What happens when two neighboring countries have a conflict but one of them decides to work less and is comfortable with less economic growth. The other keeps pushing harder and ends up with excess money that they put into their military. Now they can invade their neighbor.

Economic power generally leads to military power. Maybe the world shouldn't be this way but it is.

Yet I know a CEO who suggested implementing a four-day week if the least productive 10% of workers came in an extra day instead. Just bonkers.

I don't like it, but I understand why we ended up here...

Cost of living is terribly high. How much is because we’re comparing different standards? Not all of it, I think, but some for sure.

We don’t think it’s ok to not have running water, electricity, education, sanitation, etc. we think it’s worth societal costs to provide public benefits like fire control, roads, law enforcement, zoning, etc.

I think it’s interesting to consider what makes it harder to live in the modern world that it takes more money to do it.

0. Differentiation--> we are not all the same, and we do not have identical wants and needs

1. Massive investment of time, effort and capital in automation--> requires ROI for investors

2. Supply is governed by demand, not by a bureaucratic checklist

3. Necessary work is harder than unnecessary work --> who wants to work harder for same rewards and incentives?

4. Job "usefulness" and compensation is determined by supply and demand--> rare and difficult vs. common and easier

5. Hunter gatherer lifestyle is not equal to 21st century lifestyle--> the horses are out of the barn

6. Free time is not play time --> free time is a combination of play and personal advancement which creates more differentiation

No worrying where the next meal will come from, if there's going to be enough crops for the next few months, or if you'll be able to find an animal to kill large enough to feed you but but not large enough to kill you, if you can protect yourself against predators, or aggressive neighboring tribes, if you will be able to find/maintain a shelter good enough to protect you from the elements, esp in extreme cold or hot climates. If you'll be able to make enough shoes to earn enough to sustain yourself and the family, while competing with other shoemakers for a limited demand and limited materials, and million other things.

> In fact, quantitative studies revealed that the average adult hunter-gatherer spent about 20 hours a week at hunting and gathering, and a few hours more at other subsistence-related tasks such as making tools and preparing meals (for references, see Gray, 2009). Some of the rest of their waking time was spent resting, but most of it was spent at playful, enjoyable activities, such as making music, creating art, dancing, playing games, telling stories, chatting and joking with friends, and visiting friends and relatives in neighboring bands.

I'm surprised the author didn't add that they also didn't suffer from obesity or dental cavities or cancer (which is mostly because living past 30 wasn't invented until like 14th century).

Now, as far as reducing the hours we work, there's a problem. If we decide to take our productivity gains to work only 20 hours per week, someone else can "undercut" us by working 30. Or 40. And so on.

And part of the obsession with job creation is the fact we've taken on so many immigrants who need jobs lest they become a major drag on the economy.

Anyhow, if we want to work less, it's almost inevitable it has to come through government regulation. Put a cap on how many hours a job can require. Minimum vacation amounts. Etc... but then how do you deal with entrepreneurs? Or ensure that a single job can provide a decent standard of living even if it's a low productivity job. And so on...