It's worth pointing out that this is not a real choice in any meaningful way, because of the pressures of reality.
If you could work less but earn the same amount then it actually becomes a real choice to work less.
But if you work less and there are financial tradeoffs involved, the hardship caused by those tradeoffs essentially means you are forced to choose to continue working the same amount. Not a real choice.
Very few people earn enough money to actually choose to work less.
> Very few people earn enough money to actually choose to work less.
I don't believe that.
I don't know GP's income, but I'd hazard a guess that most Hacker News users are making significantly above the median income in their country of residence. To the individual who has gotten used to a certain lifestyle, it may well feel as though they need as much money as they have, but there are lots of people who live on much less.
That means people are choosing to prioritize their current lifestyles over working less. And that's fine, but it is absolutely a choice!
(I do think culture has a roll to play as well—when 40 hours is the expectation, going down to 30 often means more than the 25% pay cut it logically should entail. But the fact remains that people don't do it.)
Lifestyle is certainly a factor, but the bigger thing is the safety net one has built (or is in the process of building) for themselves, which depending on place of living can be crucial.
In the US where I live and the public safety net is rather thin for example, one could downsize income in pursuit of better work life balance and be getting along fine, but wind up in trouble when say major medical expenses strike and chew through income and start eating through savings.
So even if I started living extremely frugally I wouldn’t feel comfortable moving to part-time until I have enough padding to not be completely financially ruined by a series of unfortunate events. Of course this is possible even working full-time, but the increased income that brings improves the situation considerably.
The system is set up in such a way that it punishes people who are not chasing higher incomes, up to a point.
Past that point it starts to reward people heavily. When you make enough that you stop worrying about saving and start affording vacation homes and yachts and flying first class everywhere. That's the "lifestyle" thing.
Most people don't earn nearly enough to have expensive lifestyles unless they are heavily in debt. And those people have heavily borrowed from their own futures to finance their current lifestyle, it will bite them later
Most people's incomes leave them in a lot of uncertainty. One or two major expenses in a row will screw them.
If the choice is "work full time and have a stable, comfortable income" or "work part time and have an uncertain, shaky income" that's not a real choice.
If people could work part time and still make the stable income, more people would. I guarantee it.
> That means people are choosing to prioritize their current lifestyles over working less
If their lifestyle is extravagant, then yes, you are correct.
But if it's a choice between having a stable lifestyle with the ability to save for retirement versus living paycheck to paycheck, that's not a real choice, is it?
For a more absurd example, just about anyone could live more cheaply in a van. But saying to people "you could work part time if you were just willing to downgrade your lifestyle and live in a van" would be absurd. Not living in a van is a "choice" that we all make, but it's not really a choice, is it?
If you could work less but earn the same amount then it actually becomes a real choice to work less.
But if you work less and there are financial tradeoffs involved, the hardship caused by those tradeoffs essentially means you are forced to choose to continue working the same amount. Not a real choice.
Very few people earn enough money to actually choose to work less.