[AlecSchueler]

> idle time

But they're not talking about idle time, they're talking about quality time with loved ones.

> Plenty of people could already work less today if they just spent less.

But spending for leisure is often a part of that quality time. The idea is being able to work less AND maintain the same lifestyle.

[_heimdall]

> But they're not talking about idle time, they're talking about quality time with loved ones.

I totally agree there, I wasn't trying to imply that "idle time" is a bad thing, in this context I simply meant its time not filled by obligations allowing them to choose what they do.

> But spending for leisure is often a part of that quality time.

I expect that varies a lot by person and situation. Some of the most enjoyable experiences I've had involved little or no cost; having a camp fire with friends, going on a hike, working outside in the garden, etc.

[AlecSchueler]

> I wasn't trying to imply that "idle time" is a bad thing

I you, I just mean what they're talking about is also not idle time as it's active time. If they were replacing work with sitting around at home, watching TV or whatever, then it would be idle time and drive them crazy no doubt. But spending time actively with their family is quite different, and would give satisfaction in a way that work does.

> I expect that varies a lot by person and situation.

Indeed. Spending isn't an inherent part of leisure. But it can be a part of it, and important part for some people. Telling them they could have more free time if they just gave up their passions or hobbies which cost money isn't likely to lead anywhere.