What you're arguing is that a better quality of life (measured in time for non-productive activities) is more important than maximizing productivity. That's a legitimate qualitative argument to be making. But it's hardly "evidence of a flawed economic system."
Also bear in mind that higher productivity means a faster rate of technological progress, and technological progress also translates into higher quality of life (measured in time saved from doing undesirable non-productive activities, like washing clothes). So traveling a path of less than maximum productivity will slowly and invisibly over the years result in a lower quality of life. I'm sure people in the 1950s thought life was great, but that was because they didn't know about what technological advances the future would bring. Would you rather work fewer hours and live with 1950s technology, or work more hours and live with 2010s technology?
Americans have to get over their fear of socialism and accept that, all other things being equal, a community that works together is stronger and more prosperous than one that does not.
The problem with socialism is that it's a one size fits all solution. The reason a capitalist economy works is that lots of individual actors rapidly and thoroughly explore the solution space. Those who find better solutions become successful, while those try to set up shop with poor solutions fail and are forced to look elsewhere. I think socialism is great as a safety net (to help those who wound up trying out poor solutions to get back on their feet and try again). But never lose sight of the fact that the purpose of socialism has to be to promote capitalism, not to supplant it. Otherwise you're trading off technological progress for socio-economic stability (and stagnation)
GSM is a great example. The socialist countries enshrined GSM as the one and only digital phone standard. The U.S. was (and still is) widely reviled for allowing CDMA to compete with GSM. But when cellular data became a thing, CDMA absolutely destroyed GSM. GSM relied on giving each phone a timeslice to communicate with a tower. This meant that a tower had to divide its bandwidth among all phones, even phones which didn't need their full timeslice for data. CDMA allows all phones to transmit simultaneously, and uses orthogonal codes to tell them apart. The transmissions of the other phones then become a noise floor for each particular phone's transmissions. The phones which don't need data at that particular moment simply don't transmit, resulting in less noise and thus more bandwidth for the phones which do need data.
GSM was vastly inferior at data transmission than CDMA. Within a year GSM threw in the towel and licensed CDMA and added it to the spec (the 3G data standards on GSM mostly used wideband CDMA). If the U.S. had followed the socialist countries and required GSM, our cellular data speeds today would probably be around 1 Mbps. And we probably wouldn't be where we are today with LTE because most LTE implementations use OFDMA - orthogonal frequencies instead of orthogonal codes. CDMA paved the way for LTE by acting as proof of concept that this bizarre "everyone talks at once and we'll use orthogonal x to tell them apart" idea actually works and could scale into a nation-wide network.