Recognition of those two aspects of any job, when they exist, can make it much more tolerable.

Could not agree more. Earlier this year, I had a serious surgery, and I was looking forward to the leisure time during recuperation. Well, after two weeks, I was stir-crazy. I didn’t just WANT to get back to work, I NEEDED to. I was on logged onto my computer remotely all day, answering e-mails and writing documents when I should have been on my back, resting. When I got a fever the next week and had to miss two more days, I was so angry! It taught me a great lesson about idleness and the accompanied feelings of inadequacy and uselessness.

But you have quite unfairly mischaracterized the Four Hour Work Week system.

Especially your statement that “What does it teach your kids if they see that every time dad has an unpleasant job to do, he makes someone else do it?”

First of all, no one is making anyone do anything. The FWW does not advocate slavery or coercion. A person who agrees to do your outsourced task does it because it’s beneficial for them to receive the money you’re offering.

Next point: EVERYONE outsources to some degree. Everyone. If you’ve ever bought a greeting card, you have outsourced. You could have cut the card and pasted designs on it, painted or drawn the art, hand-written the thoughtful poem inside, and delivered it in person to the recipient. In buying and mailing a card, you have outsourced the task of writer, designer, artist, and delivery.

Sometimes we outsorce a job because it’s unpleasant. Other times, we do it because we don’t know how and don’t have time to learn how. Or we don’t have time even if you do know how.

But we also outsource tasks if it will free us to do more valuable things with our time. These more valuable things may come as leisure, or as work of a higher order.

I may pay a guy to plow my driveway because I don’t want to shovel it at 5 a.m. every morning in winter.

I may pay a CPA to do my taxes because he can do a better job than I can, and in a shorter amount of time.

As a IT worker, I primarily use my brain, not my muscle, at work. But I also love nailing shingles to roofs and helping my friends move boxes to a new apartment across town. I get something out of it that isn’t financial.

To demonstrate, consider this. If a manager can type 150 WPM and makes $200,000 per year, he may be the fastest typist in the world, but it’s still a waste of time for him to type his own business letters, because he’s not getting paid $200,000 per year because he’s a good typist; he’s getting paid that salary because he has excellent people skills and management experience.

It’s all a matter of specialization and division of labor.

The answer to “who will do the work?” is elementary.

There will always be people to do the work, because not everyone is capable of following the FWW lifestyle. Ferriss has expert management skills, and he does not assume that everyone will gain these skills by reading his book. But those with a knack for management, upon reading his book, will gain insight at how to apply that skill to working more efficiently. This leads to my next point, which is that the lifestyle designer doesn’t quit working. He simply reduces his work to the tasks that he is best at.

This hardly makes the people doing the outsourced work a second class of worker. The fact that some people work for other people is hardly limited to Ferriss’ approach. It is everywhere in a modern economy. People always work for other people.

Despite my defense of it, I will point out that taking the FWW lifestyle (and even basic labor specialization) to an extreme can trivialize and even dehumanize life. I would strongly stand against paying someone to walk the dog, play with your kids, or write love letters to your wife. But if someone does these things, it is a fault of their attitudes about life and their priorities, not of a particular system of managing one’s life.

If one can manage his tasks and delegate the ones that drag him down and waste his time, he will be enabled to do these very things (e.g. spending time with family) and live a richer, more full life.

When you can deny everything that is in you and work even though there is no gain, no thanks, no joy, and no need, you are a man.

I think I understood very clearly how you defined industriousness. I disagree that your model of industriousness corresponds with the actual habits and outlooks of men of the leisure class for whom leisure and freedom were their primary occupation. Intellectual and artistic pursuit were extension of the unindustrious life, and, by virtue of not having to stay busy and not having to do unpleasant tasks, this means one could make a hobby of learning, scholarly work, and artistic endeavor. Certainly, this doesn’t exclude sober seriousness for one’s work, but it doesn’t necessary include giving oneself over to a toil-filled life for the reasons mentioned above. Of course, my remark only meant to mention valid exceptions to industry as a virtue, and one ought realize that insofar as one isn’t wealthy, the arguments mentioned in your post have some resonance. However, if one happens to have been born into wealth, one can very happily do what one likes, and would be less worried about the benefits of puritan virtues.

I might question why anyone is obliged to contribute to the greater community and not simply enjoy oneself?