• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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.

    • JamesFire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less,

      It literally has (When forced by unions). How do you think we got the 40-hr workweek?

      • mriormro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        That wasn’t technology. It was the literal spilling of blood of workers and organizers fighting and dying for those rights.

        • JamesFire@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          And you think they just did it because?

          They obviously thought they deserved it, because… technology reduced the need for work hours, perhaps?

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            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.

            • JamesFire@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yes, but that’s not because technology doesn’t reduce the need for working hours, which is what I argued against.

              • pyre@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                no? no one argued tech doesn’t reduce the need for working hours. read it again.

        • JamesFire@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Unions fought for it after seeing the obvious effects of better technology reducing the need for work hours.

          • nomous@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • JamesFire@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              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.