I think this is a very good point, and I find the reasons for which it is getting downvoted wholly unconvincing. Time is only good insofar as I have the mental/physical energy to take advantage of it. Lots of tasks double-dip in the time they take require from you - firstly when you perform them, and secondly, when you're too tired to be creative in the free time that is left over.

It is downvoted because many people who lack philosophical and historical culture believe in the myth of productivism. Largely debunked during the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement

Attention is time. They are interchangeable for the discussion.

Not at all. All moments are not created equal.

If you're stressed out, hungry, got the low-blood sugar, tired, distracted, etc. your attention is much less valuable (to you) than if you're relaxed, well-fed and -rested, focused, etc.

One of the greatest forms of "leverage" we have in the world is the capability of developing and focusing the quality of our attention, "concentration" or "one-point mind". That's why meditation is worthwhile (one of the reasons anyway) because, paradoxically, sitting and doing "nothing" for an hour makes the other 10~12 hours way more productive, due to the improvement in Q-of-A[ttention].

attention is 'dedicated' (or focused) time

Isn't that equivalent to giving time to someone?

No it is not. Put idiots in a Stanford class they won't be able to do much of the time given to them by Ivy League professor since they won't be able to pay attention

I don't think this is a sound argument. How does it demonstrate attention being not equivalent to time? At best it shows the professor's attention / time / money can be wasted by dull students. Was this ever under dispute?

What was under dispute is whether time is the only real currency. I say it is not and I say it's attention that is the real currency because that's what you really allocate.