I don't understand how "meaningful work," when the Dalai Lama says it, means "40 hours into the system." Look to the paragraph where people outside the workfor

I don't understand how "meaningful work," when the Dalai Lama says it, means "40 hours into the system." Look to the paragraph where people outside the workforce are implied to feel superfluous. Perhaps the people outside the workforce are the most self-actualized of us all. But that possibility is ignored, both in the op-ed and by the reader. Not even the idea that they have the opportunity to be. I'm going to butcher the sentence I quoted earlier. Perhaps you think it changes the meaning, perhaps not. That's not the point, see below... "Leaders [] must create [] opportunities for [] work" My point is, it's a well-worn political trope to call on leaders to increase employment opportunities. If that wasn't the point, why use language that is so similar, or at least could be confused for it. Why not call on leaders to segue our society to one where people can focus on meaningful work that typical job time commitments get in the way of?