> we want to work less but expect to consume the same or more I think it feels clear to many people that our consumption habits are unsustainable, regardless

> we want to work less but expect to consume the same or more I think it feels clear to many people that our consumption habits are unsustainable, regardless of how much we work. And I agree, "consumption" is where the rubber meets the road. Do we want to live in a place where we are simultaneously taking steps to mitigate climate change, reform labor, while also accepting that we must reduce air travel, next-day shipping, eating foods out of season, being able to get a bag of chips any time of the day, any day of the week, etc.? In many cities of the world, it's not uncommon for e.g. the grocery store to be closed on Sunday. For sure, it's less convenient. But I think it's pretty reasonable to plan around it. I'm interested to know 1. what you mean by "looming debt crisis", 2. who stands to gain from worsening the crises. > It’s like voting for class president because they will put in a soda fountain and free candy. I appreciate that you are using soda and candy as a metaphor for frivolous changes. On the other hand, I can also see it as a metaphor for "improving material conditions". People do care about how much time they have left outside of work and I think that that is appropriate and expected. That is a concrete, material aspect of life that people understand. National debt is not. To add an additional nuance, I think promising a 4 day work week [and to hell with productivity] is crucially different from promising "clean coal" jobs [and to hell with the climate].