3 ms·
It is generally held that this is because of a rapid change in standard of living. If we were willing to live with less, we could have a job of only 15 hours a
by snarf21 9y ago
It is generally held that this is because of a rapid change in standard of living. If we were willing to live with less, we could have a job of only 15 hours a week. It would be interesting to compare standard of living to today and estimate how many hours would be required to meet the old levels.
- ecshafer 9y agoExcept even if you are willing to have less, the jobs that will accept 15 hours a week and pay well are very few and far between. Most that pay in that range are minimum wage, and even then they usually want more like 30+
- wgj 9y agoIt's not just standard of living. There's a lot of safety net you forego. In the US, you won't qualify for employer health insurance, and in most states you won't qualify for unemployment. You won't be eligible for promotions, career advancement, or vacation benefits. It's remarkable how many policies are in place to ensure a 40 hour work week.
- iza 9y agoNothing to do with the standard of living, it's about exploiting as much surplus value from the workers as possible.
- xeromal 9y agoA century again. People didn't have cell phones, cell phone plans, TV, internet, computers, high-end cars, student loans, and other luxuries. All that is at least an additional 12,000 USD a year.