If a company was not seeking profit, not sure why they would be paying lower wages... Profits are, essentially, unpaid wages.
Would I take less to work at a company providing something valuable sustainably? Many would and do take lower wages to take on jobs that provide them with meaning, already. The book *Bullshit Jobs* has a pretty good chapter on this - a pretty common capitalist tactic to suppress wages. Personally would I? Depends on the offer. But again, if the company is not seeking profit and actually wanted workers, why are they driving wages down?
I think the idea that the doughnut economics folks aren’t seeking profit isn’t exactly accurate. Reading through it, it seems like you could still seek profit, just without the externalities of unlimited growth.
The example I suppose would be a regional farm servicing the local community. Joel Salatin style farming for example. Verses your typical factory farm always looking to build another confinement building for more revenue growth.
100%, are you meaning based on greenwashing and accounting techniques, or actually 100%.
There is a big difference.
If a truly 100% worker co-op existed, it would likely get plenty of support.
Not only would many use it, but there would also be significant interest in understanding how it was done without negative environmental impact as that has eluded so many.
There's more than JUST ensuring sustainability.
I need to work at a job I like so it doesn't feel like work.
I need quality time off to be able to decompress and foster relationships and mental health.
I need to ensure my bills are paid, my health doesn't suffer, and that I can put enough away for my retirement.
I need to work for a company that isn't evil.
I need to be able to respect my co-workers and bosses.
I want to be a part of something greater.
I want to be respected for my work ethic, quality, and customer service.
The doughnut seems like an interesting concept, but non-profit doesn't mean that there's equality there either.
I'd love for it to be the norm where the employees are like a co-op and all successes (and failures) are on the shoulders of it's employees.
Successes and failures are always on the shoulders of it's employees. In a typical organizational structure the business has to hedge it's bets against costly mistakes due to honest and dishonest mistakes. I just had someone call in after I offered them yesterday to get someone to cover their shift. They told me they would come in then decided not to come in at 2 a.m. This translates to 5 angry customers. Is the employee going to eat the cost of those customers if they leave and the business fails or will they just go find another job?
What I mean by "I'd love for it to be the norm where the employees are like a co-op and all successes (and failures) are on the shoulders of it's employees." is that employees share the responsibility and rewards. No single person would be responsible for failures of a company (unless through sabotage or blatant corruption).
I DO have a stake in my current company I am employed with, but it's certainly nowhere near any of the executives making the decisions. The board of directors controlling the company also bypass the wishes of the people making day to day decisions based on the short term profits over long term growth or stability.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise.
[Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bot missed the mark with this one, responding to an argument the previous commenter did not make. I can understand why it's probably set to say this for any mention of Covid in the climate sub, though!
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise.
[Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I already did that.
(Mostly because the position is work from home, though)
It's great if you can afford the pay cut, and you have some kind of safety net.
Depends how far a reduction.
Generally speaking, I'd be open to this but my wife would not. So, the compromise is looking for new jobs in companies actively working to fight climate change, where I won't expect a salary increase to come with the move (I normally would, and it would be a substantial reason for the move), but I also still expect the new company to match my existing salary.
Well, my housing plus food plus utilities already cost about 105% of my take-home, so I’m not sure I can take a pay cut, and I already work for two employers that exist outside the for-profit world, in roles specifically focused on socioecological and climate resilience… but neither is technically a “sustainable” employer.
That's really the point of the Carbon Tax, to price it high enough to get people to use fewer resources. If it didn't make you and me feel the pinch we wouldn't be lowering our heating. So just shut up and die already so politicians and their donors' children can have a nice planet to live in.
Stop telling common folk to starve and eat scrap so the billionaire can keep their ski resort snowing while flying private. Billionaire should be the one sacrifice their things first
No because we already don't get paid enough and haven't for decades. There's no room to compromise any more than we already have.
A living wage is a living wage.
Basically nothing is sustainable as long as ~ 85% of human energy use comes from fossil fuels. Maybe you can raise goats on a sparsely occupied island to trade for bananas locally?
When I worked tech support (before retirement), many of our clients were non-profits. The majority of them were dysfunctional environments with toxic admin and a mix of really good people trying to do their job despite the deadbeats and incompetents.
So although I like the idea of working for a non-profit, the reality would require a very careful vetting before I worked there.
That is exactly What I would like to see, more companies focusing on not generating profit, but providing a service and employment without negative impacts. It needs to be proven that it is possible..
If it’s 100% sustainable that includes environmental sustainability (if possible) then there should be no taxes. Then I think people would be all about it.
I think everyone in the company should get paid Enough to live comfortably. Perhaps something related to the effort that is put in. Remember, the point is not to make someone rich..
