this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
662 points (99.7% liked)

World News

39371 readers
2341 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A 24-hour general strike in Greece on Wednesday shut down transport, schools, and government offices as workers protested high living costs.

Unions are demanding a 10% pay raise and the return of holiday bonuses cut during Greece’s financial crisis.

They accuse Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of not doing enough to tackle inflation, despite recent minimum wage increases.

Hospitals operated on emergency staff, while protests and marches were planned.

Many say wages have not kept up with the rising costs of energy, food, and rent.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] De_Narm@lemmy.world 167 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's so much smarter than voting for far right shitstains to 'protest'. Would love to see this all over Europe instead of the rise of fascism.

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 150 points 1 month ago (14 children)

The one tool Americans refuse to use.

Apparently we haven't been fucked enough yet. I'm honestly curious how low we will go. I suspect there is no bottom and Americans are just flesh bags trained to seek out meat grinders.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Refuse? This was called by unions. In the US, that kind of union activity is illegal. What system do you think we can use in the US to call for a general strike that enough people would 1) be aware of the strike 2) agree with the need for a strike and 3) be able to participate without harming their livelihoods? Cause in Greece, the answer for all three was unions. Here in the states... I don't know if anything is setup for that. Even reaching enough people to begin with would be tough.

Like, be rightly angry at the laws in the US that make this nigh impossible, maybe raise awareness, but don't blame the damn victims.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Do you think the strikes that got us workers rights in the first place were legal at their time?

They were attacked by the oligarchy, sometimes with dozens of people killed.

You dont get anything done against an oligarchy if you play by their rules.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

People forget that strikes are a civil option to the alternative.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (10 children)

The first problem is the polarisation. If people that are perceived to be Democrats call out a general strike, 50 percent won’t participate. Vice versa if perceived GOP does this. The polarisation and politicisation of every topic is what stops you from organising effectively.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Ha, like either of them would ever do that

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's not a both-sides thing. The right hates the left for identitarian reasons. We are the "other" and must always be hated. If the left takes a position, the right will oppose it, even if they supported it first. The left hates the right for their ideological reasons that would be largely irrelevant if the right actually called a general strike.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Sorry I did not mean to both-side it. I am well aware that a union push will never come from the GOP. The main point was that because everything has become politicized there are no independent voices that can call for a national strike. If you want to dive deeper into why all is politicised you obviously come back to the conservative sphere (FOX, etc), so this is definitely not a both sides are bad argument.

[–] rowanthorpe@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

...which is very much by design. The "Ownership Class" have understood the value of "Targeted Divide and Conquer" for a while now. A line from Metallica's Master of Puppets comes to mind: Keep them tired it makes them well.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Vice versa if perceived GOP does this.

That logic really falls apparent when you consider that GOP is the one pushing unions out.

You make it sound like both parties have a strategy to help the workers… no… only one does.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Part of one at best. Certainly not its leadership.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

Union leaders don't want to risk their position and union by breaking the law. American law highly restricts when a strike can happen. The punishment for companies is generally a fine or a do over for things like a ballot. Punishment for a Union is often the dissolution of the Union.

Basically we need to completely rebuild the ideology around unions. Right now if a union were to strike illegally, get dissolved, stay on strike, and then prevent scabs from entering; they would be beaten, arrested, and ridiculed by fellow workers. We won't ever see a large strike in the US until workers remember that they are the de facto source of wealth and start acting like it.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We don't refuse I think it's just too hard to coordinate.

I'll take any day off work. I'm looking for excuses!

[–] b161@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago

It’s not like people need to even get into the streets. Everyone just coordinate to call in sick one day. Just one day to show yourselves the power you have, then go from there.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (4 children)

American billionaires want self driving cars specifically because they can't strike.

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

No, but they can burn...

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 3 points 1 month ago

self driving cars specifically because they can't strike.

Unless it's pedestrians, the backs of trucks, road signs, irregular barriers, animals....

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Well, based on the recent election results, I suspect there's literally no limit to how low Americans will go.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Cost of housing seem to be the primary issue plaguing the world. Even in china the real estate market is fucked.. but they have too much in locations people are not.

It's almost as if a lot of societal rules (that are mostly needed) create an unfree Market causing shortages.. and governments refusing to acknowledge that they should be organising it and not leaving it to "the market" are the cause of the issue.

Organizing means organizing, not building all houses themselves.

[–] LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Europe is facing population decline. Houses should get cheaper, not more expensive, and the fact that prices keep rising means that they are artificially inflated.

