The issue with the poll is that the choices aren't excluse, so you can choose as many you want, you aren't saying what is most important.

Thing is, not everyone has a family to care about. Or a career. Or religion. But everyone can value free time.

So unsurprisingly, it wins.

I think that "free time" is a more universal wish than some of the others. Whether or not I'm at a stage of my life where I think having children is important, I still want free time.

It is also basic to some of those other wishes -- e.g., one might think it's important to have free time in order to spend it with family, religion, etc.

'We' (and by we, I assume you mean the government, since they're the only ones that could guarantee all the stuff you want to workers) could give workers all that. Our labor markets would then look something more like French labor markets. Not to diss France, something that is done all too much these days. But their labor markets are not what we want to copy.
Or, alternatively, middle class workers could pick jobs that are lower -paying but take up less time. Those jobs are nearly always out there-it's just a question of if those workers can deal with having less 'stuff', sending their children to lesser schools, etc.

Why should this seem surprising? WORK IS HELL!!! Lousy, stinking, mind-numbing, soul-sucking misery. If we weren't so besotted by a work-ethic that mandates endless drudgery in the interests of unlimited consumption we'd immediately recognize that. If work weren't horrible, they wouldn't have to pay us to do it!

It's the mystical, dogmatic faith in the work ethic that promotes the idea that if people weren't drudging all their waking hours they'd be vegging out in front of the TV. If I didn't have to do my f*ing job I would: improve my French, get good at the piano, do innumerable home improvement projects, learn calculus, write, take up painting, read everything I could about the history of the Byzantine Empire, and enjoy myself. Work blocks us from doing everything that makes us human, everything fulfilling and interesting. Of course people want more free time.

'We' (and by we, I assume you mean the government...

Of course he does. If you read Ezra's posts for a while, you will find that he highlights a real or perceived problem and then promotes the use of the federal government for all ills. It's the panacea for all your troubles.

Preach it, bro! I've been waiting for a decade or so for a Democratic pol to take up the cause of time-related issues: vacation time, sick time, overtime, time off for childbirth, the whole nine yards.

You'd think this would be a no-brainer. But apparently that's how much brains our pols have.

If you read Ezra's posts for a while, you will find that he highlights a real or perceived problem and then promotes the use of the federal government for all ills.

Ummm, dude, just in case you haven't noticed, this is a political blog. Issues that can be solved by personal or private action really aren't political issues.

It's also mostly a national political blog, so it's going to be about the sorts of issues where the Federal government can make a difference.

So out of the set of issues where the Federal government might could make a difference, Ezra...explains what the Federal government might do to help.

Shocking, I know.

I think there's a close relationship between consumerism, being in debt and not having free time: you want things, you buy them on credit, and then you have to work and work to pay not only for the goods you bought, but also the interest--and the less you pay in one whack, the longer you have to work. Multiply that by every single thing you've bought on credit, and, well, there went your time.

By and large, Americans are in the position of a raccoon caught in a raccoon trap: they would be free if they would just leave the bait alone!

jamie:

Or, alternatively, middle class workers could pick jobs that are lower -paying but take up less time. Those jobs are nearly always out there-it's just a question of if those workers can deal with having less 'stuff', sending their children to lesser schools, etc.

Really? I've noticed the opposite relationship: jobs that pay more almost always have more vacation time. Think of this scale: fruitpicker-->janitor-->service industry-->teacher-->general practioner-->orthodontist-->lawyer-->senior management-->CEO. As the pay goes up, the vacation goes up too. (Which does explain Bush's perspective on the matter: He's top dog! of course he gets mad vacation time.)

This isn't that novel, given that Frederick Herzberg was talking about job satisfaction decades ago, but it's good to see some data on it.

He distinguished between two kinds of factors: hygiene and motivation. Hygiene factors cover your basic needs (think the lowest tiers of Maslow's hierarchy): pay, hours, safety conditions, etc. At best, having your hygiene needs met just means you aren't unhappy. They're essentially like hunger. When you eat, you get satisfied, but you're going to get hungry again, so it's only temporary satisfaction.

Motivation factors are things like having stimulating work, learning new skills, getting new responsibilities, etc. These are the things that truly make workers happy, because they meet long-term needs and provide lasting satisfaction.

It's no surprise that Americans hate their jobs: their hygiene factors aren't being met, and their work is structured to create the most productivity for their employer, not to provide the most satisfaction for the employee.