one MEEN Ag said:

---

Under no circumstance does stating, 'technology has led to productivity gains and corporations are using it to erode the middle class' have anything to do with obesity.

Y'all are absolutely, mouth frothing, insane.

---

Can you read?

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

The 40 hour workweek was introduced in a society where:

• The overwhelming majority of people got married.
• The man was the household breadwinner.
• Meanwhile, the woman would take care of the household.
• Thus, the man could come home to a clean house, with dinner already made, and just relax after work.

But that's changed. Now a man has to put in 8 hours at the office and cook his own dinner. So maybe we should question that expectation.

---

LOL, that's good. And he doesn't get sex either.

The whole relationship thing is messed up.

DamnGood86 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Under no circumstance does stating, 'technology has led to productivity gains and corporations are using it to erode the middle class' have anything to do with obesity.

Y'all are absolutely, mouth frothing, insane.

---

Can you read?

---

I believe so. And I fail to see how your comment adds anything besides, 'you just want everything handed to you.'

When in reality, we have some GenXers on this thread putting on their best boomer impression when people younger than them go, 'can we just have the same economy that you had?'

We are all dumber because of yours and ftk's contributions.

Percent of dual income among married couples:

1964 - 44%
Mid-1990's - 60% (peak %)
2018 - 53%

Another invalid argument comrade is currently overworked and underappreciated.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2020/home.htm

What are you arguing?

How about those living together? Fewer couples are getting married now

Also, that's a 20% increase over the 60s, which is still pretty substantial

ComeAndTakeIt said:

---

My Pappaw said ranchers have a seven day work week.

---

Here!

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

It's really not. Unless you want to redefine the word productivity to mean something it's never meant.

The machine pays for itself with the increased productivity in a certain time period. The employer can then lay off three people and their associated benefits, and they pocket the difference. So yes, the person that remains gets to perform the work of 4 people, while getting paid effectively less compared to his output.

And the comment about something's being cheaper is laughable. Purchasing power has absolutely decreased.

---

Want to back that up? Is your contention that a family in the 1950s could purchase more things and live at a higher standard than a family in 2020's?

---

Comparatively? Absolutely. Look at the graph I have repeatedly posted. Jobs required way less education, training, and provided more benefits. The dollar is also worth less than 1/12th it did in 1950.

---

Are more people in the US living in poverty today than in 1950?

Now you are conflating education, training, benes and the value of the USD with worker productivity and wages.

I don't think you understand how people lived in the 1950s.

---

I do understand the definition of productivity though.

---

No, actually you don't.

---

Do you need it defined to you as well? Per the chart I originally posted that started FKA with his derail, it's total income in the economy per hour of work.

FKA is making the Obama argument that the workers didn't build that. The equipment is bought and paid for by the business owner, so the worker making him more money shouldn't matter in regards to what he pays his workers. He's then repeatedly ignoring the fact that if you are going to measure the productivity solely by the value the workers input, then the value of the payment and benefits that come with the position must be considered, and those have fallen drastically as well. He's then taking this proof, and shifting the argument from us discussing productivity and value to you young people just like to complain over and over.

---

Thanks for the explanation, you still don't understand it. Everything you posted has nothing to do with an individual's productivity, it only has to do with the company's productivity. Which individual would you say is more productive? The one who performs at 110% of projected productivity with their given tools or the one who performs at 90% of their given productivity with their given tools?

I understand what I was arguing perfectly, you are just saying that's not real productivity, with zero data of your own to prove that my data is incorrect.

I understand your argument. Please provide evidence, from a macroeconomic view, that worker productivity has not increased. Please define clearly what you mean when you say productivity has fallen.

The irony here is that I don't even agree with a 4 day work week, unless it makes economic sense for the business owner. You guys have spent pages assuming an argument I'm not making. I don't care what the owner pays their workers, as long as there is a fair negotiation involved. I'm just saying workers definitely aren't getting paid as well comparatively to their counterparts in the 50's based on how much income per hour is made for the company, and all data bears that out.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

It doesn't necessarily mean they were, "slacking." There are diminishing returns when it comes to work hours over the course of a day and week, so it's not shocking that people could get the same done in 32 hours as 40 hours if they're given another day off.

It should also come as no surprise since the 40 hour work week itself comes from Henry Ford cutting the 48 hour week to 40 hours for this exact reason. He realized that even with an extra 8 hours in the work week, there was only a marginal increase in productivity.

---

MAN! just think of all the productivity if we reduced it all the way down to a 6 hour work week.

Go watch "Band of Brothers" and then get back to me on how easy the life of a typical 1950s worker was compared to yours.

I know you guys have to work eight hours and then come home and make yourself something to eat, but watch the series anyway. Those guys faced a little adversity in their time.

DamnGood86 said:

---

Go watch "Band of Brothers" and then get back to me on how easy the life of a typical 1950s worker was compared to yours.

I know you guys have to work eight hours and then come home and make yourself something to eat, but watch the series anyway. Those guys faced a little adversity in their time.

---

Lol, get over yourself man. Nobody was arguing that.

If nobody here can make an argument based on facts and data instead of feelings, then you guys feel free to continue your generation bashing. I'm out.

That's exactly what you are arguing.
- You are underpaid and over worked.
- You are 2x-4x more productive than 1950s workers but are paid less.
- 1950s worker had it easy because he had wife at home to run household and he made big money.
- You could make more money but you don't want to work longer hours so your wife works.
- Your work week should be reduced because you have more obligations outside of work.

That is your argument, as stated repeatedly by several of you. I am not the one who needs to get over myself; to the contrary, I am doing OK in life and I am certainly nothing special. If I can achieve , anyone can. I believe you alone set your trajectory, direction and results based on the life choices you make.

I am not bashing a generation; I am hoping this conversation may awaken a spirit of self-reliance in just one person.

Kids these days are more worried about equity, pronouns and the writers strike in Hollywood and whether they need to replace their blue and yellow support Ukraine flag on the FB profile for a BLM overlay.

They really, really have it rough.