Because so many are on cruise control, anyone who wants to make something happen has to work to make up for the lethargy all around him/her.
I don't think it has ever not been this way except for short stints where entire tribes felt a sense of urgency. Most people's idea of an ideal life is sipping cocktails by the beach and gossiping about who said what. There is some wisdom in that :)
Remedies? Either cultural (it just becomes unthinkable to work beyond X, because that's taboo) or legal (limits on how much you're allowed to work).
Being productive doesn't give you more free time. It just means that you get more work.
"Businesses" don't really do much of anything. What you really mean is the billionaire executives at the top of them.
See page 44 of the paper below.
You can look at Income, Wealth (net worth) or financial resources. Net Worth is probably the best estimate. You'll notice the top 1% has ~40% of the wealth. The next 4% have ~30% of the wealth.
So it would be very inaccurate to suggest that the "majority" of wealth and upside is accrued to the middle class, at least in the US.
"Household Wealth Trends in the United States, 1962 to 2016: Has Middle Class Wealth Recovered?" Edward N. Wolff
NBER Working Paper No. 24085 Issued in November 2017 https://www.nber.org/papers/w24085
I'm convinced that a lot of people would be ready to work 'harder' when the work is well organized and done.
If you level-set your expectations you can live a very laid back life.
Particularly in the software industry where you can get paid twice as much for working half as hard compared to most other fields.
The managerial class notion of overwork/busyness is completely voluntary.
Just because it's 'voluntary' doesn't mean it's not work or it's not stress or it doesn't affect you.
5-10 years in a managerial class role nets many that much.
Certainly there is an argument to be made for working less and living with less, but for most people $1M invested doesn't check out. If you're relying solely on returns from that investment, then conservatively you can only safely withdraw 3-4%, which works out to 30-40k a year. That's close to full time on minimum wage in some states. While that's enough to survive, not sure if that'd be a fulfilling life for most, even while single. What happens if you have a family later?
EDIT: Also not sure how many can actually save that much in 5-10 years. That's 100k - 200k of savings after tax. Even with compound interest, that's pretty tough for most I would think.
It’s also less about “never making another dime working” and more that you don’t need a traditional 9-5. You can and should figure out other sources of income.
Regardless, none of this negates that they can still feel valid pressures no matter what their success is. Typically having such success invites even more pressure as one is expected to keep it up, either by others or themselves. Few make it to such largess without overworking themselves.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...
$1M in a high quality REIT can generate 12% dividends, which is $120K. A single person could easily live off half that.
Are these 12% dividends normal or sustainable? Have they continued over the years? Could you name a couple of sample names/tickers?
>> A single person could easily live off half that.
True -- perhaps not half but you are forgetting taxes!
Taxes are not that high at that level of income.
If your health insurance coverage denies any procedure you consider necessary (which they do not), you're looking at 6 figure bills. These balloon with age. I'd agree on the $1M figure, but only without the monkey wrench of US healthcare.
I began typing this intending it to be sarcastic, but at its conclusion, I am no longer certain about that.