> This particular article does touch on a goal that isn’t usually explicitly stated: it would make the world “less unequal” if everyone was prevented from working longer hours. Yes, it would, but I am deeply appalled at the thought of trading away individual freedom of action and additional value in the world for that goal.

Am I the only person appalled by Carmack's apparent privilege here? In an era when a CEO is routinely making 300x the wage of an average worker, and sometimes thousands of times more, giving people the option to work less for the same amount of wage seems like one of the few ways we can force the ultra-rich to give back? No one is forcing people to work 7 hours and they could easily work more if they wanted to, but reducing the minimum amount of toil required seems to be a net benefit to everyone who is not insanely wealthy.