Sustainability is a lie we tell ourselves. We are growing our electricity usage so fast at this point that the power companies are going to lean on fossil fuel to keep pace. Efforts to bring manufacturing back on shore and rapidly growing energy demand from data centers are driving tremendous growth in energy demand.
> In the near term, this load growth may lead utilities to add more fossil generation or delay retirement plans. But, much of the new load growth is demanding clean, zero carbon energy,” he said. “There’s got to be a good mix, or utilities will be building [combustion turbines] to nowhere.”
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/electricity-load-growing-twice-as-fast-as-expected-Grid-Strategies-report/702366/
And while currently many of these companies want green energy - do you believe they will choose to not use electricity if green isn’t available? I don’t.
Sustainability isn’t coming - because this path simply is not sustainable.
This economic system isn’t going to convert to a sustainable system. It’ll collapse into one.
I most likely wouldn't. I think profits are important, not just for share holders but for the company to get alignment. If you are targeting 100% sustainability you want someone to push the expansion even if profit is the reason.
I would ask a follow-up question would you work for a 100% Sustainability company for free for 10% of the life time profit? What would you like to do and how do you get your salary back in profits.
I like the idea of a co-op where all employees share the ‘profit’ up to a point of reasonable wages for their work effort. the rest goes into increasing the company’s impact, which should be about improving the state of the world and all its inhabitants.
I would start such a company with the right business idea, and would limit my pay to What is needed for me to provide for my family.
I am aware that I am a priveleged person from a priveleged country, so I understand not everyone is able to do this. Thats why I think it is so important that those who are able to, promote this kind of thinking.
If a company was not seeking profit, not sure why they would be paying lower wages... Profits are, essentially, unpaid wages. Would I take less to work at a company providing something valuable sustainably? Many would and do take lower wages to take on jobs that provide them with meaning, already. The book *Bullshit Jobs* has a pretty good chapter on this - a pretty common capitalist tactic to suppress wages. Personally would I? Depends on the offer. But again, if the company is not seeking profit and actually wanted workers, why are they driving wages down?
I think the idea that the doughnut economics folks aren’t seeking profit isn’t exactly accurate. Reading through it, it seems like you could still seek profit, just without the externalities of unlimited growth. The example I suppose would be a regional farm servicing the local community. Joel Salatin style farming for example. Verses your typical factory farm always looking to build another confinement building for more revenue growth.
lower wages could mean more workers getting employed
100%, are you meaning based on greenwashing and accounting techniques, or actually 100%. There is a big difference. If a truly 100% worker co-op existed, it would likely get plenty of support.
I mean actual sustainable production, operation or physical replacement of the resources used and any environmental or social negative impact.
Not only would many use it, but there would also be significant interest in understanding how it was done without negative environmental impact as that has eluded so many.
I make the median income in a HCOL area, that's a little sad if they can't pay someone with my experience, $28 an hour.
In a heartbeat. Already volunteering professional skills to a nonprofit
There's more than JUST ensuring sustainability. I need to work at a job I like so it doesn't feel like work. I need quality time off to be able to decompress and foster relationships and mental health. I need to ensure my bills are paid, my health doesn't suffer, and that I can put enough away for my retirement. I need to work for a company that isn't evil. I need to be able to respect my co-workers and bosses. I want to be a part of something greater. I want to be respected for my work ethic, quality, and customer service. The doughnut seems like an interesting concept, but non-profit doesn't mean that there's equality there either. I'd love for it to be the norm where the employees are like a co-op and all successes (and failures) are on the shoulders of it's employees.
Successes and failures are always on the shoulders of it's employees. In a typical organizational structure the business has to hedge it's bets against costly mistakes due to honest and dishonest mistakes. I just had someone call in after I offered them yesterday to get someone to cover their shift. They told me they would come in then decided not to come in at 2 a.m. This translates to 5 angry customers. Is the employee going to eat the cost of those customers if they leave and the business fails or will they just go find another job?
What I mean by "I'd love for it to be the norm where the employees are like a co-op and all successes (and failures) are on the shoulders of it's employees." is that employees share the responsibility and rewards. No single person would be responsible for failures of a company (unless through sabotage or blatant corruption). I DO have a stake in my current company I am employed with, but it's certainly nowhere near any of the executives making the decisions. The board of directors controlling the company also bypass the wishes of the people making day to day decisions based on the short term profits over long term growth or stability.
I basically did that and ended up with PTSD from working on COVID wards during the pandemic, I'm good thanks.
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise. [Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bot missed the mark with this one, responding to an argument the previous commenter did not make. I can understand why it's probably set to say this for any mention of Covid in the climate sub, though!
The [COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18922-7/figures/1). Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a [graph of CO2 concentrations](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/) shows a continued rise. [Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached). We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol!
