You are assuming the value of time spent on these activities is inherently negative therefore having someone else do them is a net gain. I disagree, you can enjoy them in poverty or as a billionaire.
While say playing video games seems more enjoyable than taking out the trash that's a subjective assessment. And you can alter your subjective perceptions.
You are assuming the value of time spent on these activities is inherently positive.
If you like cooking or cleaning or taking out the trash then by all means you should do those things. But, if you don't like doing those things then the threshold for when it makes sense to pay someone else to do them is lower than most would think.
That is their theory, but I see a lot of trouble in their analysis.
A different take on their data is:
Not doing things is becoming ignorant and in the short term ignorance of the negatives in life is bliss. In the longterm, not knowing how to do the things that are happening so you can survive is a larger stress for people. Consequently, people are happy when they are choosing to outsource, but it does not last and they choose to cycle back. The noveau rich outsource willingly and the other rich outsource more reluctantly as they are more familiar with the eventual costs of short term stress reduction.
I am arguing it's not not inherently positive or negative, but you can become someone that views it as a negative or a positive. Many people enjoy walking as a time for reflection and to de-stress. Other types of repetitive motion like folding clothing can fill the same void.
However a big part of this is simply how much space your keeping up. An efficiency can be kept clean though habitat, a 1,000 acre estate takes a staff.
PS: That's not to say having groceries delivered is a bad idea, just maximum productivity is simply a wasteful goal.
While say playing video games seems more enjoyable than taking out the trash that's a subjective assessment. And you can alter your subjective perceptions.