I'm anti-work in the sense, that there are too many bullshit jobs, income discrepancy is way too high and across the board, jobs require a large amount of in my opinion unreasonable things of their workers, like believing in the vision on the surface, showing up everyday at specific hours etc. Nonetheless, I like working, even in the range of 50+ hours a week, I just also think that our society would be much better if I and others weren't forced to do so to survive. The thing is that lazy people are exactly on of the biggest inhibitors of reforms in that direction.

A smart engineer is a lazy engineer. This isn't a statement about how laziness isn't a vice. It is about having a sensible goal.

I believe we have enough useless productivity enhancers that really lack perspective.

I personally agree that our goal should be not having to work to live. Making a "living" should not be a thing. People should work because they want to work, or because they want a higher amount of resources and comfort than the basic level provides. That said, that position is one that Fox News would be happy to make a field day of for their viewers, especially if they get someone who can't coherently argue for it, and that's exactly what they got.

Where does the 'basic level' of resources and comfort come from, if one does not work ? I agree that life shouldn't be all about work, surely some form of work is essential to be able to provide the basics, even if that work is farming your own land to grow your own food.

Anyone expecting even a basic level of anything without being willing to contribute at all is not demonstrating good behaviour within society.

According to a random source, in 1991 some 44% of the world population worked in agriculture, and 28% did in 2018. That's 16% of the world that doesn't have to do anything to ensure the 'basic level' of food resources. I'm sure other resources have seen a (smaller) drop. We could have 20 hour workweeks in the 2000's like predicted in early 1900's, 'we' just didn't 'chose' to do so. That or retirement at 45 instead of 65.

> Anyone expecting even a basic level of anything without being willing to contribute at all is not demonstrating good behaviour within society.

Philosophically, why is that? Second question, what should we do about trust fund babies who never contribute anything other than a demand for yachts?

A safe and healthy workplace is one thing. Also, a stable schedule (which may actually involve advocating for more working hours). To say that workers' only concern is that they have to actually work is a rather blinkered perspective I think.

Separately, I'm not sure who you are referring to by "the men in suits" but the large majority of men in suits I know (lawyers, accountants, finance professionals) work crazy hours.

Who's stopping you?