that won’t happen. technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less, it allowa you to work less for the same output. so you work the same hours but the expected output changes, and your productivity goes up while your wages stay the same.
no, in response to human beings needing rest. the need for work hours was drastically reduced since, but nothing changed. corporations don’t care, they just want you to work until you die, no matter how much you contribute none of them is gonna say “you know what, that’s enough, maybe you should work less”. wage theft keeps getting worse.
Stop after your first 4 words and you’d be correct but all your other words are just your imagination and you trying to rationalize what you’ve already said.
We should use them to replace workers, letting everyone work less and have more time to do what they want.
We shouldn’t let corporations use them to replace workers, because workers won’t see any of the benefits.
that won’t happen. technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less, it allowa you to work less for the same output. so you work the same hours but the expected output changes, and your productivity goes up while your wages stay the same.
It literally has (When forced by unions). How do you think we got the 40-hr workweek?
it was forced by unions.
In response to better technology that reduced the need for work hours.
no, in response to human beings needing rest. the need for work hours was drastically reduced since, but nothing changed. corporations don’t care, they just want you to work until you die, no matter how much you contribute none of them is gonna say “you know what, that’s enough, maybe you should work less”. wage theft keeps getting worse.
Yes, but that’s not because technology doesn’t reduce the need for working hours, which is what I argued against.
no? no one argued tech doesn’t reduce the need for working hours. read it again.
That wasn’t technology. It was the literal spilling of blood of workers and organizers fighting and dying for those rights.
And you think they just did it because?
They obviously thought they deserved it, because… technology reduced the need for work hours, perhaps?
no, they deserve it regardless.
Which has nothing to do with whether technology reduces the need for working hours, which is what I was arguing.
How do you think we got the 40hr work week?
Unions fought for it after seeing the obvious effects of better technology reducing the need for work hours.
Stop after your first 4 words and you’d be correct but all your other words are just your imagination and you trying to rationalize what you’ve already said.
Obviously I’m trying to rationalize what I already said, that’s how an argument works.
I am arguing that better technology reduces the need for working hours.
That’s it.