Work-Life Balance is a myth ; It doesn't exist for the average person.

I feel perhaps the goal post is moving on me. In round 1, without a clear resolution, I focused on two statements for clarification: "But as society gets wealthier and technology improves, shouldn't we get another reduction?" "A real work-life balance would maybe be something like 6 hours per day, 4 days a week." and then proposed a resolution: "Workers should demand a 24 hour work week so that work can be balanced more with leisure" Since Pro has admitted their knowledge of the natural downward trend in work hours, stating "shouldn't we get another reduction?" clearly refers to a reduction beyond the trend brought about by normal technology & productivity improvements. It was only natural for me to assume the second statement was to be take literally and as a desire in the here and now, not something that would be nice in the future. In fact, a firm resolution is not yet defined. If voters side with my stated resolution, I'd claim the debate is won since Pro appears to concede a 24 hour work week is unattainable. Otherwise, it appears I'm left making counter claims to Pro's dreams of a desired utopian state. If the debate is simply that Pro knows best of their desires of an ideal work balance, I concede. I can't possible claim otherwise. But this hardly seems fair. At the very least, Pro must admit some change to the status quo that applies across society. If Pro concedes the necessity of a 40 hour work week, but yet desires a change to the status quo that improves on LIVING, the way to do this is as I've outlined in my Content #1 from round 1, defining LIVING. This strategy for life that expands the scope of LIVING has not been fully countered by Pro in round 2. I note two things about Pro's round 2 text: 1) friends and relationships can be built at work. Two items are left: one, extended family. I would argue that most people find the few holidays a year are plenty of time for this. Those that disagree are those fortunate families who are very close and should really consider living closer together. Two, hobbies: but hobbies are a luxury. Pro has already conceded the necessity of the 40 hour work week. Where are these other hours to come from? 2) Pro's round reads a bit like a personal discussion of their own desires and life. For example, Pro states which activities are meaningful to them and that the work day goes by slowly. But surely others feel differently about this and, as I've stated above, it would be unreasonable for me to be expected to make counter claims to Pro's own stated subjective values. I can just as easily claim that the work day goes by quickly (which it usually does for me). Again, Pro concedes declining work hours over time. It may be true that somebody lost a 25$/hr job and replaced it with two 14$/hr jobs. But Pro's implies that it takes 28$/hr to LIVE the same life as with the prior higher paying job. However, the concession of the declining work hours also concedes a general trend of a higher standard of living since workers could simply choose to work more hours (second part-time jobs) rather than accept reduced work hours. Since this trend is conceded, it is Pro's burden to show both a declining standard of living and it's relevance to the resolution (whatever it may be). I don't find Pro's example of one worker being laid off due to taking vacation compelling. It assumes those who choose not to take granted vacation due so in order to avoid being fired or laid off. The glass is always half-empty. My own experience is that, if this does happen to an employ, they were likely marginal anyway. For any desirable employ, vacation is a choice. My example of a teacher was only an example. Pro, or anyone for that matter, could find other ways to work less than 40 hours a week. Of course this will result in a reduction of income, but these are economic choices we all have to make. I'll end by noting that my contention 3, live span, was dropped so I extend that argument.