This is the epitome of late stage capitalism and a sign of the post-scarcity economy. "The economy" should serve human needs, not the other way around. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and the proposal here is to destroy leisure availability here... why?

As automation progresses we are going to have a lot more people who don't want or need to work. This would be much further along if the economy of capital inequality wasn't so distorted.

Young men apparently don't have to work full time to survive, don't want to, and are free to do things they want. This is being painted as a bad thing either because they should be working because work > leisure or assuming that work is inaccessible rather than undesired (probably both, definitely not just one)

I, personally, would like to work a lot less. The reason I can't are two fold. 1) it's uncommon for employers to hire highly skilled workers in part time roles and 2) the cost of living ballooned up to eat any excess income by rent seekers.

>The chief aim of their constitution and government is that, whenever public needs permit, all citizens should be free, so far as possible, to withdraw their time and energy from the service of the body, and devote themselves to the freedom and culture of the mind. For that, they think, is the real happiness of life.