Sure, productivity increase is hugely important, but if you only pursue profit maximization, then all the productivity increase goes into profits, which means that the general population doesn't increase their well being much if at all.
The 40hr work week didn't come by as a consequence of the profit maximization mentality, but as a consequence of hard fought battles by the workers/employees against that mentality. And when I say "hard fought" I mean in the literal sense, with at least 1,000 workers killed just in the US in those days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_Unite...
The Law of Supply and Demand is in play, and it means a company cannot dictate prices, wages, or working conditions in a free market economy. Rising productivity would have reduced the average work week regardless.
If you still aren't convinced, consider that the benefits package routinely offered to employees is worth around 40% of their pay.
> Rising productivity would have reduced the average work week regardless.
Do you have evidence of this?
> consider that the benefits package routinely offered to employees is worth around 40% of their pay
Please define "routinely" and "employees". Part-time employees do not get benefits packages, much less benefits packages worth 40% of their pay. PTO, Sick time, family leave, and other "benefits" are actually legally mandated and I do not see any evidence that companies would offer this if they were not mandated to do so.
Google sez: "Total compensation generally exceeds base salary by 30% to 50% for many roles, meaning salary often represents only 60% to 70% of an employee's total worth to the company."
Google sez total compensation includes bonuses, commission, stock options, employer-paid insurance (health, life, disability), retirement contributions, paid time off, tuition reimbursement, student loan assistance, gym memberships, employee discounts, Childcare assistance, commuter benefits, and relocation expenses.
Human societies aren't governed by simple, divine Laws. "Free market economy", based on rational actors, is an abstraction, an idealized model which is useful to understand some mechanisms, but it's far - VERY far - from being a complete model of any real society. At some point, trying to explain everything with the simple rules of that abstraction becomes an ideology just like Communism, which tries to do the same with different abstractions/simplifications.
Why does it require it? To what aim does this serve the market?
A check against fraud and protection of property rights can be achieved through force and violence and the threat of violence, so that answer seems inadequate.
Likewise, supply and demand is definitely affected by government policies. The supply of labor, for example, by allowing or disallowing near shore or off-shore work with steep penalties. Or allowing/disallowing gambling.
So that also flies in the face of evidence.
It’s a self-serving, faith-based belief that that desires to put “market forces” beyond the reach of voters. It’s also a colossal delusion.
It’s a strange blindspot you have where you understand there is clearly some government role to have a free market, yet can’t see that this also means the government can influence—not eliminate, you’re the one making this claim not me—supply and demand.
The government clearly has levers to influence supply, but I’m failing to make it clear it seems.
As for making transactions beneficial between two parties: Which two parties?
Why does this belief not extend to workers and businesses?
Why doesn’t the lobbying by firms to support H1Bs and off-shore prove that government policies clearly impacts labor supply?
Most people do a lot of work themselves that the Richie Rich would pay somebody else to do, like cooking, cleaning, childcare, gardening, etc. If it counts as work when you hire somebody to do it, it should equally count as work if you do it yourself.
People still did cooking, cleaning, childcare, and gardening in those times of 12 hour work days.
BTW, cooking in those days was an all day affair. The wood stove required continuous feeding and watching. Today one can just put the food in a microwave.
I cook a steak now and then, it's the only cooking I do. It takes about 10 minutes. The dishwasher does the cleaning.
Rich people hire others to do the cooking because the rich peoples' jobs pay off far more per hour of work. For example, if my profession pays me $100/hr, it makes perfect sense to pay someone $30/hr to do the cooking for me, as I am still $70/hr ahead.
Working long hours was not necessary in those days, it was forced upon people by declining wages as profit was transferred from individuals, families, and small businesses towards the capital class. The entire movement to introduce the 40 hour work week was based on people wanting to reduce their hours towards what their grandparents worked and survived on. The entire luddite movement was based on declining wages and worsening work conditions compared to the generations before them.
I don't know where you're getting that information from, but analysis of the bones of American colonists shows they worked themselves to an early death.
Life expectancy and average height improved throughout the 19th century.
Productivity has gone up so much people can work a lot less, and vast part of the population doesn't work at all.