It sounds like a problem with a society that more or less forces people to make work their only focus for their entire lives
https://phys.org/news/2025-10-ancient-patagonian-hunter-disa...
I appreciate your anecdote, but here's a few counter-examples:
- Neanderthals took care of their elderly: https://theconversation.com/neanderthals-cared-for-each-othe...
- Neanderthals took care of a child that likely had a developmental condition: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adn9310
- other Hominids also did this at some point in the last few million years: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/deformed-...
- 2500 year old woman had a jaw prosthetic made: https://www.vice.com/en/article/mummified-skull-reveals-iron...
- 15k years ago, someone with a broken femur was cared for well enough to heal: https://www.forbes.com/sites/remyblumenfeld/2020/03/21/how-a...
- Neanderthals pre-chewed food or provided soft foods for someone who lost their teeth: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/care-worn-fossils
- 4000 years ago, a man who was almost certainly a quadraplegic was still being cared for: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/17/8788963...
So are computers but we accept that they are a core part of our reality now.
I'm not interested in "back in the day" arguments. We should always be striving to do better than "back in the day"
Modern American society really doesn't force anyone to do this. Targeting work-life balance requires making trade-offs. But in a country where the median wage is around $45k, some significant fraction of half of Americans can dial down their work if they reduce lifestyle and consumption.
There's only so much you can reduce your lifestyle before you're literally just living to work anyways
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-median-income
(You're welcome to complain. I'm just clarifying that insofar as this is a problem, it is very much not exclusive to the United States.)
Not to say it's a useless figure, but it can mislead (especially for lower income people, where healthcare costs and childcare costs, say, might be literally 0 in some countries, and a huge part of their income in others).
And obviously for people trying to do the FIRE thing in particular, healthcare costs are likely to be a very big deal; for those in countries like the US where most people get healthcare through their job, that's an additional consideration that people in countries where it's done by income-based subsidised insurance, or free-at-point-of-use systems, don't have.
I believe your claim may be incorrect:
"Depending on the country and year, the data refers either to income (after taxes and benefits) or to consumption, per capita."
I think they are trying to place a dollar value on healthcare and childcare provided by the state and incorporate it as "income". I might be misunderstanding. It seems like a very imperfect science, but about as good of an effort as anyone has made.