[TeMPOraL]

> Would you care to share why you think capitalism would prevent an increase in leisure time

It's actually a quite simple mechanism - people who would want to work 3 days will get replaced by people willing to work 4 days, which will get replaced to work one day more, etc. As long as people actually need jobs to survive, the end result is they work as much as possible within bounds of law. We sometimes forget about it, because IT industry is in it's golden age, with more jobs than suitable candidates. But look at non-specialized jobs like retail, and you'll find everyone working Monday-Saturday in shitty conditions for low pay. They'd be working Monday-Sunday, were it not the long fight against capitalism for leisure time.

Capitalism optimizes for profit, not for human values. Those are becoming increasingly separated nowdays.

[wyager]

Why would people who want to work less get replaced, instead of just accepting lower pay?

[twobits]

Because there are also other people that are more desperate, and are willing to work more for less.

[wyager]

That's obviously false. If there were an infinite supply of desperate people "willing to work more for less", wages would be zero, or minimum wage at most.

There is a finite supply of labor, and we are not anywhere near a level of technology where we no longer have an unbounded demand for labor.

[TeMPOraL]

> If there were an infinite supply of desperate people "willing to work more for less", wages would be zero, or minimum wage at most.

Well, isn't it exactly what's happening? As far as I can tell, in the unskilled job market, like retail or fast food, wages are what they are because anything less is either illegal or makes it better for an employee to stay on welfare.

[wyager]

No. Zero wages would be all people working for free. And clearly most people aren't. Most people also make a lot more than minimum wage.