"far less" is not well supported. As much as people try to claim that today's norm of 2000 hours per year is akin to slavery, the reality is that average human working hours have fluctuated between 1500-3000 across most places and time periods for which we have data.
1500 is less than 2000, sure, but it's not like it was some kind of work-free utopia. And the important context is that the people working 1500 had no technology or department stores, so they were spending significantly more time than we do nowadays doing regular household things like chopping wood, making clothes and preparing food.
If 500 hours less work isn't "far less", I don't know what is. If we impose that change on the current work schedule, it would amount to a more than 2 hour decrease on every work day, or a day off the work week. Also, do these numbers account for the hour long commute of today versus working your own land? I bet that would shave off some solid hours too.
It isn't a completely new category that could reasonably be called "work-free utopia" or where one could reasonably call "normal" where the added 500 hours get called "slavery".
Also, the long commutes of today aren't very far from the norm or the last couple of centuries and add up to 200 or 300 hours on average. Some people do have it much worse, but some people also have it much better.
That said, the difference between the 1500 and 3000 extremes is huge. And we should be working towards the smallest one being the norm. But all of the upthread observations are perfectly on point.
1500 is less than 2000, sure, but it's not like it was some kind of work-free utopia. And the important context is that the people working 1500 had no technology or department stores, so they were spending significantly more time than we do nowadays doing regular household things like chopping wood, making clothes and preparing food.