I saw this in an article someone sent me recently: ".. a 1965 Senate subcommittee predicted we would be working 14 hours a week by the year 2000, with at least seven weeks of vacation time."
Well, that didn't happen, though our businesses are far more productive than they've ever been in history.
Can anyone offer a defense of the continued 40-hour work week, the lack of paid vacation (or people's general unwillingness to use it?), and the way all those productivity gains have all benefited a very, very tiny amount of people?
It's not just in the workplace that we equate being busy with being important.
It makes me wonder how much religion has affected our social norms even today beyond the obvious question of prohibitions on certain sexualities, drinks, and the like.
The quality of life has been rapidly increasing for the entire planet. Visit ourworldindata.org and view all 16 of the data entries.
And...since this article is about overwork--and how we're putting in longer hours--I really don't see what the point is in bringing up developing nations' economic status, except to try and distract us from how much harder we're working.
[And of course 40 hours/week is totally arbitrary! It wasn't determined by science or principle (a nice round multiple of 10 like that (in our arbitrary time units of 24-day hours and 7-day weeks)...). It's just the milepost the labor movement happened to get to before, for other reasons, ceasing to exist as a force of note. Before the standardization of the 40 hour workweek, you could surely hear perfectly analogous arguments for the objective naturality of the 50, or 60, or whatever, hour workweek as you would now for 40.]