If I spend enough days on annoying wastes of time, I don't want to lose all my free time, so I'm going to need to reduce how many days I go to work. And since that means doing less work, I can only push that so far before I have to start taking those days unpaid.

("It's more important to get the money than to have those days off" would mean I should have just negotiated more pay and less vacation from the start, so that's incompatible with the premise.)

Maybe I could have taken this one day in stride and ignored it. But maybe I was already on the edge of needing a break, and this pushes me to take a multi-week sabbatical. On average, in a situation like this, 1 day wasted on annoying tasks gets traded for about 1 day of labor.

And this idea doesn't require you to be able to control your hours as much as you want, just a few percent is enough to make the logic work.

Also over half? of people wake up to pee at least once. That'd be nice to make unnecessary.

For what it’s worth, I think the GP makes a pretty common opinion. For example people on lower incomes will do more household jobs themselves because it saves them money, whereas people on higher incomes will pay people to do things because it saves them time. The opinion might be dressed up differently when I state that but it’s still the simple act of a person putting a value on their free time. It’s why we have house cleaners, windows cleaners, gardeners, car washers, and so on and so forth. The only different is people don’t usually casually post precise numeric values against their time. But it’s still a sentiment shared by many.