> Everyone wants more

Not true at all. If I could work two days a week for 40% of my current income I would take the opportunity in a heartbeat and would be much, much happier for it. Unfortunately that option isn't available to me, nor to most people.

▲

Waterluvian 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Getting 3/5ths fired is my dream, too.

For a while I had a sweet gig where instead of raises I got to work less but that just bewilders management even though I’m very confident they got more for their money.

▲

jameslk 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Not true at all. If I could work two days a week for 40% of my current income I would take the opportunity in a heartbeat

Most people wouldn’t be content to live in one room huts with thatched roofs and no hospitals or antibiotics. There might be some that do, but most prefer having more things and “better” lives. If we kept progressing, we’d look back at the era we live today and consider it just as primitive

▲

AngryData 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

Please, not even poor starving destitute people in 3rd world countries live in thatched huts anymore. Also antibiotics are not that expensive, especially if you buy them for "fish" and get them closer to production cost. You could sell some watermelons and afford antibiotics.

	▲	defrost 12 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Upper middle class people in the UK live in traditional thatched cottages today - it's still a trade. African traditional cattle herders are still a thing and they're still living in thatched huts with weave walls. Elsewhere in Africa, Thatching is still an up market thing: https://www.africathatch.co.za/ Perhaps spend some time learning about the wider world before making such obviously incorrect sweeping generalisations?
	▲	jameslk 16 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I’m talking about how many people lived in the past This kind of life was normal then and the same argument could be made of not needing much more. But many would not be content with it now

▲

chongli 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's still wanting more: more free time.

You're not going to take a 60% paycut if it means 60% less food, 60% less shelter, etc.

▲

nextaccountic 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> That's still wanting more: more free time.

But this is working less to have more free time.

> You're not going to take a 60% paycut if it means 60% less food, 60% less shelter, etc.

Why not? That's exactly what the person said they want.

The incorrect point that was made is that everyone want to work because they want more stuff, not because they want more free time. People that get more free time typically achieve this by working less, or not working

	▲	chongli 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Free time is a luxury just like anything else, but it's only valuable if you have enough of everything else. Nobody is jealous of all the free time homeless people have. They're jealous of the free time of people who don't need to work full time to pay all their bills.