4 ms·
I am not arguing about quality of life. The point is that less than 40 hours per week (it can be in fact close to 30 as less than 40 is a conservative estimate)
by _0w8t 5y ago
I am not arguing about quality of life. The point is that less than 40 hours per week (it can be in fact close to 30 as less than 40 is a conservative estimate) was enough for a single person to feed a family and have some extra using manual labor.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoThe number of hours per week wasn't even a factor in the original statement. You're trying to drag the conversation off on a tangent.
- giantrobot 5y ago> was enough for a single person to feed a family and have some extra using manual labor. No, that was ten serfs each working 30 hours a week to in aggregate grow enough food to subsist on and generate the master's demanded surplus. That was also only true in good years. In bad years a portion of serfs just died. A serf's life sucked in every dimension. Even if they only "worked" 30 hours they spent the rest of their time in squalor. If you think working in a field is so attractive there's lots of farms looking for day labor. Try it out.