Technological Progress and Quality of Life Correlation?

Hello all,

So I've considered this before and would like to know what some other people think about this. I'm specifically talking about the economy of the United States. So, over the last, let's say 40 years, we have witnessed significant technological progress. However, often times it seems that much of this progress has been squandered or unutilized.

Being an IT Professional, I tend to think of technological progress as advances in computing technology, like the advent of the Internet, improvements in consumer electronics like the Personal Computer, etc. While I realize that there are many other technologies that affect the economy and quality of life of its participants, it seems that many of them are touched by computers in some way (chemical engineering, computer aided drafting, etc.). That being said, why does it seem that the quality of life, at least in the United States, has stayed roughly the same even though there has been so much technological progress?

Life expectancy in 1980 for an American male was 70, and 77.4 for a female. In 2010, it was 77.4 for a male and 82.2 for a female. Adding 7 years to the average lifespan is certainly remarkable, and obviously progress, but surely a longer lifespan is not the sole factor when evaluating the quality of life of a person.

For example, I consider work stress and hours worked per week/amount of leisure time to be important quality of life indicators in a modern industrial economy. People (U.S.) work the same number of hours that they did in the 80s, 90s and 00s (often times more due to the ever increasing number of so-called "knowledge"(salaried) workers). The number will not be the same across industries, but it is apparent that we are able to produce much more than we used to. U.S. manufacturing output has doubled since 1975 due to automation, improved manufacturing processes, etc. (see here: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TERWkiyvM8I/AAAAAAAAOBE/sjM6-v3JtcA/s1600/mfg1.jpg), so output-per-worker is certainly higher. However, has the cost of living been reduced as a result of this incredible efficiency increase? That does not appear to be the case.

Yes, you can watch movies with the click of a button instead of having to load a VHS tape, but that isn't what I would consider life-changing. Yes, you can chat with your friends on Facebook or using text-messaging instead of having to call them on the phone, but is that a drastic life-improvement? I would imagine for many people that it has simply become business-as-usual. Most people do not seem to remember when you had to use a payphone to call somebody, but it really wasn't all that long ago.

With the incredible gains in efficiency over the last 30-40 years, why then are we still working 40 hour work weeks? Why has the cost of living not drastically gone down? Is it because of the wealth drain to the upper 5% of the economy? Is it because there are many aspects of the economy that have not been drastically improved by technological progress, and drastic improvements requires advances in those areas? Is it because people consume more as a result of cheaper goods and services? If so, do people consume more because they can, or because they are required to to remain an active participant in the economy (e.g. having to have a cellphone, PC and Internet connection to do your job)? Is it because the gains in efficiency have been offset by the reduced availability of natural resources and a rapidly increasing global population?

I am interesting in hearing your thoughts about this. In my opinion, the following are the reasons for this:
- Corporate subsidies, tax breaks, "pro-business" regulations and legislation as well as ineffective government regulation in the areas that are actually needed have transferred an incredible amount of wealth from your "average American" to large corporations.

- Large corporations, the ones who are usually "duking it out" over EPS, stock prices and their Fortune 500 ranking, have been increasingly taking advantage of the "knowledge worker" that the U.S. economy is becoming increasingly dependent on. By labeling such workers as "salaried exempt" employees, many companies can easily require that they work 50 or 60 hours a week on average, for no extra pay. With the over-reduction in unionization, and the difficulty with finding employment these days, most employees are simply not in the position to leave. If they did, it is likely they would only end up in a similar situation at a different company. This "sudden" memory loss among business owners and managers that working over 40 hours a week almost always negatively affects productivity, safety, etc. has helped to increase medical costs and increase the unemployment rate.

- As goods become cheaper, people are consuming more, on average. While some would argue that people have to consume more to remain active members of the economy, I believe this is overblown. Yes, having the Internet and a cellphone is very helpful these days, but they are not absolute necessities. I believe that this increased consumption is mostly voluntary. Only a couple decades ago, the average American family used to have 2 kids and a 1,700 square foot house. Now, the average American home is 2,400 square feet. You might assume that this is because people are having more children, but that would be incorrect. In fact, the average number of children is 1.4 now (yes, I know you can't have 2/5th of a child, but you know what I mean).

- There are fewer natural resources available for use. While technological progress is mitigating the problems associated with this, it is still of some concern. At least in the U.S., the amount of easily obtainable oil has decreased exponentially.

- The world population is growing at an alarming rate. In 1940, the world population was 2 billion. In 1975, the world population was 4 billion. In 2000, it was 6 billion. As of 2014, it is over 7 billion. This goes hand in hand with the above, and is almost certainly negating many of the efficiency gains we have gained from rapid technological progress.

Based on the factors listed above, the following changes represent my (very general) "prescription":
- Reduce subsidies, tax breaks, "pro-business" regulations and legislation, and start intelligent, effective regulation of large companies
- Restore the union-business power balance in the U.S. economy. Workers on the Ford assembly line certainly don't need to be making $100 an hour, but the power of unions is not strong enough to provide a healthy employee-employer power balance in the economy
- The "average American" needs to reduce consumption to reasonable levels. If you start making $20,000 more a year, and have a car that works, don't go and buy a brand new car just because you can.
- Increase intelligent, as opposed to zealous conservation and recycling efforts to prolong the life of our natural resource supplies
- Reduce the world population growth to a 0% growth rate through education (especially sex education) and economic growth, particularly in developing nations.