Try to avoid fitting the data to your narrative.

more hours worked = slavery

less hours worked = underemployment

Are there any measures at all that would convince you that the overall the world is better than it used to be?

> Try to avoid fitting the data to your narrative.

I made a post above that addresses your plaint I believe. I'm not being disingenuous here, I'm trying to make sense of the data. Obviously hours worked (on average), is not separable from employment figures.

> Are there any measures at all that would convince you that the overall the world is better than it used to be?

I think it's troublesome to look at economic indicators alone and make a hedonic judgement. Because when someone says, 'The world is better', I immediately think they are saying, people are 'happier'. Globalisation and technological advancement have increased the world population, as well as per-capita quality of life, and GDP. So perhaps in that 'positive-utilitarian' sense, the world is better in aggregate.

However, let's take the Chinese. They have bided their time, and now have a quality of life far exceeding their forebears. However, they can now ask for higher wages, and the value of the currency has increased, and they were losing the lower-end of the manufacturing market.. so the government found a population they could put to work for nothing - I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here.

Currently I don't see incentives for these low substinence-wage jobs going away, so I don't see how data about per-capita improvements make the reality of sweat-shops disappear. If I could see global policy shifting towards the direction of human rights, and meaningful enforcement of those human rights, that would convince me the world hasn't just reached a plateau, but can actually uplift the very bottom rung of the population.

EDIT: If there was one measure that would convince me, it would be a trend in reduction in forced-labour and sustenance-wage labour. But I couldn't find data that captures this quantity changing over time, as it's not something that could be easily surveyed, or would likely be under-reported.

> Subsistence wages are set by the value of the "outside option" for workers in undeveloped countries, which is subsistence farming. As a country develops, labor productivity increases and wages rise, until companies are willing to switch to lower productivity but cheaper workers. This cycle ends once the supply of subsistence wage workers runs out.

As I've said in my original post, this just means that labor force is now sourced from another country. Subsistence wages are just the minimum you can possibly pay someone, and I don't see how this will stop being a thing unless governments across the board make it so. Happy to be proven wrong about this.

Subsistence wages are set by the value of the "outside option" for workers in undeveloped countries, which is subsistence farming. As a country develops, labor productivity increases and wages rise, until companies are willing to switch to lower productivity but cheaper workers. This cycle ends once the supply of subsistence wage workers runs out.