this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2025
480 points (90.4% liked)
Comic Strips
18756 readers
1603 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's more exploitative than many younger individuals agree with. 40 hours and still can't buy a home? I'd say the 9 to 5 is a failed experiment.
Thanks for the context. Fwiw I can definitely empathize with that. Companies have been giving employees shit deals more and more over time.
For instance, I've met single company lifers and can't imagine that level of loyalty given a company wouldn't think twice to lay me off.
A lot of people like that are just coasting along, and fairly happy with where they are.
And that's fine, if your company treats you well, it's not a moral failing or anything.
No judgements either way, but some people do believe their company cares about them. I have yet to experience that myself is all.
They'll sometimes do just enough to give the impression they care about employees, as happy workers are generally more productive.
If you hate 9-5 five days a week you might want to look into how work used to be.
I think you're missing the point. Just because it was worse does not mean progress is pointless.
He said it was a “failed experiment.”
That does indeed make it sound pretty pointless.
“This is a failed experiment” does not mean “it’s an improvement but we should go further.”
I know everybody wants me to just get their point, and I do, but the words we choose also matter, and these were poor ones.
Yeah I feel this. "Failed experiment" implies, to me, that we should forget this avenue of thought and go back to what we had before.
"Outdated concept" might have been better?
Either way we're all in agreement fundamentally
No, it's a failed experiment. The fact it doesn't even exist anymore should tell you that. 9 to 5 monday to friday today is only 37.5 hours of pay a week.
I'm not sure I follow you. Can you explain
When the phrase working 9 to 5 was sang to the world for the first time it was true. Men got into the office at 9 and left at 5. An eight hour time. This was given to the man in his paycheck. A full 40 hours. Today the company no longer compensates a persons lunch. Meaning people either are made to clock off for an hour making the 9 to 5 now either 8 to 5 or 9 to 6. If someone does work only 9 to 5 Monday through Friday their employer will deduct 0.5 hours per shift for the lunch they took. Thats 2.5 hours they no longer pay you. The 9 to 5 doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for decades. That's only speaking about time cards.
If you worked a full 40 hours a week but, can't afford a home. Then all of this has failed. If you can't reverse a fatal action the system isn't faulty it's broken. We've been quibbling over how to fix the problems of inequality for so long, it's no longer a question of how do we fix it but, can we even fix it at all now?
Capitalism was doomed the moment they decided a standard was no longer needed. Inflation meant it was only a matter of time. If entropy is added to a system that system will inevitably fail. The wealth inequality is so massive, most people can't actually comprehend it and think we are being exaggerative or demonstrably over starting the problem. Heee is the only solution I've heard that would possibly correct the last 100 years of pure greed.
Cap inheritance to 50 million.
Tax every property owned past one with a step up taxe system. Each adds 10% property tax to the next. Something along those lines.
This may piss some off: Only allow citizens (naturalized is included) to own land.
Now can you see why I say it's failed and this can't be fixed? The degree of change needed is too great. The rudder will snap first.
Edit: sorry all the money taken from these three things would then need to be redistributed to the people directly at the end of the year as tax returns. I also recognize stocks in there current form would not survive this process. Again, the rudder breaks first.
Oh yeah, agreed 100%
Hope none of that came across as rude. I was trying to be concise but as punctual with the feeling as i could. We are all still in this together.
I'm on the spectrum so I can neither tell nor give a shit! The soundness of what you're saying is most important to me.
Who is this "he" you're talking about?
https://lemmy.world/comment/18286984
That’s the same person. I think they’re teasing you for not realizing that. They could also be teasing you for automatically gendering them too.
Fair enough I guess
"I think the system is unfair and could be dramatically improved."
"This is the improved version! No further progress shall be made! Work your 9-5 and be glad you're not locked in the shirtwaist factory for twelve hours a day!"
I like how you totally changed what you said, put it in quotes, and then did the exact same thing to me. This is a great example of a straw man: take what your interlocutor said, turn it into an extreme pantomime farce, and then bat it down. Feel better?
I was paraphrasing both OP and yourself to create a farce, yes. Because farces are funny. It was a joke, not a clever and cutting rhetorical maneuver.
So, yeah, sucks a little that you took it so personally, but I do feel pretty good about it.
You “paraphrased” what you said to be more reasonable than what you actually said, and “paraphrased” what I said to be less reasonable than what I actually said. Gee, neat trick.