>>27911>That was only because child labor became such an unprecedented problem during the Gilded AgeLMAO this is hilarious.
Child labour was a fact of life for all of human history up to this point.
Children simply had to work for themselves and their families to survive.
It was thanks to the gilded age that living standards rose enough to the point where children didn't have to work.
>LAWS This is hilarious. Child labour was on it's way out long before any of these laws went into effect. Also when third world shitholes try putting in stupid child labour laws, the children either starve to death or go into prostitution. Fuck child labour laws.
>That's assuming total production would be the same. No, production would increase. But also SAVINGS would increase. The current keynesian central banker economy destroys people's savings and makes them debt slaves.
>production efficiency has increased by orders of magnitude since the middle agesYes, that's why our living standards are this high.
>yet we still work for most of the weekPeople work much less than they did before.
Working hours are a function of how much the worker wants to work. If the average worker made a lot more and prices were much lower he would find jobs that had lower hours.
>If desired production was only constant, then if technological advances allowed one man to do the work of ten, then it would cause 90% of employees to become unemployed.Wrong lol, it simply lowers the cost of capital goods leading to a massive service sector industry.
Why do you think things like Hollywood, video games, anime, prostitutes, restaurants, amusement parks exist?
They aren't essential to the economy yet they are booming industries.There would be a lot more of this once automation ramps up.
