A typical U.S. worker today works fewer than 40 hours per week, while in 1890, he or she worked 60 hours per week. Does this difference in the length of work weeks matter in comparing the economic well-being of U.S. workers today with that of 1890? Or can we use the difference between real GDP per capita today and in 1890 to measure differences in economic well-being while ignoring differences in the number of hours worked per week? Briefly explain.