This creates crank where even billionaires will whip their workers to death over competition with their neighbors.

That's not what your data shows. It just shows that people don't want to be near the bottom of the pile, because it indicates they're being mistreated (which they are).

People don't want to "do better then their neighbors," they just don't want to be left behind by society.

Framing it the way you do makes it seem like everyone desires brutal social darwinism. It's not true. People just want to be treated fairly and live in a relatively egalitarian world.

I'm not dismissing what you are saying, but do you have evidence for what "people want"? In my experience, when somebody claims to know what people want then it tends to be a mix of "I want", "the people I know want", "I hope people want", "people should want", and a few others, rarely with any evidence.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315944588_Why_peopl...

This is a significant claim. What do you base this on? Are there any studies or references?

San Fran is a clear example, tech money is driving the price for scarce homes up substantially. Go peruse Zillow and see the insanity

"Research shows that average U.S. income growth is strongly related to rising house prices but is essentially unrelated to changes in the supply of housing units across metropolitan areas."

This book is most famous for being misquoted by nitwits trying to argue that globalization is always good for everyone, but if you had asked David Ricardo he would have said his most important result was that of Rent (later specified as differential rent or Ricardian rent), the idea that economic productivity tends to get squeezed onto land prices. A modern update would argue that this applies to assets more generally. Assets go up by squeezing productivity out of the main economy. Whether you think this is brilliant or terrible depends largely on whether you own lots of assets.

The "golden billion" people almost all live in luxury, by the standards of an early industrial society like the early 19th century Europe which Marx described, and daily use a ton of amenities which even the mightiest king could not afford 1000 years ago. But we take it for granted.

I could have taken my savings and downshifted to a comfortable life in a third-world country. But instead I've put them in my wife's business, and keep working, while living in one of the most expensive cities in the Solar system. This is because I want a better education for my children, and success for the business. (The city is also enjoyable when I have the time.)

Then, some amenities are still expensive. Think about medical care, especially larger-scale like cardiac surgery. Well, think about the cost of a Claude subscription if you live otherwise happily for $25 / day in an inexpensive third-world countryside.

We work so much because there's still utility in it, in many cases. We have plenty, but not plenty enough.

I realized it wasn’t making me happy. Sitting inside everyday is not how I want to spend my life. Now I live in a mountain town of 10,000. I work 10-20 hours a week on writing and books. I snowboard 100 days a season. We took our 6 month old on a trip for a year (wielded got 18 months maternity leave) she works 3 days a week.

I cut our firewood so we have no heating bill, have no phone, no tv. We really enjoy the simple life. We have plenty of time to host dinner gatherings, hang out with our daughter, etc.

The choice is there.

Which does not seem to be the case at all. The OP seems closer to someone who would be wealthy if they worked full time (they say that by working 10-20h a week, they still make more than people on minimum wage).

They conclude with "The choice is there". Sure, "the choice is there" when you are wealthy enough.

Is it a requirement of society to work maxx?

If a doctor can earn $50k a year working one day a week and a Walmart worker has to work 40 hours a week to earn $50k, does the doctor have some kind of obligation to work and earn more? What if they just want the kind of life $50k a year allows for?

Should the Walmart worker do 80 hour weeks to contribute the same taxes as an engineer working 40 hour weeks?

Surely we all get to choose how much we work.

If I want to live in a 100 year old house and ride my bike with no phone and no tv, and modest lifestyle, it’s absurd I should be forced to work “full time” when I earn as much as I want to live the life I want. That is my choice.

My question is: if it's free, it comes from taxes. And if you earn less, you contribute less. Does it pay for your health insurance, or do you benefit from the fact that others work more and contribute more?

Not saying you should be ashamed at all. Just wondering if you would get the same level of health insurance in a world where everybody did the same as you. I guess not? Which is maybe fine, of course.

Ashamed is the opposite of how I feel.

I assume those people couldn't survive on working 10-20 hours a week, if they are on minimum wage at 100%?

I guess what I am saying is "good for you, but it's not like everybody can do that". You are lucky that you can do that, it's not "just a choice everyone can make".

It would be akin to saying "I had a high-paying job in a rich country for a few years, and then I retired in a poor country where I live like a king", in that... sure, but not everybody can have a high-paying job in a rich country for a few years, so being able to do that requires being privileged in the first place. I think it doesn't hurt to realise it.

I love the city, the friend group, being into some communities that do not exist in small towns.

If you'd put the outdoorsy small town lifestyle on me, I'd kill myself.

I'm really happy for you it worked out, but what you suggest is not an overall solution. (And just imagine how your town would look like, if we all moved out of the cities ... we'd create new cities).

The fact that cities are big is cause by people wanting to live there, not elsewhere.

Obviously it’s horses for courses.

That being said, would you take an extra paid week of leave if offered? What about two or three? Would you be happier? What if you had 20 weeks of paid leave? Would you be happier?

I think the very vast majority of people would work less if they could.

But you also said "the choice is there". So which is it? If you think they can, and you also think they would do it if they could, then why do you think they don't?

Actually, people moved to cities to get a job, when it became harder to have one in the country side because of industrialisation.

They are the reason I choose to work less - to spend time with them doing the things we love.

The research strongly suggests that the most important factor in giving a child a better education is the degree of parental involvement. Do you think working and focus on business success gives you more attention capacity to be involved with your child's education than the downshifted option would have?

So, the good news is that even if you want to give your best in that area, you only have to endure for five years, give or take. Something tells me you won't be packing your bags after that, though. The combination of words gives the impression you're actually more interested in the appearance of giving your child a good education more than giving a good education.

I knew WHAT I wanted to learn, just not how to learn it, how to nurture and guide myself. it was a big deal and it still is

That’s not ambition, that’s desire. Ambition is wanting to do more.

Hey, hopefully some of you techbros can 'disrupt' the status quo.

Post 2008 it has been about 6-8

(Well unless You say “near 5” is 3-9)

If we all agreed to work less (and have less), it would actually work. But as soon as competition enters the game (some people work more and have more)...

Ah, damn, that's the catch with everything isn't. As alway, the only winning move appears to be not to play, and to even get to state where you can drop out, you need to play well for at least a while.

If anything, it’s many of the basics that have become more expensive. Housing and education are far more expensive today then 100 years ago (as a share of average salary). And some things like health care, while more effective today, definitely absorbs a much higher share of people’s wallets (and the nation’s GDP).

That may be broadly true, but it's descriptive, not prescriptive.

There are many relatively poor people (with physical needs met, but not always) who are far happier than most of the top 1%. The secret is character -- things like contentment, thankfulness, and showing faithful love to family and people in general.