"Technological progress reduces the need for manual labor, but this should not lead to shorter working hours."

Technological advancements have undeniably diminished the reliance on manual labour in numerous sectors.

Nevertheless

Linking Words

, I contend that

this

Linking Words

development should not automatically translate into shorter working hours, as modern economies increasingly require complex intellectual engagement, and firms tend to reinvest technological gains into sustaining growth and competitiveness.

Firstly

Linking Words

,

while

Linking Words

machines and software can perform repetitive or physically demanding tasks with remarkable efficiency, they are far from replacing the nuanced cognitive and interpersonal skills humans possess. In professions

such

Linking Words

as medicine, engineering, and law, technology merely serves as an auxiliary tool,

whereas

Linking Words

diagnosis, strategic planning, and ethical decision-making remain human domains. These activities are time-consuming, mentally taxing, and often unpredictable, which means the total workload cannot be significantly reduced simply because physical tasks have been automated.

Secondly

Linking Words

, from an economic perspective, reductions in manual labour typically lead to productivity gains that organisations redirect towards expansion rather than leisure. Increased production capacity fuels competition, prompting companies to develop new products, enter new markets, or enhance customer service — all of which require human oversight and coordination. In

this

Linking Words

way, technological progress often transforms the nature of work rather than diminishing its quantity, thereby justifying the maintenance of existing working hours. In summary, despite the erosion of manual labour through technological innovation, the demand for human expertise and the imperatives of economic growth both argue against reducing working hours. Technology changes what we do far more than it changes how long we work.