should be called "anti-abusive workplaces" or something more specific.

If they actually want working people to subsidize their choice to not work, then they can go screw themselves. I'm not doing that, and I can't imagine that they'll get many supporters of their cause.

Confusing thread.

I'm with you. I don't fully understand the movement, or the thread.

I mean, isn't work part of a social contract that we all have? We do things that need to be done, and we get paid for that. Of course no one should stick with an abusive boss. But I'm not sure what is abusive and what is people being told they have to follow certain policies, or earn x dollars instead of y dollars.

I think the confusing part is that, as in this thread, there are some people advocating for unions, better pay, better working conditions, etc. and then there are also a bunch of childish idiots who just don’t want to work. When the latter take up the “antiwork” mantle and speak on behalf of the former, it’s problematic.

I have seen no one like that speaking for the movement, just people on this thread who have no idea what antiwork is insisting that they exist, that they are lazy entitled millennials, and that they represent the movement [that the speaker doesn't understand]. So now we're talking about what bad guys these imaginary mooches are and appropriate branding instead of workers' rights, just as the sealions intended.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this is why everything is short staffed nowadays?

No. Most of the missing workers are Boomers who retired earlier than anticipated. But the media never misses a chance to blame those ~*~eNtitLEd MiLlennIaLS~*~ for anything that confuses the masses.

https://www.businessinsider.com/labor-shortage-millions-retired-early-pandemic-not-going-back-2021-11

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this entire thread and am still confused.

Are these people against work in general or against abusive employers? "Antiwork" as a title is as bad as "defund the police" in terms of ambiguity.

If they're against work in general, then I am fine with that, as long as they don't then turn around and expect me (and others who work for a living) to financially support them. Most people work out of necessity, but some are financially independent and can do what they want.

If they're against abusive employers, then I think that they should quit and find other jobs. There is no shortage of "help wanted" signs around me and, I suspect, in most areas of the US. I have quit an abusive job (I was assigned to a new boss who expected me to do things that I was never expected to do when I was hired, such as being available for work during vacation times) for another job, and would encourage others to do the same. In this case, the group should be called "anti-abusive workplaces" or something more specific.

If they actually want working people to subsidize their choice to not work, then they can go screw themselves. I'm not doing that, and I can't imagine that they'll get many supporters of their cause.

Confusing thread.

I'm with you. I don't fully understand the movement, or the thread.

I mean, isn't work part of a social contract that we all have? We do things that need to be done, and we get paid for that. Of course no one should stick with an abusive boss. But I'm not sure what is abusive and what is people being told they have to follow certain policies, or earn x dollars instead of y dollars.

I think the confusing part is that, as in this thread, there are some people advocating for unions, better pay, better working conditions, etc. and then there are also a bunch of childish idiots who just don’t want to work. When the latter take up the “antiwork” mantle and speak on behalf of the former, it’s problematic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this entire thread and am still confused.

Are these people against work in general or against abusive employers? "Antiwork" as a title is as bad as "defund the police" in terms of ambiguity.

If they're against work in general, then I am fine with that, as long as they don't then turn around and expect me (and others who work for a living) to financially support them. Most people work out of necessity, but some are financially independent and can do what they want.

If they're against abusive employers, then I think that they should quit and find other jobs. There is no shortage of "help wanted" signs around me and, I suspect, in most areas of the US. I have quit an abusive job (I was assigned to a new boss who expected me to do things that I was never expected to do when I was hired, such as being available for work during vacation times) for another job, and would encourage others to do the same. In this case, the group should be called "anti-abusive workplaces" or something more specific.

If they actually want working people to subsidize their choice to not work, then they can go screw themselves. I'm not doing that, and I can't imagine that they'll get many supporters of their cause.

Confusing thread.

I'm with you. I don't fully understand the movement, or the thread.

I mean, isn't work part of a social contract that we all have? We do things that need to be done, and we get paid for that. Of course no one should stick with an abusive boss. But I'm not sure what is abusive and what is people being told they have to follow certain policies, or earn x dollars instead of y dollars.

Yes companies are short staffed right now because they're refusing to pay competitive wages. No one's taking a $10/hr job to get verbally abused by customers of they can find something that pays better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this is why everything is short staffed nowadays?

No, the businesses don't pay. If they can't attract/retain employees - their business model is fundamentally flawed. But for some reason they keep asking about the 'workers'.

It’s time for loser companies to go under and make room for better companies/hiring managers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this is why everything is short staffed nowadays?