[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 45 points 1 month ago (1 children)

the second anyone was allowed to use houses as an "investment" to gain wealth we basically guaranteed this. obviously anyone with a lot of money tied up in housees is going to try and make their value go up. once we got multinational billion dollar conglomerates involved it became child's play for them to make that number go up through infinite methods of varrying complexity carried out by thousands of people working together with billions of dollars behind them.

this problem is inherent to a housing market that people are allowed to speculate on. we just need to make that stop entirely. limit house ownership. no one needs 100 houses. especially not companies. if that results in less rental houses than desired, we need to build more apartments. apartments are different beast, but if the cost of houses are lower then it will be harder to inflate rent if they can afford a house instead. this may result in some people who want to rent a house, but not an apartment, unable to find that. that's not a big problem. they might just need to rent an apartment instead. certainly it's much less of a problem then the current state of no one being able to afford housing.

the rich don't need this vector for growing their wealth. they have enough others and are doing quite alright at it. the world will function just fine without mult billion dollar corporations investing in buying properties for the sole reason that they think they can extract wealth without contributing anything. houses should be for living in, not for extracting wealth.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hear hear.

We need tax on every home owned beyond the first, getting progressively higher with each one owned. For individuals and especially for corporations.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Facing" sounds like its a bad thing

"Europe is responsibly decreasing their population "

[–] Hoimo@ani.social 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It is a bad thing, it's not like they planned it ahead of time and prepared for the consequences of population decline. The entire system is designed around a growing population and if that growth turns negative, so does the government's budget.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Oh no, the economy!

It doesn't matter. You have more of everything you need. That's all that matters.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Alas, it's not trivial to move houses from deserted villages into booming cities. Plenty of European cities already have anti-speculation and rent controls in place, it's not really helping.

Quickest and cheapest option would be to expand public transport actually, I think, spread out the pressure, combined with more remote work. Once you've got a steady, if overall tiny, de-urbanisation trickle going on urban prices are going to tank.

[–] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Government really should be building housing themselves though and working on the zoning laws to make building easier. Even in a free market the government should be a competitor driving prices down to fair levels.

Measures like rent control don't work because landlords are greedy. People end up staying in locations that don't fit them anymore for the rent control, landlords try to chase those tenants away and don't improve the property, new housing stops being developed and supply/demand get wrecked.

Measures like stimulus and tax rebates for first time buyers tends to increase the cost of real estate as well. It's called a demand subsidy and generally isn't a great way to tackle a supply problem. The individual home buyers will be helped at the expense of tax payer money and real estate cost - and the types of homes being bought aren't necessarily the best use of land either depending.

Restricting companies from bulk purchasing and holding real estate seems like a good idea but again when you remove that new housing, especially multi-tenant housing, stops being built. Supply goes down prices shoot up...unless of course the government is willing to personally finance and build out the supply and keep prices fair.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I kinda agree. But I see the government has a role in the zoning and deciding where and what. Like building bridges and roads, define, assign, possible finance and have commercial parties execute in a well regulated environment

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm far from a "the free market solves all!" Type of person, but this is more likely due to government intervention, with zoning laws that restrict the density that can be built in certain areas, rather than a problem with the the free market run amok.

Like it's insane that nearly 40% of the land in San Fran is zoned for single family. This is government doing, not the free market.

We need more housing to alleviate the problem. But what we also need is a mindset shift of the everyday person that they aren't getting a 3k sqft house on an acre of land.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There's one common denominator across international lines. It's rent seeking capital looking for a free buck. The zoning laws are literally just regulatory capture of that rent seeking mentality. They're a symptom of the fundamental problem. The one thing too many refuse to see is that this is not a strictly corporate phenomenon. There's all kinds looking for "passive income." Rent seeking is the new American dream, as Trump shows. And it's not exclusive to us.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unfortunately a one-day strike is not a problem for the system which is why they usually don't lead to anything. Do an indefinite one and then see.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 65 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A one-day is a warning that the people are organized. It's a shot across the bow.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've seen way too many one-days in Greece to get excited...

[–] piracysails@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

Can confirm, they are not even taken seriously. Few are those that do strike.

Public transport pretty much operates as expected for the most part. Liners just push their schedule at 2300, literally just pushing the schedule 2-3 hours ahead. The maritime industry's union is run by general managers and hypocrites... If you do strike, you are pretty much flagged as you stand out so much. :)

This country is literally a joke.

[–] sepiroth154@feddit.nl 33 points 1 month ago

Love to see it!

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] piracysails@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

One reason could be that salaries are so low for the newer generations that even a few days of strike and you will not make the month.

Literally I do not know anyone that pays rent, does not live with their parents and has savings.

Somehow 50% ended up in the capital, which has skyrocketed renting prices. The minimum salary is literally arround 700 euros. You cannot find an actual house that is not a fucking shack under 500, that is not a joke, I am trying to survive in this shithole by myself and I do not see the point.

low salaries lead to people that cannot strike. To be fair, most, do not even consider it as an option due to "nothing will change"... fucking logic

load more comments
view more: next ›