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

As we come to the final round, Pro now states the resolution is: "Those who claim (that for most people) there is a real work-life balance they are wrong" There is nothing in round 1 that would allude to Pro's resolution being about what others claims are. I feel it's within my rights to ignore this resolution, as it appears in the last round, and technically I'm not to bring new arguments. What does "real" mean here anyway? I would assume it means a 24 hour work week, but Pro state this isn't the case. However, as it turns out, my arguments from round 1 will work nicely to counter even this resolution. Each individuals work-life balance is a demonstrated preference based on subjective value. Does Pro get a say in what others subjective values should be? In round 1, my Contention 1 talks about ways in which individuals get value from their day, whether that is from work, eating, or other leisure activities. Of course, because of the economics of scarce resources, we must all work enough hours to provide basic food, clothing and shelter, a point Pro concedes. Beyond that each individual chooses based on their own personal preferences. Also in round 1, my Contention 4 talks about how we all make choices that balance income with leisure. This can e based on career choice, vacation time, overtime taken, choosing part-time jobs, etc. At this point, I feel like my job is done in this debate. I feel I've refuted a resolution that I had to wrestle out of my opponent. The rest of Pro's arguments add nothing new to this. However, for the sake of completeness, I'll go through them: Work hours There is a documented general trend of reduced work hours. My first reference shows this up 1988:https://eh.net... while the reference below from the St. Lous Fed shows a general downward trend from 1950 to 2011:https://research.stlouisfed.org... Family relationships Pro is simply stating the different people have different circumstances. Well, yes, they do. And again, Pro concedes that economics dictates that we all must work. If an extended family really valued the closeness of their relationship very highly, they can CHOOSE to all live nearby. The fact that they don't means they value other things more highly. This is the "balance" that Pro claims is a myth. Pro not desires the impossible, but also wishes others to desire as they do. Choice of work hours Pro states: "Millions of people needs two part-time jobs just to survive." We are talking about the United States here. Land of the SNAP food assistance program, and a myriad of other welfare programs. I suspect Pro is playing loose with the definition of "survive". Here are a couple links with stories of people who lived on very little: Lived on minimum wage after graduating and struggling to find a jobhttp://www.empowereddollar.com... How to live on 500$/mohttp://www.economicpolicyjournal.com... Again from Pro: "Believe me, if everyone could just decide to accept reduced work hours and still live well, I wouldn't even be having this discussion. " I'm not making claims about "everyone". These are choices individuals make - economic choices. Choices between work and leisure. And where did "living well" come from? I too wish I could simply set my own rules about the number of hours I work and still live well. Pro's discussion regarding increased life span is more of the same. Claiming that an increased life span makes our lives worse because we have more time to suffer through work is ridiculous. This debate seems to have turned into Pro's personally rant that they work too much.