When were workers surveyed about how many hours they worked "in the previous week", February or September? Are these numbers year-round averages? If so, then these numbers don't tell us much without also providing information about variance or standard deviation. It's still possible (and in my eyes, likely) that they work 80+ hours per week in-season and struggle to make ends meet in the off season.
I know you are trying real hard to negate the study because it disproves all of your unsubstantiated claims, but use some critical thinking. If they only surveyed during off season then there would not be any seasonal workers to survey. Yes the number could be diluted but that really doesn't make a difference as a surf worked sun up to sun down Monday through Saturday every week. In the summer they are working over 80 hours a week and in the winter over 50.
Did serfs live in houses with 30+ others? Migrant workers do.
There is no evidence to indicate that statement is remotely correct, your racists joke doesn't count as a source.
No, I'm saying something very specific: exactly what I wrote. To clarify, I'm saying that just because there are fewer people farming today than there were 600 years ago, does not necessarily imply that they are doing the farming for a larger population (which they are). While both statements are true, it is not correct to say that one logically follows from the other, which is what you were originally claiming (and I was disagreeing with). My apologies for being precise with my language.
When I wrote that statement I just assumed that you would be able to make the leap that the population had grown since the middle ages I should have known better. One will follow the other when there are technological advances which was the point I was making that you still don't grasp.
You seemed to be assuming that it takes more work to fix broken technology than it does to simply maintain the technology so that it doesn't break
I have never made that claim, you just have reading comprehension issues. I even clarified my point but you still are stuck on your wrong interpretation. Maintaining mechanical equipment typically involves replacing broken or warn parts, even changing the oil requires replacing the oil and oil filters. I'm guessing you don't have hands on experience fixing mechanical equipment. You will need to produce more then just enough to meet your basic needs to pay for these things, otherwise you will be doing everything manually like they did in the middle ages.
Regarding this point, I suspect we're just talking past each other. Could you please speak more clearly (i.e. when talking about "working harder", a relative claim, be explicit about what they're working harder than; when talking about "bare minimum", be explicit about what criteria must still be met)?
Your claim all along is that you should be able to be lazy and use technology to meet your basic needs (food, clothing, shelter). You will need to produce extra beyond your basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) for things like gas, oil, replacement parts, tools to service your equipment, and/or mechanic fees since you are not mechanically inclined. If that's all you want it's possible to live like that, some people do. You won't have money for modern amenities like medicine, entertainment (tv, radio, cell phones, computers), or simple comforts like hot water, electricity,
If those other jobs replaced farming jobs, there would have been no gain in productivity (because the productive output of those other jobs is an input to modern farming). Since there was in fact a gain in productivity (or at least that's what economists have been consistently claiming for decades, if not centuries), we know that those jobs did not replace farming jobs. If you can't follow a proof that short, you may want to study this reference.
I'll really dumb it down for you, people used to have to farm to survive, now because of technology they can do a million other things to survive. Those people replaced farming jobs with other jobs that are not related to farming jobs in any way. This is possible because technology has allowed our society to expand beyond a simple agricultural society, things like entertainment and comfort have value because people have free time. Your proof by contradiction is invalid as you are comparing unrelated sets. You are so focused on trying to disprove my claim that you are missing the point all together.
. Rational or not, justifiable or not, inequitable distribution of wealth breeds unrest. That's a fact, and the wealthy among us would do well to keep that in mind.
That's what police are for, that's why most wealthy people support the 2nd amendment, so they can protect themselves and their property. If as you claimed they are too poor to own a cell phone they certainly can't afford guns and ammo.
Please tell me how you can possible think migrant workers today that have cell phones, tv, cars, a better diet, indoor plumbing, better medicine, better clothes, better boots, better shelter, better working hours,... are worse off then a serf.