all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I worked in an industry where 55 hours was normal. Later moved to a company that many employees did 60 a week and some were full on 70-80 hours.

I felt it was life draining. I always championed for no OT, and hire more staff, but the majority of coworkers wanted the insane OT pay.

I changed careers to escape it, and enjoy life more. But some of those guys retired at 50...so there is that 🤔

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Ya, I worked at a place with 12 hour shifts for well over a decade, often 6 days a week. It was from 7 am to 7 pm day shift, 7 pm to 7 am night shift, and would alternate every two weeks.

    It was good money but I missed a lot of my two kids growing up. I wish I could say that at least it got me ahead financially, but my ex spent money like it was going out of style. I probably would have been better off flipping burgers and staying close to home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I found the same. My ex couldn't grasp me trying to establish a budget, her response was "There's always money in the account, why do we need to budget", I said " The reason there is always money there is I keep putting it there because you are extending into overdraft everyday".

    I definetly found that working a lot meant I missed a lot with the kids, when I was off work my whole life was the kids because I knew we were missing moments.

    But working OT and endless money also means you make convenience decisions, like: let's just grab $60 of pizza on the way home since we won't have time to prep dinner, meanwhile there's a full fridge of food.

    Now that I'm on 40hour WFH, it means dinner can be made for under $5 because I'm home and can pre-simmer a sauce from scratch, or get something roasting ahead of time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago
    43 comments in c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 100 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Nah, he's right, the boomers didn't complain. That's why the unions are so powerless. Nice things take complaining to maintain.

    (@Mechoselachia@multiverse.soulism.net look at this)

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The pre-boomer generations didn't just complain, they physically fought for and defended their rights, and the elite feared them for it.

    Then the elite changed tactics - either out of fear or strategy, they gave the boomers everything they wanted, and raised a generation of people who didn't have to fight, but felt entitled to what their forefathers had fought for anyway.

    In turn, the boomers gave rise to generations of people who thought fighting was unnecessary and harmful. Now the elite are back to tearing down rights again, and not only do we not fight, but we can't even agree that it's necessary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 points 1 month ago

    That time when working more hours actually gave you more pay and a raise, and all at a single job. Yeah, they don't do that anymore.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    I’m at 68 hours this week.

    One salaried FT job (which, tbh, requires more than 40 hours most weeks and requires me to buy my own supplies. Also I’d lose it and get death threats if people knew I was LGBT!)

    2 part time jobs that vary from 20-30 hours together each week.

    I’m exhausted. I’m burnt out. I was thinking earlier about how nice it would be to get injured in a car crash and just sleep in the hospital all week.

    I’m a single adult. I don’t understand how people do this with kids.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Sounds like my life in my 20s (minus the LGBTQ). Unlike the current pile that we all had like so easy. What happened is that we eventually paired up so two people were paying the bills and we eventually got paid more and built equity and now 40 years later retirement is looking like a viable option. Certainly didn't feel that way 40 years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Anything over 60 is too much. I will do it on occasion if it calls for it. But 50 is perfect for my liking and life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Anything over 35 is too much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Yeah exactly, I'm hearing americans almost brag about 60-70 hr workweeks (excluding commutes) and that just sounds insane to me. Like, when do you live? When do you do hobbies, enjoy nature, or go out with your partner? Can't do it with like 2-3 hours you really have left after an 11 hour work day.

    Humanity would be perfectly capable of establishing a 30 hr workweek if capitalists didn't suck out every last drop of human labor from us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 73 points 1 month ago (27 children)

    WTF are you talking about?

    Boomers were born between 1945 and 1965.

    They had the eight hour day handed to them.

    Please stop using 'boomer' for anything that happened before 1970.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    That makes it even more funny, because boomers would complain about how hard it was for them, yet it was their parents that changed things for the better. Then when their kids talked about improving more, they told them to shut up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    If anything, Boomers had it easiest when it came to finding a job and paying bills or a college education. Every generation after had and has to go into stupid amounts of debt because the jobs did not keep up with inflation after the Vietnam War ended.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Civil War Boomers didn't know how good they had it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 1 month ago (5 children)
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago

    I think the education on just how much the boomers were given from the previous generation and how little they passed on to the next generation while acting like they worked for anything and were entitled to everything should be repeated as often as possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    It's not being used on just everything predating 1970, it's "anything I don't like is boomers".

    Be a millennial and think that social media is toxic and addictive (because of all the studies showing that it's toxic and addictive) and should it have restrictions to limit its influence, especially to children?

    "ok boomer!"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)

    Boomer, as an insult, now means an older out of touch person.

    Language is fluid.

    Edit: The dictionary agrees

    Edit 2: It's an insult, so it's a metaphor. When you call someone a bitch, you're not calling them a female dog. When you call someone a bastard you're not accusing them of being born out of wedlock.

    You're calling them the negative things associated with the noun.

    Plus, the term boomer predates the baby boomers by several decades. It was used for people in boom towns during the gold rush.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I mean, it's an insult, so it's a metaphor.

    It's not literally saying, "you were born between 1946-1964."

    It's saying, "you're old and out of touch, like the baby boomers."

    I'm honestly not sure why people have such a hard time with this concept. They're basically the Skinner meme, "Am I out of touch? No, it's the kids who are the problem."

    Which is exactly the point of the slang.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    You can use the word however you like, however the rest world sees this word as a name for a specific generation, born after WWII and before 65-68.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Just like Millennial is still being used for some young person disagreed with, even though the first Millennials are entering their mid life period.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Exactly. Not to mention that "boomer" predates the baby boomers by a few decades. It was used for people in the boom towns during the gold rush.

    It's an insult, so it's a metaphor. When you call someone a bitch, you're not calling them a female dog. When you call someone a bastard you're not accusing them of being born out of wedlock.

    You're calling them the negative things associated with the noun.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Plus, the term boomer predates the baby boomers by several decades. It was used for people in boom towns during the gold rush.

    Where did you hear that? I couldn't find anything to prove it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 19 points 1 month ago

    One of the boomers you should be focused on instead:

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    Its the 1% vs the working class, not generation vs generation.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    oh man... 14 hours? Must be nice to get that much free time in a day. Next thing you'll tell me is they gave you weekends off.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Transphobic child

  • source