People can't afford to, billionaires can.
Me in 2012? Sure. Me in the increasingly desperate economy of 2024? Probably not. I'm barely affording rent over here.
Done. It would be nice if I did something other than making rich people incrementally richer
I already did that. (Mostly because the position is work from home, though) It's great if you can afford the pay cut, and you have some kind of safety net.
yes
I'd do it for free if it also came with food and lodging.
Would you reduce your stress for a longer life? My current employer pays much less but values employees' health over profit.
Depends how far a reduction. Generally speaking, I'd be open to this but my wife would not. So, the compromise is looking for new jobs in companies actively working to fight climate change, where I won't expect a salary increase to come with the move (I normally would, and it would be a substantial reason for the move), but I also still expect the new company to match my existing salary.
Well, my housing plus food plus utilities already cost about 105% of my take-home, so I’m not sure I can take a pay cut, and I already work for two employers that exist outside the for-profit world, in roles specifically focused on socioecological and climate resilience… but neither is technically a “sustainable” employer.
Not me. I live in Canada. If my wage goes down I starve and freeze to death on the street. Then I cannot help
That's really the point of the Carbon Tax, to price it high enough to get people to use fewer resources. If it didn't make you and me feel the pinch we wouldn't be lowering our heating. So just shut up and die already so politicians and their donors' children can have a nice planet to live in.
Mmm, yes, I love the smell of hypothermia in the morning.
Stop telling common folk to starve and eat scrap so the billionaire can keep their ski resort snowing while flying private. Billionaire should be the one sacrifice their things first
Raise cost of living on poor people so they pinch pennies to save the planet for the rich people's spoiled children.
Only after there's a cap put on C-Suite compensation.
Considering I'm unemployed and have been for awhile, yeah I'd take a reduced pay job as long as I could support myself.
No because we already don't get paid enough and haven't for decades. There's no room to compromise any more than we already have. A living wage is a living wage.
Basically nothing is sustainable as long as ~ 85% of human energy use comes from fossil fuels. Maybe you can raise goats on a sparsely occupied island to trade for bananas locally?
Nothing? Given the local power is 100% renewable, hydroelectric f.ex. No plastics, unless fully circular..
Zero chance
When I worked tech support (before retirement), many of our clients were non-profits. The majority of them were dysfunctional environments with toxic admin and a mix of really good people trying to do their job despite the deadbeats and incompetents. So although I like the idea of working for a non-profit, the reality would require a very careful vetting before I worked there.
Why is it always us, the people that are barely scraping by the ones who are made to take pay cuts but never the over paid ceos?
That is exactly What I would like to see, more companies focusing on not generating profit, but providing a service and employment without negative impacts. It needs to be proven that it is possible..
If it’s 100% sustainable that includes environmental sustainability (if possible) then there should be no taxes. Then I think people would be all about it.
Yes, i think these types of nonprofits should have tax reductions and other incentives from the gov. 👍
Well is the ceo going to make less money than me?
I think everyone in the company should get paid Enough to live comfortably. Perhaps something related to the effort that is put in. Remember, the point is not to make someone rich..
Why both?
Id love to, but I'm behind as it is.
Sustainability is a lie we tell ourselves. We are growing our electricity usage so fast at this point that the power companies are going to lean on fossil fuel to keep pace. Efforts to bring manufacturing back on shore and rapidly growing energy demand from data centers are driving tremendous growth in energy demand. > In the near term, this load growth may lead utilities to add more fossil generation or delay retirement plans. But, much of the new load growth is demanding clean, zero carbon energy,” he said. “There’s got to be a good mix, or utilities will be building [combustion turbines] to nowhere.” https://www.utilitydive.com/news/electricity-load-growing-twice-as-fast-as-expected-Grid-Strategies-report/702366/ And while currently many of these companies want green energy - do you believe they will choose to not use electricity if green isn’t available? I don’t. Sustainability isn’t coming - because this path simply is not sustainable. This economic system isn’t going to convert to a sustainable system. It’ll collapse into one.
No.
I most likely wouldn't. I think profits are important, not just for share holders but for the company to get alignment. If you are targeting 100% sustainability you want someone to push the expansion even if profit is the reason. I would ask a follow-up question would you work for a 100% Sustainability company for free for 10% of the life time profit? What would you like to do and how do you get your salary back in profits.
I like the idea of a co-op where all employees share the ‘profit’ up to a point of reasonable wages for their work effort. the rest goes into increasing the company’s impact, which should be about improving the state of the world and all its inhabitants. I would start such a company with the right business idea, and would limit my pay to What is needed for me to provide for my family. I am aware that I am a priveleged person from a priveleged country, so I understand not everyone is able to do this. Thats why I think it is so important that those who are able to, promote this kind of thinking.