And if the implied alternative is to be workable for everyone, we have to magic roads, healthcare etc out of nowhere with no tax dollars.
My alternative is only go to work as much as you need to. Food, shelter and some basic enjoyment, not more. That's something like $10-20k per year, at most. Which means you really only need to work 2ish days a week.
> And if the implied alternative is to be workable for everyone, we have to magic roads, healthcare etc out of nowhere with no tax dollars.
Not no tax dollars, but certainly less. It's clear that if everyone only went to work half as much we'd only need to build half the roads and trains and airports.
If every single person went to work only 4/5ths of what they do now. (i.e. 4 days per week instead of 5), The economy would only grow at 4/5ths of what it does now, but otherwise, everything would continue to function more-or-less like it does today. Once you see that, you realize it's also true for 3/5ths or even 2/5ths.
Not only is this not "clear", it's also false. To connect two towns, you need 1 road. If everyone only went to work half as often, you still need 1 road – you can't have 0.5 roads. And if people work half as much, but only 4 hours per day, you wouldn't save anything.
Sure, with less utilization comes less need for maintainance, but not all wear and tear results from direct use.
Of course you can. Half a four-lane road is a two-lane road.
Er, no. First, not all existing road/rail/air trips are for work, and, second, more time out of work would quite likely not merely preserve, but increase, non-work trips.
> If every single person went to work only 4/5ths of what they do now. (i.e. 4 days per week instead of 5), The economy would only grow at 4/5ths of what it does now
That's not at all obvious. The natural naive assumption is that there would be a one-time 20% contraction but after that growth rate would be unaffected; less naively, there's some reason to suspect that the one-time hit would be less, because productiob isn't linear, and the highest value work would be the last displaced.
But, more to the point, the general idea that utility is reduced ybbworkong for trade vs. working for one self is not well supported by evidence.
You are obviously not married.
> Which means you really only need to work 2ish days a week.
And where do you find these unicorn jobs where you work only two days per week?