No, the businesses don't pay. If they can't attract/retain employees - their business model is fundamentally flawed. But for some reason they keep asking about the 'workers'.

Anonymous wrote:So this is why everything is short staffed nowadays?

Anonymous wrote:What do people think of this? People, especially millennials and Gen z, are quitting en masse and basically refusing to work. There are employment shortages all over the country. Workers are striking more than ever before.

What are people's thoughts?

Anonymous wrote:I have read this entire thread and am still confused.

Are these people against work in general or against abusive employers? "Antiwork" as a title is as bad as "defund the police" in terms of ambiguity.

If they're against work in general, then I am fine with that, as long as they don't then turn around and expect me (and others who work for a living) to financially support them. Most people work out of necessity, but some are financially independent and can do what they want.

If they're against abusive employers, then I think that they should quit and find other jobs. There is no shortage of "help wanted" signs around me and, I suspect, in most areas of the US. I have quit an abusive job (I was assigned to a new boss who expected me to do things that I was never expected to do when I was hired, such as being available for work during vacation times) for another job, and would encourage others to do the same. In this case, the group should be called "anti-abusive workplaces" or something more specific.

If they actually want working people to subsidize their choice to not work, then they can go screw themselves. I'm not doing that, and I can't imagine that they'll get many supporters of their cause.

Confusing thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I joined this movement, but I call it 'retirement'.

IKR? Nobody has a problem with retirement, early retirement, FIRE, or being so wealthy you don't have to work. But young people living within their means (whatever the source of those means) to avoid a dead-end traditional job is somehow triggering.

I have a traditional 9-5 job and a nice lifestyle. If I could afford my lifestyle without working I'd quit tomorrow. I have several friends who made different lifestyle choices (no house, no kids) and have non traditional income or temporary jobs. They're not in debt or mooching, they just made different choices.

UH, YES THEY DO. I’m fully retired (SAHM of tweens and teens), my H is semi retired (he dabbles in some projects but out of interest, not the need for money) due to an IPO payout.

Do you know how many people say they would be bored and not know what to do with a full schedule of leisure time and hobbies??

I can’t stand the rise and grind people. I think they need to get a life. Quite literally! Find yourselves some hobbies. Get a dog. Travel. Spend more time with your loved ones, especially your parents, while everyone is still in good health. Think about something besides money!!

I mean, I agree with you about the hobbies, travel, and pets, but the only people who don’t have to think about money are those who have a lot of it. You said yourself that your husband got an IPO payout. I think I’d be darling at being retired, but I can’t yet. So your suggestion exposes your privilege.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I joined this movement, but I call it 'retirement'.

IKR? Nobody has a problem with retirement, early retirement, FIRE, or being so wealthy you don't have to work. But young people living within their means (whatever the source of those means) to avoid a dead-end traditional job is somehow triggering.

I have a traditional 9-5 job and a nice lifestyle. If I could afford my lifestyle without working I'd quit tomorrow. I have several friends who made different lifestyle choices (no house, no kids) and have non traditional income or temporary jobs. They're not in debt or mooching, they just made different choices.

UH, YES THEY DO. I’m fully retired (SAHM of tweens and teens), my H is semi retired (he dabbles in some projects but out of interest, not the need for money) due to an IPO payout.

Do you know how many people say they would be bored and not know what to do with a full schedule of leisure time and hobbies??

I can’t stand the rise and grind people. I think they need to get a life. Quite literally! Find yourselves some hobbies. Get a dog. Travel. Spend more time with your loved ones, especially your parents, while everyone is still in good health. Think about something besides money!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a huge fan and I hope it has an impact on employers. I like working but I don’t wanna do it more than 20 hours a week. And I want a decent salary for that time.

My friend owns her own business, aside from hiring a part time customer service rep, she works 2 hours per day and makes 200k/year.

Tell us more about what she does

Sells luxury perfume on poshmark/ebay. Super rare and niche brands like oriza legrand, not the avg burberry or lancome.

Oh wow. So why is there so much money in that? How does she get it cheap enough to have that kind of profit margin? If you dont mind me asking...

She has literally no competitors. The markup isn't that much because artists (Europeans) take a lot of pride in their work. But the uniqueness allow her to focus on serving clients who are willing to pay.

That's awesome. So she makes her perfume herself? Or she resells?

That's very inspiring. There is so much money to be made out there in unconventional ways

Resale. There are lots of super cool stuff in Europe that will wow Americans. She nabbed some cute watches in Venice for 10 euro each, and Americans grabbed off her ebay store for 80/each.