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.
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.