The German Economics Minister, with what I can only assume to be the best of intentions, has called for her countrymen to work both more intensively and over a lengthier span, citing the indisputable facts of aging demographics and increased life expectancy. Predictably, this suggestion has provoked a great tumult, not just from the usual chorus of the faint of heart and chronically dissatisfied, but even from the ranks of her own party—clearly, unity is a rare commodity beneath the marble domes of Berlin. Critics shriek about the burdens on the vulnerable, the supposed injustice visited upon those with shorter life expectancies (a fate, one might add, often of their own making), and the lamentably high proportion of part-time engagement within the German workforce. Representatives of commerce, ever so practical, instead lobby for deregulation and enhanced efficiency rather than simply squeezing more years out of workers like the last drops of wine from a bottle. Meanwhile, the unions, in their eternal crusade on behalf of “the struggling,” bray for increased contributions from those of us who already bear the brunt of this civilization’s expenditures. Employers, in contrast, display rare clarity of vision by demanding comprehensive reform for the sake of future prosperity—a quality sorely lacking amongst their critics.

I must say it pains me, in that singularly refined manner known only to those born into responsibility and privilege, to witness this national debate mired in such common misunderstanding. The crux of the matter, conveniently ignored by those shrill opponents clinging to outdated notions of leisure, is that modern economies require adaptability. Yes, life is lengthening—and only those with an utter lack of ambition or an unhealthy distaste for honest achievement would greet additional years of useful endeavor with indignation rather than gratitude. It is not an act of cruelty to ask people to contribute longer to the society from which they so readily accept entitlements; it is the very foundation of civilization. The argument, oft-repeated, that the disadvantaged “cannot work longer” is a hymn sung with touching sentimentality, yet ever so misplaced. If anything, it is proof that our education system, our health policies, and social safety nets remain inferior for those of lesser fortune—not that the rest of us, who have planned and toiled for our privileges, ought to subsidize universal indolence.

Of course, business leaders are correct to demand less bureaucracy and more productivity—one only has to look at how the best elements of society operate. But I must express particular amusement at the unions’ refusal to contemplate increased contributions, as if the coffers replenish themselves by magic or, perhaps, by the spontaneous generosity of millionaires at dinner parties. As for those economists advocating “better integration of women” or the abolition of spousal splitting, let them tinker with their social engineering experiments, if they please—but do not expect the nation’s fortunes to rise on enthusiasm alone.

In sum, those who recoil from the minister’s sensible call are indulging in the luxury of shortsightedness. For those of us who have always borne the burdens—and the privileges—of responsibility, it is clear what must be done. Instead of clinging to sentimental notions of entitlement and leisure, perhaps the German public would benefit from learning a modicum of discipline, ambition, and, dare I say, an appreciation for the subtle joys of meaningful work. I would encourage, as always, that debate on these matters be left to those of us with the upbringing and the intellect to understand the stakes. For the rest—well, another year or two at your desks can only improve your character.