So you are agreeing with the parent? If consumption has gone up a lot and input hours has gone down or stayed flat, that means you are able to work less.
But that's not what they said, they said they want to work less. As the GP post said, they'd still be working a full week.
I do think this is an interesting point. The trend for most of history seems to have been vastly increasing consumption/luxury while work hours somewhat decrease. But have we reached the point where that's not what people want? I'd wager most people in rich developed countries don't particularly want more clothes, gadgets, cars, or fast food. If they can get the current typical middle class share of those things (which to be fair is a big share, and not environmentally sustainable), along with a modest place to live, they (we) mainly want to work less.
>If you want to live in a high cost of living area, that's a form of consumption.
Not really a "want" as much as "move where the jobs are". Remote jobs are shakey now and being in the middle of nowhere only worsens your compensation aspects.
Being able to live wherever you please is indeed a luxury. The suburb structure already sacrificed the aspect of high CoL for increase commute time to work.
I also do think that dismissing aspects of humanity like family, community and sense of purpose to "luxuries" is an extremely dangerous line of thinking.
In most places (SF may be somewhat of an exception in terms of relatively unaffordable housing in both the city and any accessible suburbs) 30-60 minute commutes are pretty normal. At least a lot of the companies are probably in the suburbs/exurbs anyway. I'm not suggesting living in the middle of nowhere but, in a lot of places, urban vs. exurban living is a choice especially with companies that are often exurban.
I mean, yeah? Does any market work like that? If you want an apple, you pay the person who has the apple to take it from them, you don't pay the other people who want apples. Not really following where this is going
