>This is a terrible design, who ranked family and dreams so much further back and placed priority on money and being a slave to work?? Maybe I just don't get it.

The idea is you need what's on the left to succeed at what's on the right. It's not about what you consider important, it's more order of events. So you need health to be able to even be good at your job, you need to be good at your job to make money, you need money to support and let your family grow, and you need a supportive family to actualize your dreams. It's not an alternative Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.

So there is something to be said about family being so far to the right, but anyone who has a family and does not have money will know that in real life it does cause lots of stress. There are plenty of happy poor families and unhappy rich ones so it's not a perfect analogue, but there's at least a decent nugget of truth there that anyone who has tried to find childcare can support.

Dreams is a little weirder because you don't need family per se to fulfill your dreams, but it definitely helps to have health and money (which implies job). If you called family like, "responsibilities to others" it would probably be a good graphic because you need to have a handle on your responsibilities to fully dedicate yourself to your dreams. But in lieu of that wordiness and awkward turn of phrase, family is a decent shorthand for people we have a responsibility to.

PG County has them. I've definitely seen one there.

Holding requirements are common but by no means ubiquitous. My last company did not have one. Granted the purchases were done quarterly and I don't know how the money is held in escrow for the three months leading up to the purchase date (presumably they benefitted somehow), but once the purchase clears you were free to sell immediately. The discount was garbage there though, but free money is free money.