Not even, peasants were provided free food several times per shift, and worked for only half of the year. The church only started defending Sundays as a holiday when capitalism blew into town. For us to match medieval peasants, we would need all weekends, all public holidays, and 3.5 months of PTO
And also be literally unable to leave where we’re born, have no rights to self-governance, be poor as fuck and eat mostly vegetable soup, and, oh I’d be dead, because there’s no medicine
We lived in a vastly better world than peasants did, and that world requires a lot of people working in concert to maintain.
While modernity brought many good things, people weren’t all serfs in the middle ages.
I also must remind you that many people in your country are living a miserable life, barely managing to buy food, and most people don’t own their house. Self governance is a thing only the bourgeois talk about because they were wealthy enough to be jealous of the privileges of the nobility. They merely changed the system so that money provides privileges rather than blood, but it’s not much more just than it was before.
It’s absurd to compare even the poorest Americans (or any non-developing nation) with Middle ages peasants.
The standard of living by comparison is immeasurable. The poorest person in a developed nation today enjoys a standard of living higher than most royalty throughout the ME.
The ostentatious palaces and shit were largely a product of the Renaissance era. Most ME lords lived in what is effectively a single room stone building and drank water contaminated with their own feces.
I understand that things can, and should, improve further but this is well beyond a reach.
You’re mistakening were the progress were made. The end of famines started with the industrial revolution. The increase in life expectancy went from taking care of child deaths and antibiotics for the biggest part. Vaccines come right after those. And war is probably next. All of these are why the population was multiplied by 10 between 1940 and now.
But that doesn’t make the life of everyone a paradise. There are homeless people in your country, and those are no better now than before. Depending on where you live, you don’t necessarily get to be cured in a hospital because liberalism thought good to forbid free healthcare. When you’re poor, you only have access to bad food, if you’re not too poor.
I don’t idealize the past. But I don’t demonize it either only to be able to idealize our present.
It’s not idealizing anything to recognize that standard of living for poor people in developed countries (and, by this standard of measurement, developing nations as well) is massively improved over even 40 years ago, much less 400. That’s just accepting reality.
Not even touching the “liberalism means health care is expensive” argument, because that’s just fucking silly. Healthcare is unduly expensive in exactly 1 developed nation. That’s on those people, not liberalism.
Seems to work fine for practically all of europe where we have mandatory paid time off. And some countries like france with standard work weeks less than 40 hours.
In a perfectly equal system with perfect division of labor efforts, we could most likely keep our standards of living and all work less than 2000 hours per year. As it is that’s not the case and we’re practically reliant on worker exploitation in asia, africa and south america to maintain said standard where I’m assuming a lot of people work more. But that’s not inherently because of their job, it’s because their employer isn’t willing to pay them more and hire more people to lessen individual workload.
I literally work for a global company and our EU teams definitely put in more than 40 hrs per week, exempt.
we’re practically reliant on worker exploitation in asia, africa and south america to maintain said standard where I’m assuming a lot of people work more
It’s not exploitation for comparative advantage to benefit both parties
Chinese sweatshops are known for how they’re not exploitative you’re so right.
And yes obviously some people work overtime or in some cases have contracts with longer work hours but that’s literally only because of the same problem of unwillingness to hire someone else to take over the needed workload. There’s always some org overhead with having more people but the point is that it’s not inherently necessary.
Not even, peasants were provided free food several times per shift, and worked for only half of the year. The church only started defending Sundays as a holiday when capitalism blew into town. For us to match medieval peasants, we would need all weekends, all public holidays, and 3.5 months of PTO
And also be literally unable to leave where we’re born, have no rights to self-governance, be poor as fuck and eat mostly vegetable soup, and, oh I’d be dead, because there’s no medicine
We lived in a vastly better world than peasants did, and that world requires a lot of people working in concert to maintain.
While modernity brought many good things, people weren’t all serfs in the middle ages.
I also must remind you that many people in your country are living a miserable life, barely managing to buy food, and most people don’t own their house. Self governance is a thing only the bourgeois talk about because they were wealthy enough to be jealous of the privileges of the nobility. They merely changed the system so that money provides privileges rather than blood, but it’s not much more just than it was before.
It’s absurd to compare even the poorest Americans (or any non-developing nation) with Middle ages peasants.
The standard of living by comparison is immeasurable. The poorest person in a developed nation today enjoys a standard of living higher than most royalty throughout the ME.
The ostentatious palaces and shit were largely a product of the Renaissance era. Most ME lords lived in what is effectively a single room stone building and drank water contaminated with their own feces.
I understand that things can, and should, improve further but this is well beyond a reach.
You’re mistakening were the progress were made. The end of famines started with the industrial revolution. The increase in life expectancy went from taking care of child deaths and antibiotics for the biggest part. Vaccines come right after those. And war is probably next. All of these are why the population was multiplied by 10 between 1940 and now.
But that doesn’t make the life of everyone a paradise. There are homeless people in your country, and those are no better now than before. Depending on where you live, you don’t necessarily get to be cured in a hospital because liberalism thought good to forbid free healthcare. When you’re poor, you only have access to bad food, if you’re not too poor.
I don’t idealize the past. But I don’t demonize it either only to be able to idealize our present.
It’s not idealizing anything to recognize that standard of living for poor people in developed countries (and, by this standard of measurement, developing nations as well) is massively improved over even 40 years ago, much less 400. That’s just accepting reality.
Not even touching the “liberalism means health care is expensive” argument, because that’s just fucking silly. Healthcare is unduly expensive in exactly 1 developed nation. That’s on those people, not liberalism.
It does not, however, require us to work for 40 hours per week. We work way too much.
That very much depends on your job.
There is not a single person that has to work for 2080 hours in a year.
That’s just incorrect
Seems to work fine for practically all of europe where we have mandatory paid time off. And some countries like france with standard work weeks less than 40 hours.
In a perfectly equal system with perfect division of labor efforts, we could most likely keep our standards of living and all work less than 2000 hours per year. As it is that’s not the case and we’re practically reliant on worker exploitation in asia, africa and south america to maintain said standard where I’m assuming a lot of people work more. But that’s not inherently because of their job, it’s because their employer isn’t willing to pay them more and hire more people to lessen individual workload.
I literally work for a global company and our EU teams definitely put in more than 40 hrs per week, exempt.
It’s not exploitation for comparative advantage to benefit both parties
Chinese sweatshops are known for how they’re not exploitative you’re so right.
And yes obviously some people work overtime or in some cases have contracts with longer work hours but that’s literally only because of the same problem of unwillingness to hire someone else to take over the needed workload. There’s always some org overhead with having more people but the point is that it’s not inherently necessary.